Garbage, all of it.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by MrsCogan

Without modern medicine I would have been dead 20 years ago. Thanks anyway.

LOL .... You have a profound misunderstanding of the Law of Attraction, that is all.

I do believe that modern medicine works. It's not perfect, it has its limitations, but it works for a great many things. I'm actually quite glad I have attracted the availability of modern medicine into my reality; it certainly isn't available for everyone on this planet.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by MrsCogan

I tend not to mince around and hint at what I think. I just out with it. I'm also of a very scientific bent which means that evidence is everything. Anecdote and wishing are nothing.

Nonsense. You merely believe that you are of a very scientific bent.

To say there is no objective reality invites magical thinking.

And I confidently bet that you have not really considered what "objective reality" really means.

Or even considered a much more limited question - "Is there a subjective reality?"

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by MrsCogan

There is an objective reality out there that has nothing to do with us. It is our duty to use our brains to comprehend that reality and learn how it works.

This is the part that people like Mrs Cogan always struggle with. They take a very long time to understand ....

1. It is not MERELY our duty to use our brains to comprehend reality. More precisely, the use of our brains is the ONLY way we can EVER comprehend reality.

2. Brains are used through thinking. Thoughts are subjective. Therefore whatever you can EVER comprehend reality to be, is merely your subjective comprehension.

3. To put it another way, anything Mrs Cogan has ever known, understood or believed about reality, is merely her own state of knowledge, understanding and belief. That is, states arising from her own (subjective) consciousness.

If Mrs Cogan was a snail, her reality would change. If Mrs Cogan was Steve Pavlina, her reality would change. That is simply because none of the three think like each other.

Even if Mrs Cogan sincerely believes that there is an objective reality, this is merely a belief, a product of her subjective consciousness. She cannot escape from this loop.

[petewilliams]

Mrs Cogan, there's plenty of literature out there that covers the scientific basis for IM and LoA. Quantum theory points towards a unifying field of energy that permeates the entire Universe, and has been shown to be affected by human thoughts, feelings and consciousness, meaning that we literally create the world around us. If you're curious about IM and LoA then don't feel you have to ditch your scientific mind and start adopting a load of unfounded 'new age' beliefs.

I've enjoyed science my entire life, and to me one of the most exciting things about all this is that for the first time in history religion, spritualism and science all seem to be talking the same language.

Pete

[Acting Like Godot]

Those who are genuinely interested in understanding the science on the connection between reality and consciousness may want to check out the writings of Sir Roger Penrose.

Roger Penrose OM, FRS is an English mathematical physicist and Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College. He is renowned for his work in mathematical physics, in particular his contributions to general relativity and cosmology.

Penrose has been awarded many prizes for his contributions to science. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of London in 1972. In 1975, Stephen Hawking and Penrose were jointly awarded the Eddington Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society. In 1985, he was awarded the Royal Society Royal Medal. Along with Stephen Hawking, he was awarded the prestigious Wolf Foundation Prize for Physics in 1988. In 1989 he was awarded the Dirac Medal and Prize of the British Institute of Physics. In 1990 Penrose was awarded the Albert Einstein Medal for outstanding work related to the work of Albert Einstein by the Albert Einstein Society. In 1991, he was awarded the Naylor Prize of the London Mathematical Society. In 1994 he was knighted for services to science. In 1998, he was elected Foreign Associate of the United States National Academy of Sciences. In 2000 he was appointed to the Order of Merit. In 2004 he was awarded the De Morgan Medal for his wide and original contributions to mathematical physics. In 2005 Penrose was awarded an honorary doctorate (Honoris Causa) by Warsaw University and Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium), and in 2006 by the University of York.

His books include:

The Emperor's New Mind (1989)
Shadows of the Mind (1994)
The Large, the Small and the Human Mind (1997)
The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe (2004)

[Lil Chris]

Mrs Cogan,
It's all good... I hope we haven't run you off, with our barrage of information, opinions and thoughts...

Anyway,
Welcome...

[MrsCogan]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

This is the part that people like Mrs Cogan always struggle with. They take a very long time to understand ....

well, it's comforting to think I will understand eventually

1. It is not MERELY our duty to use our brains to comprehend reality. More precisely, the use of our brains is the ONLY way we can EVER comprehend reality.

2. Brains are used through thinking. Thoughts are subjective. Therefore whatever you can EVER comprehend reality to be, is merely your subjective comprehension.

we apprehend reality with our senses. We comprehend reality with our minds.

3. To put it another way, anything Mrs Cogan has ever known, understood or believed about reality, is merely her own state of knowledge, understanding and belief. That is, states arising from her own (subjective) consciousness.

If Mrs Cogan was a snail, her reality would change. If Mrs Cogan was Steve Pavlina, her reality would change. That is simply because none of the three think like each other.

my reality would not change. Reality would be the same. Only my comprehension of reality would be different. It's like the blind men and the elephant. The elephant isn't changing shape as each person feels up a different part of the poor beast. In fact this is a nice metaphor for science. Scientists are each feeling a different part of the elephant. But unlike in the story, the scientists talk to each other and compare notes. They also move around the elephant to confirm what the others found. They keep doing that and keep comparing what they find until they have a very good description of the elephant. It may not be entirely complete, but more study will make it more and more complete.

So if Steve and the snail could share their findings they would each have a richer and more complete view of reality.

Even if Mrs Cogan sincerely believes that there is an objective reality, this is merely a belief, a product of her subjective consciousness. She cannot escape from this loop.

I escape from the loop by talking to the other blind men.

[MrsCogan]

Originally Posted by Lil Chris

Mrs Cogan,
It's all good... I hope we haven't run you off, with our barrage of information, opinions and thoughts...

Anyway,
Welcome...

Thank you! There's no way to drive me off with good conversation

[MrsCogan]

Mrs Cogan, there's plenty of literature out there that covers the scientific basis for IM and LoA.

There's a great deal of literature out there that CLAIMS to.

I've enjoyed science my entire life, and to me one of the most exciting things about all this is that for the first time in history religion, spritualism and science all seem to be talking the same language.

There's a big push right now to blur the boundaries between religion and science. Our culture knows--perhaps subconsciously in most cases--that it floats on a sea of science. We know we owe science for everything, our food, our health, our wealth, literally everything. So we have an admiration for science that is without bounds. However, we don't want to give up our belief in magic spells, fairies, ghosts and demons. We want them to be scientifically true like the theory of relativity that keeps our satellites in orbit. There are plenty of gaps in our knowledge of how the universe works so there are still lots of places for fairies and demons to hide. "Quantum mechanics is mysterious! Nobody really understands it! That's where the magic is hiding!"

The universe is a wonderful place. It doesn't need our pixie dust to enhance its splendor.

[Acting Like Godot]

Unfortunately the elephant doesn't exist, unless observed. Neither do the blind men. And that is the preferred interpretation by physicists such as Werner Heisenberg, Eugene Wigner, Amit Goswami, Fred Alan Wolf, William Tiller etc. Please refer to the Heisenberg quote I provided earlier.

There are other interpretations, of course. You may prefer, for instance, Hugh Everitt's many-worlds theory, which, as of the 1990s, was the most popular interpretation among physicists. According to this theory, the reality in which you and your elephant exists is constantly splitting into more realities, and therefore you and your elephant currently exist in many different realities. It might be consistent with Everitt's theory to say that these are ALL objective realities, but somehow I suspect that you won't be very happy with the idea that there could be an infinite number of Mrs Cogans in an infinite number of different objective realities.

The interpretation which comes closest to your belief in a single objective reality, dear Mrs Cogan, is probably the Bohm interpretation. This interpretation is formulated by David Bohm, one of the founding fathers of the atomic bomb. Unfortunately, this interpretation, breaching the principle of locality and coupled with quantum entanglement, means that your elephant, by twitching its nose or thinking a few elephantine thoughts in its brain, can instantaneously affect the behaviour of subatomic particles millions of miles away on the other side of the galaxy.

(Okay I exaggerate - this effect does not take place instantaneously, but at the speed of light - and not any faster. However, the effect is not confined to merely elephantine thoughts. Consistent with Bohm's interpretation, if I think a few thoughts and therefore cause electrical impulses to move in my my brain, then at the speed of light I would be affecting every subatomic particle since the beginning of the universe which had ever collided with those particular moving electrons in my brain. This is not a possible, but a necessary, consequence following from the principle of quantum entanglement - famously referred to by Einstein as "spooky action at a distance").

By now, you may begin to realise that there is no objective reality, or that if there is, it is certainly not quite what you had imagined it to be.

Einstein certainly felt that way. In a letter to Schrodinger in the 1950s (yes, Schrodinger of the notorious Schrodinger's cat), Einstein wrote:

"You are the only contemporary physicist, besides Laue, who sees that one cannot get around the assumption of reality—if only one is honest. Most of them simply do not see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality—reality as something independent of what is experimentally established."

Let me paraphrase that for you, dear Mrs Cogan. Einstein is saying that if you are an honest scientist, you will not deny that you are merely assuming that an objective reality exists. It is a risky assumption, because there is absolutely no proof, scientifically speaking, that such an objective reality does exist.

Well, maybe by now, dear Mrs Cogan, you will begin to dislike Einstein, Heisenberg, Everitt, Bohm and all the others. To you, they might now even seem remarkably like fairies and demons.

But they're just scientists, Mrs Cogan.

And also remember this, Mrs Cogan, what you don't understand isn't therefore false. Your earlier comment that in physics, like repels like, and opposites attract, is true merely of, say, magnets. Certainly it isn't true of gravity, or resonance, or sympathetic vibration etc. That much should have been covered, even in your high school physics syllabus, Mrs Cogan.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by MrsCogan

... The elephant isn't changing shape as each person feels up a different part of the poor beast. In fact this is a nice metaphor for science. Scientists are each feeling a different part of the elephant. ..
I escape from the loop by talking to the other blind men.

I disagree with you there, MrsCogan. The elephant, in fact, DOES change shape as it is felt up by the blind men. Both its physical and its experiential shape shifts in the course of being touched. And our shape shifts when we're touched, too.

The elephant and the blind men is a good example of a metaphor, by the way. Saying "You have to do this, you have to do that" is harder to see as the metaphor you claimed it was; perhaps you would like to tell us what that remark represents. Maybe you meant it was a manner of speaking rather than being a metaphor -- there was another example of that here in the boards earlier. For me, and I believe for others, being informed that "you have to do as I say," whether it's meant literally or otherwise, occurs as a mandate, like you are saying "you should do as I say" (it's for your own good!). I'm not a big fan of *shoulds*. It's like saying, my way is the right way and anybody who disagrees is wrong and must be shown what is right. It's not a manner of speaking, in my experience, that fosters freedom, understanding or love in conversation. That is why I was inviting you to try on an attitude of accepting without judgement what the folks are saying here. Accepting without judgement doesn't mean you have to believe as they do. Evaluation is still possible within acceptance!

And of course, being right and making others wrong is something you and I are free to do, of course. I'll bet it's a road that leads to another sort of understanding for lots of people, myself included (you can probably see that's what I'm looking at for myself here by writing to you). You are naturally free to accept or decline my invitation; I just wanted you to understand that it was an invitation to escape from the loop.

[RT Wolf]

Heh, I was just photoreading Brian Tracy's Change your Thinking, Change your Life and came across something called psychosclerosis (which I also found in a book on meditation) which means the hardening of attitudes. I've noticed that unless I'm challenging myself to new ideas or doing something new or meeting new people, or really anything "new" I begin to fall prey to this psychosclerosis.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by RT Wolf

Heh, I was just photoreading Brian Tracy's Change your Thinking, Change your Life and came across something called psychosclerosis (which I also found in a book on meditation) which means the hardening of attitudes. I've noticed that unless I'm challenging myself to new ideas or doing something new or meeting new people, or really anything "new" I begin to fall prey to this psychosclerosis.

That's great, RT Wolf, psychosclerosis! I think that's what causes people get old.

[MrsCogan]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Unfortunately the elephant doesn't exist, unless observed. Neither do the blind men.

What a dreary world that would be. No surprises!

And that is the preferred interpretation by physicists such as Werner Heisenberg, Eugene Wigner, Amit Goswami, Fred Alan Wolf, William Tiller etc. Please refer to the Heisenberg quote I provided earlier.

There are other interpretations, of course.

of course. I followed your link and found this when I scrolled down:

------
Most physicists regard this theory as a non-scientific concept, claiming that it is experimentally unfalsifiable, and that it introduces unnecessary elements into physics, rather than simplifying.

Wim De Muynck comments that

The human observer is as dispensable in quantum mechanics as he (short for `he or she') is in classical mechanics. He sees only the macroscopic parts of his measuring instruments. In present-day practice of the physical science of the microscopic domain human observation is largely restricted to the tables and graphs that have been printed on the basis of data obtained by the scientists computer from a measuring instrument of which the measurement results are sent to the computer without any human interference.
An influence like the reduction (collapse) of the wave packet, allegedly exerted by a human observer on a microscopic object by means of observation, would be equally miraculous as killing a fly by just looking at ones fly swatter. [5]
---------

You may prefer, for instance, Hugh Everitt's many-worlds theory, which, as of the 1990s, was the most popular interpretation among physicists. According to this theory, the reality in which you and your elephant exists is constantly splitting into more realities, and therefore you and your elephant currently exist in many different realities. It might be consistent with Everitt's theory to say that these are ALL objective realities, but somehow I suspect that you won't be very happy with the idea that there could be an infinite number of Mrs Cogans in an infinite number of different objective realities.

It would have the same problem of unfalsifiability. In science that's really important. The problem with QM is that it is about how particles behave on the subatomic level. We don't live on the subatomic level. We live in "middle world."

The interpretation which comes closest to your belief in a single objective reality, dear Mrs Cogan, is probably the Bohm interpretation. This interpretation is formulated by David Bohm, one of the founding fathers of the atomic bomb. Unfortunately, this interpretation, breaching the principle of locality and coupled with quantum entanglement, means that your elephant, by twitching its nose or thinking a few elephantine thoughts in its brain, can instantaneously affect the behavior of subatomic particles millions of miles away on the other side of the galaxy.

I don't remember saying there was a single objective reality. I said there is an objective reality outside ourselves. How it twists, turns, splits and warps is up to us to discover.

By now, you may begin to realize that there is no objective reality, or that if there is, it is certainly not quite what you had imagined it to be.

it will be whatever it is. It is my job to learn as much about it as I can.

Einstein certainly felt that way. In a letter to Schrodinger in the 1950s (yes, Schrodinger of the notorious Schrodinger's cat), Einstein wrote:

"You are the only contemporary physicist, besides Laue, who sees that one cannot get around the assumption of reality—if only one is honest. Most of them simply do not see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality—reality as something independent of what is experimentally established."

Let me paraphrase that for you, dear Mrs Cogan. Einstein is saying that if you are an honest scientist, you will not deny that you are merely assuming that an objective reality exists. It is a risky assumption, because there is absolutely no proof, scientifically speaking, that such an objective reality does exist.

let me paraphrase for you. Einstein was arguing the exact opposite. You must assume an objective reality and you ignore objective reality at your peril. If you create your own reality, then there is no particular reason to learn how the world actually works (since your magic mind can make it work however you can imagine it) and that is very, very bad. It will get you into more trouble than you can possibly imagine. Objective reality can and will reach up and bite you in the ass.

Well, maybe by now, dear Mrs Cogan, you will begin to dislike Einstein, Heisenberg, Everitt, Bohm and all the others. To you, they might now even seem remarkably like fairies and demons.

if they have no objective reality and are merely fragments of our imagination, then there would be no point in liking or disliking them. But of course, we would have to ask ourselves "Who's doing the imagining? And does the imaginer have an objective reality?"

And also remember this, Mrs Cogan, what you don't understand isn't therefore false. Your earlier comment that in physics, like repels like, and opposites attract, is true merely of, say, magnets. Certainly it isn't true of gravity, or resonance, or sympathetic vibration etc. That much should have been covered, even in your high school physics syllabus, Mrs Cogan.

I accept your correction about the magnets. I was an English major.

What I don't understand is to be studied and understood. I have studied new age claptrap and I understand it is wishful thinking with a lot of bad pitfalls that Einstein warned about in his quote above. You will find out what kind of pitfalls if an elephant ever steps on you when you aren't looking.

[MrsCogan]

Originally Posted by Angela

I disagree with you there, MrsCogan. The elephant, in fact, DOES change shape as it is felt up by the blind men. Both its physical and its experiential shape shifts in the course of being touched. And our shape shifts when we're touched, too.

If that were true, it would be discoverable, too, by comparing notes. In fact it's not true. When one scientist describes a leg and moves on, the next scientist finds the same leg and produces a description similar to that of the first scientist. The 2nd scientist confirms the shape the 1st scientist discovered.

The elephant and the blind men is a good example of a metaphor, by the way. Saying "You have to do this, you have to do that" is harder to see as the metaphor you claimed it was; perhaps you would like to tell us what that remark represents. Maybe you meant it was a manner of speaking rather than being a metaphor -- there was another example of that here in the boards earlier. For me, and I believe for others, being informed that "you have to do as I say," whether it's meant literally or otherwise, occurs as a mandate, like you are saying "you should do as I say" (it's for your own good!). I'm not a big fan of *shoulds*.

you need to provide an example. I don't know what you are talking about.

It's like saying, my way is the right way and anybody who disagrees is wrong and must be shown what is right. It's not a manner of speaking, in my experience, that fosters freedom, understanding or love in conversation. That is why I was inviting you to try on an attitude of accepting without judgement what the folks are saying here. Accepting without judgement doesn't mean you have to believe as they do. Evaluation is still possible within acceptance!

all of us--including you--believe we are right. I believe we do not create our own reality. Our minds interpret reality differently, but that's not the same as making it up as you go along. I'm not sure how you can make a statement you believe is true and then explain it to people who disagree and have that not be freedom. Everyone is free to support their ideas with evidence. To pretend they are not capable of that isn't very loving or respectful. I'm pushing people to think about what they believe. I don't mind in the least if people try to push me to do the same thing--in fact I welcome it.

Clearly you are made uncomfortable by the conflict of ideas and I'm sorry about that. But conversations like these spark learning and growth for all involved, even the lurkers, and I think they are valuable.

And of course, being right and making others wrong is something you and I are free to do, of course. I'll bet it's a road that leads to another sort of understanding for lots of people, myself included (you can probably see that's what I'm looking at for myself here by writing to you). You are naturally free to accept or decline my invitation; I just wanted you to understand that it was an invitation to escape from the loop.

I escape from the loop by respectfully studying reality as it is (and loving reality as it is) and by avoiding wishful thinking and self-deception as much as I can.

[Acting Like Godot]

Hello Mrs Cogan:

In this post, I will address your non-falsifiability point


You have suggested effectively that that which cannot be falsifiable (that is, tested in accordance with the scientific method proposed by Karl Popper) should not be taken as "true" or "reliable".

This isn't accurate (and in fact Karl Popper himself suggested no such thing). Numerous things in your reality are not falsifiable, but are not therefore "untrue" or "unreliable". For example, practically no theory or concept in:

economics; psychology; linguistics; sociology; law; history; business administration; religion; human geography; music; art; political science; public administration; architecture etc etc etc

is capable of being falsified (or scientifically tested) - however, it does not follow that all theories and concepts in:

economics; psychology; linguistics; sociology; law; history; business administration; religion; human geography; music; art; political science; public administration; architecture etc etc etc

are therefore "untrue" or "unreliable". Examples of non-falsifiable hypotheses would be:

"Human life is precious"
"Democracy is beneficial"
"My mother has a great recipe for chicken stew"
"Mozart possessed great musical talent"
"ALG is a kind person"
"Mrs Cogan is in love with Mr Cogan"

.... none of the above can be scientifically tested, BUT it does not necessarily follow that all of the above are "untrue" or "unreliable".

Perhaps more directly relevant is the point that what is falsifiable and what is not falsifiable also depends, to a large extent, on the stage to which science has progressed. For example, at various times in history, it would have been completely unscientific to assert any of the following:

- "There are little invisible living organisms in milk which causes it to go bad"
- "Radiation increases your risk of cancer"
- "Sugar is made up of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen molecules."

... because at the relevant times in history, due to lack of scientific knowledge and/or technology, none of these hypotheses could have been tested (falsified). However, none of them were actually "false".

You would be interested to note, however, that the theory that thought can affect reality is so wide in its implications, many of those implications CAN actually be tested (falsified). And some actually have. I had given various examples earlier ...

.... and if you like, I can even email you a PDF copy of a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal concerning a double-blind experiment, testing the hypothesis that human thought can affect the molecular structure of water, even over a long distance (several thousands of miles). It was one of the most widely read papers in the scientific community in 2006, going by the number of times it was electronically downloaded by scientists.

Sadly for obvious reasons, many scientists hesitate to associate themselves with such studies - essentially, there is the risk they would suffer repercussions. The same kind of repercussions that Nicolaus Copernicus suffered, when he insisted that the earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around.

Anyway - I leave you with a final thought.

And the thought is - you are terribly unscientific. You believe that an objective reality exists, when really there is no scientific proof of this.

(If there is, please cite me the name of the great scientist who proved that an objective reality exists).

"But, but .... such a thing is just not falsifiable!", I hear you protest.

Exactly, Mrs Cogan.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by MrsCogan

It would have the same problem of unfalsifiability. In science that's really important. The problem with QM is that it is about how particles behave on the subatomic level. We don't live on the subatomic level. We live in "middle world."

In the context of the part of my post that you were responding to - Hugh Everitt's Many Worlds theory - what you say is not accurate.

While Everitt's theory was addressing the question of the effect of an observation/measurement being made at the subatomic level, his theory says that the entire reality in which that observation/measurement is made splits ... not just some segment of it.

In other words, say a scientist with a blue coat sitting on a red chair in a lab in America makes the measurement/observation of the subatomic event. According to Everitt's theory, it is not that some tiny segment of reality at the subatomic level splits into another reality.

According to Everitt's theory, the entire reality - with scientist, blue coat, red chair, lab, America - splits.

Scientist, blue coat, red chair, lab, America - all now exist in different realities at the same time.

By now, you might think that this is either rocket science, or mystical voodoo. In either case, you might be right. Hugh Everitt indeed was a rocket scientist - at one point, specialising in nuclear missiles - and his theory turns out to be highly compatible with Seth's explanation of multi-dimensional reality (Seth allegedly being a non-physical being channeled from another dimension by a famous, now-deceased alleged psychic, Jane Roberts).

I know that such similarities between (1) the cutting edge of science, and (2) metaphysical / religious / spiritual mumblings makes you worried and unhappy. Unfortunately, you REALLY can't get away from it. Occasionally it may smell to you of New Age nonsense attempting to use science to gain credibility, but surprisingly often, it is the other way around - that is, it's science hoping to discover new ground, by examining metaphysical / religious / spiritual mumblings.

One example is how David Bohm (yes, yes, another one of those world-renowned, permanently revered, appears-in-every-high-school-physics-textbook, changed-the-entire-history-of-science type of scientist) constantly sought to discuss the nature of reality with the Indian spiritual leader J Krishnamurti (believe it or not, once widely believed in India to be the reincarnation of a buddha). The two men ended up maintaining a friendship that lasted over 20 years.

[impaul99]

@Acting: The reason LoA is Garbage, to those who don't believe it, is not because it is unscientific. It is Garbage, because they can't wave a magic wand and use it for their own pleasure without any effort.

In other words, before Microwave Ovens were invented and commercialized, if you tried to tell people that you have found a way to heat up your food at a much faster rate than a traditional oven (using micro waves), they would say you're not scientific and they'd tell you to go back to watching Star Trek.

It is only when you put something like this into a box, that you can purchase at Walmart for $50, plug it into the wall and click two buttons to warm up your food that people believe it to be true.

In other words, the complaint is not "This is unscientific". The complaint is "I want a box for $50 where I punch in what I want, and what I want pops out, 100% of the time". Nobody wants a "technology" which requires them to change their thinking for something to happen. Most people are way too lazy to do that.

Your research into LoA, much like mine, obviously goes well beyond high-school science, and is grounded in ACTUAL EXPERIENCE. I don't think anyone suffering from "LoA Unbelievatitis" will be convinced by scientific "proof". THe only way they'll ever convince themselves that it's real is by experimenting themselves and getting it to work. Once it works for them, it will fry their brain, change their whole perception of reality, and then they'll run to the book stores and start researching how the heck it's possible that such a thing can exist without it totally "breaking reality".

If I teleported a scientist from 300 years ago forward in time to today and wanted to prove to him that microwaves exist, I would show him my microwave, put some food in it and warm it up first. Let him eat the warm food and experience it. Only once he saw it with his own eyes and felt it, would I explain to him in "scientific terms" how the thing works, because now his mind wouldn't be thinking "Is this guy lying to me? Why should I believe this? What if it's a lie?" while I'm talking. His mind would now be "How the heck does this work? How COULD this be true?"

I think that's the first step. Getting to the point where you experience LoA in action. THen it totally stumps you. THEN you go looking for an explanation.

This is what Steve did. Wisdom through experience.
This is what I did. Wisdom through experience.
This is what You did. Wisdom through experience.

See the pattern? Maybe LOA shouldn't be explained to people at first. Maybe they should be told to just think positive thoughts and visualize thing because it activates the "Reticular Activating System" and makes them more "motivated" to "work hard" in life or something. Maybe telling people that LoA is based on the Universe giving people what they want is too unbelievable for them before they experience results.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by MrsCogan

we apprehend reality with our senses. We comprehend reality with our minds.

Thank you, Mrs Cogan. At this point I invite interested readers to click here and visit another thread, where I have just written, inter alia, about:

(A) perception of a thing; and
(B) the mental interpretation of that perception.

Among other things, we will investigate sensory deprivation; the reticular activating cortex; quantum physics (again); how the different types and capabilities of the senses of different animals (including human beings) affect their respective realities; ... and in the near future I will also write another post in that thread addressing (B) in greater detail, by reference to Harvard's Prof Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by MrsCogan

If that were true, it would be discoverable, too, by comparing notes. In fact it's not true. When one scientist describes a leg and moves on, the next scientist finds the same leg and produces a description similar to that of the first scientist. The 2nd scientist confirms the shape the 1st scientist discovered.

When something is touched, particularly something organic, the physical shape is changed, if only slightly. It doesn't take a scientist to see that, it's observable by a layperson. And if the touched entity has nerve endings, the shape of its feelings is also changed by being touched. (Maybe even if it doesn't have nerve endings -- there may be "feelings" I can't conceive of!)

you need to provide an example. I don't know what you are talking about.

There you go with your mandates again. I feel that you really do have a Bossy Boots style of communication, Mrs.Cogan! I was referring to your claim that your use of "You have to ____" was "obviously a metaphor". A metaphor is a figure of speech in which one reference is used as a symbolic designation of something else. For instance, the elephant story is a metaphor, because the elephant represents "reality". So if you are using "You have to ____" as a metaphor, what is that a symbolic designation of? Whatever it is, it's not obvious to me.

all of us--including you--believe we are right. I believe we do not create our own reality. Our minds interpret reality differently, but that's not the same as making it up as you go along. I'm not sure how you can make a statement you believe is true and then explain it to people who disagree and have that not be freedom. Everyone is free to support their ideas with evidence. To pretend they are not capable of that isn't very loving or respectful. I'm pushing people to think about what they believe. I don't mind in the least if people try to push me to do the same thing--in fact I welcome it.

Of course you and I believe what you and I believe, and of course there is no freedom lost when expressing those beliefs. But what you have done since you've arrived is to express your beliefs and announce that anyone who believes otherwise is wrong and you are right. That is an approach that I feel lacks love and respect. You are free to do that, naturally, but since this is a forum in which love, respect and freedom or highly valued, I felt free to express my invitation to try another approach. You seem to have a completely different idea of what constitutes freedom and love in a conversation and that's the way it goes. That's all I'll say about it; you go on about your business of being right and making others wrong if you wish. I was merely offering an invitation and you appear to be rsvp'ing your regrets. Again, that's the way it goes!

Clearly you are made uncomfortable by the conflict of ideas and I'm sorry about that. But conversations like these spark learning and growth for all involved, even the lurkers, and I think they are valuable.

I agree with you that conversations like these are valuable for everyone. However, you are being quite presumptuous with the statement that I'm clearly made uncomfortable by the conflict of ideas. I would strongly prefer that you approach conversations here without clinging to your presumptions, but again, you're free to presume all you want (until you egregiously break the forum rules, of course.)

I escape from the loop by respectfully studying reality as it is (and loving reality as it is) and by avoiding wishful thinking and self-deception as much as I can.

It looks to me like you are still caught in the loop of a win/lose conversational style, and that you don't know you don't it.

[sadavis00]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Hello Mrs Cogan:

.... and if you like, I can even email you a PDF copy of a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal concerning a double-blind experiment, testing the hypothesis that human thought can affect the molecular structure of water, even over a long distance (several thousands of miles). It was one of the most widely read papers in the scientific community in 2006, going by the number of times it was electronically downloaded by scientists.
.

Yes, please provide at least the name of the paper and author of the article. If it was published in a respectable journal, I can download it on my own.

The other experiments you mentioned in your previous post in defence of IM, I found to be pseudoscience, or probably explainable due to psychology. The most convincing seemed to be the Emoto's water experiment, but the main scientific complaint against him seems to be that he gave his photographers leeway in choosing whatever pictures seemed best representative, hence BIAS. (see Wikipedia for this information on this guy, he even denies that he is a scientist, a sceptic has offered 1 MILLION DOLLARS to anyone who can replicate Emoto's "experiment" in a more scientific experimental design).

That said, I very much doubt there will EVER be ANY scientific proof for a concept like IM, it requires a LEAP OF FAITH (see Kierkegaard's existentialist philosophy of religion).

[RT Wolf]

If I'm not mistaken, it is called Double-Blind Test of the Effects of Distant Intention on Water Crystal Formation, by Dean Radin. It was published in the Explore Journal, about which I have no information.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by sadavis00

Yes, please provide at least the name of the paper and author of the article. If it was published in a respectable journal, I can download it on my own.

Sure you can ... you'll just have to pay for it yourself then (it's a subcriber-only journal).

Double-blind test of the effects of distant intention on water crystal formation.

The other experiments you mentioned in your previous post in defence of IM, I found to be pseudoscience, or probably explainable due to psychology. The most convincing seemed to be the Emoto's water experiment, but the main scientific complaint against him seems to be that he gave his photographers leeway in choosing whatever pictures seemed best representative, hence BIAS. (see Wikipedia for this information on this guy, he even denies that he is a scientist, a sceptic has offered 1 MILLION DOLLARS to anyone who can replicate Emoto's "experiment" in a more scientific experimental design).

Yes it has been replicated.

The bias you mentioned was removed in the replicated experiment.

Firstly, the photographer is not allowed to know whether he is taking photos of the water samples which had been subject to thought, or whether he is taking photos of water samples from the control group (no one had thought anything about those samples).

Secondly, the judges who judge the photos on aesthetic appeal ("positive" thoughts, so the hypothesis goes, create water crystals of higher aeshetic appeal) are not allowed to know whether the photos came from the water samples which had been subject to thought, or whether they came from the control group.

There were 2,000 thinkers; a total of 1,500 water samples; and 100 judges of the photos. The hypothesis was supported by the experimental results at the (statistical) confidence level of 99.9%, meaning that there was a 0.01% chance that it was a statistical fluke.

[Acting Like Godot]

And meanwhile folks, I'm reading about another area - the research of Professor Brian Josephson! (He was the Nobel Prize winner for physics in 1973 - as you can see, I am partial to the ideas of world-renowned scientists).

And Brian Josephson's current research area is telepathy. Mrs Cogan must be having a fit.

[MrsCogan]

Originally Posted by Angela

When something is touched, particularly something organic, the physical shape is changed, if only slightly. It doesn't take a scientist to see that, it's observable by a layperson. And if the touched entity has nerve endings, the shape of its feelings is also changed by being touched. (Maybe even if it doesn't have nerve endings -- there may be "feelings" I can't conceive of!)

you're moving the goalposts. It doesn't stoop being an elephant when you touch it. If its skin dimples when you touch it, it's still an elephant. Its skin merely has that property. Also a trunk is still going to feel like a trunk and you'll be able to distinguish it from the tail.

There you go with your mandates again. I feel that you really do have a Bossy Boots style of communication, Mrs.Cogan!

discussing me instead of my arguments isn't rude at all, of course.

I was referring to your claim that your use of "You have to ____" was "obviously a metaphor". A metaphor is a figure of speech in which one reference is used as a symbolic designation of something else. For instance, the elephant story is a metaphor, because the elephant represents "reality". So if you are using "You have to ____" as a metaphor, what is that a symbolic designation of? Whatever it is, it's not obvious to me.

The elephant is a metaphor for reality. "You have to ____" isn't a metaphor. (I FINALLY figured out that I had used the expression "get up off the couch" as a metaphor for taking action.)

What I was saying above is that you were confusing me. I couldn't tell what you were talking about. What I meant by "you need to provide an example. I don't know what you are talking about" is "If you want me to understand you, then you need to provide an example." You resumed calling me names and didn't provide an example. Ok. That's your right.

Of course you and I believe what you and I believe, and of course there is no freedom lost when expressing those beliefs. But what you have done since you've arrived is to express your beliefs and announce that anyone who believes otherwise is wrong and you are right.

You clearly believe the same thing [that you are right and I am wrong] and don't feel any hesitation in expressing it.

That is an approach that I feel lacks love and respect. You are free to do that, naturally, but since this is a forum in which love, respect and freedom or highly valued, I felt free to express my invitation to try another approach. You seem to have a completely different idea of what constitutes freedom and love in a conversation and that's the way it goes.

yes, that is true. I'm assuming I'm free to disagree with you just as you are free to disagree with me. Your reaction is beginning to feel uncomfortably like I am free to say and believe anything I like as long as I don't believe and/or say anything that makes you uncomfortable or challenge something you think is true.

That's all I'll say about it; you go on about your business of being right and making others wrong if you wish. I was merely offering an invitation and you appear to be rsvp'ing your regrets. Again, that's the way it goes!

I agree with you that conversations like these are valuable for everyone. However, you are being quite presumptuous with the statement that I'm clearly made uncomfortable by the conflict of ideas.

Well, "bossy boots" is a clue.

[Angela]

hey, mrscogan, I didn't call you a name, I referred to your Bossy Boots style of communication. Not the same thing, as someone of your precise thinking is surely aware.

And the Bossy Boots style of communication is one I don't want to spend any time around, so hasta la vista, sista! Have fun!

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by sadavis00

That said, I very much doubt there will EVER be ANY scientific proof for a concept like IM, it requires a LEAP OF FAITH (see Kierkegaard's existentialist philosophy of religion).

You'll have to try to understand that very few researchers actually deliberately seek to prove any hypothesis like "the Law of Attraction exists". The line of inquiry is more limited, and generally arises by other ways.

For example, in quantum physics, take Hugh Everitt's "Many Worlds" interpretation, or the Bohm interpretation. or the "Consciousness Causes Collapse" interpretation. These theories are phenomenological.

In other words, they were not developed by scientists having too much idle time and therefore just sitting around having a nice daydream or launching ideas for a fantasy novel. What happened is that actual experimental results were observed first, and they could not be explained by then-existing scientific knowledge. So the scientists have to develop phenomenological theories to explain the actual experimental results.

In case the distinction is still not clear, let me illustrate. Suppose I say, 'Theoretically, if a pig could grow wings, and the wings were strong enough, then the pig could fly."

This is NOT a phenomenological theory. Simply because there are no flying pigs on earth (as far as I am aware).

But suppose one day, the most bizarre thing happens. A bunch of scientists are in a lab. Suddenly a flying pig is seen! It flies round and round the lab, several times; allows itself to be examined by the scientists etc; flaps its wings and soars off 100 metres into the sky; returns again and allows itself to be examined by the scientists

Now there is an actual phenomenon. There is an actual flying pig. The scientists now have to develop phenomenological theories to explain why and how the pig managed to grow wings. All the theories sound weird, implausible, strange, mysterious ...... but what do you expect?! This is a flying pig!

This is what has happened in the lab (regarding the collapse of the wavefunction). In quantum physics, the phenomenon has already happened. The results can be replicated in the lab, any time, again and again, as many times as you like. The scientists' job is therefore to explain these results, and the best they have been able to do is offer theories like the Many Worlds theory, the Bohm interpretation, the "Consciousness Causes Collapse" theory etc.

There are different theories (about five or six in total) but whatever theory you prefer, none are consistent with what we usually regard as "objective reality". This is what frightens people like Mrs Cogan, and this is why they will claim to be of a scientific bent, and yet prefer not to delve too much into what science is really telling them.

[MrsCogan]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Hello Mrs Cogan:

In this post, I will address your non-falsifiability point

You have suggested effectively that that which cannot be falsifiable (that is, tested in accordance with the scientific method proposed by Karl Popper) should not be taken as "true" or "reliable".

This isn't accurate (and in fact Karl Popper himself suggested no such thing). Numerous things in your reality are not falsifiable, but are not therefore "untrue" or "unreliable". For example, practically no theory or concept in:

economics; psychology; linguistics; sociology; law; history; business administration; religion; human geography; music; art; political science; public administration; architecture etc etc etc

is capable of being falsified (or scientifically tested) - however, it does not follow that all [these] theories and concepts . . .
are therefore "untrue" or "unreliable".

almost all those disciplines make scientifically testable hypotheses which are often tested. Religion *does* make scientifically testable hypotheses sometimes and they are nearly always proved to be false (the efficacy of prayer leaps to mind). Music and art are not science and don't usually generate hypotheses. Economics certainly does. History certainly does. So does sociology, etc. I'm not sure where you get the idea that they don't.

Examples of non-falsifiable hypotheses would be:

"Human life is precious"
"Democracy is beneficial"
"My mother has a great recipe for chicken stew"
"Mozart possessed great musical talent"
"ALG is a kind person"
"Mrs Cogan is in love with Mr Cogan"

.... none of the above can be scientifically tested, BUT it does not necessarily follow that all of the above are "untrue" or "unreliable".

actually much of that *is* testable scientifically. You have to make some of the statements less vague--what makes chicken stew great? Taste? Nutritional value? Visually attractive?. Let's select taste. Now we make a testable prediction: If the soup tastes "great" then more than 2/3 of people who eat it will say they enjoy it. You get your mom to make a huge pot of stew and serve it to 20 people. If 2/3 of the people say they enjoy it, then there is some evidence suggesting that your opinion of your mom's stew is correct. Kraft foods and companies like it do this kind of testing all the time.

Perhaps more directly relevant is the point that what is falsifiable and what is not falsifiable also depends, to a large extent, on the stage to which science has progressed.

actually if a time traveler went back in time to say something like "there are little invisible living organisms in milk which causes it to go bad" an early scientist could devise ways to test it at least indirectly. And the truth is, there are lots of things that are testable that we can't test for at the moment.

Radiation poisoning was tested before it was known about. Both Marie Curie and her husband died of it.

.... and if you like, I can even email you a PDF copy of a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal concerning a double-blind experiment, testing the hypothesis that human thought can affect the molecular structure of water, even over a long distance (several thousands of miles). It was one of the most widely read papers in the scientific community in 2006, going by the number of times it was electronically downloaded by scientists.

I'd like to see it.

Sadly for obvious reasons, many scientists hesitate to associate themselves with such studies - essentially, there is the risk they would suffer repercussions.

they could suffer in luxury. All they have to do is submit their claims to the James Randi Foundation and collect a million dollars.

The same kind of repercussions that Nicolaus Copernicus suffered, when he insisted that the earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around.

Copernicus waited to publish until he was very old and knew he was dying. He suffered no repercussions.

Anyway - I leave you with a final thought.

And the thought is - you are terribly unscientific. You believe that an objective reality exists, when really there is no scientific proof of this.

(If there is, please cite me the name of the great scientist who proved that an objective reality exists).

you just proved it. Objective reality is like logic. In order to disprove logic you have to use logic, so disproving it isn't possible. The same is true of objective reality. In order to try to disprove objective reality you must at assume that you, yourself have an objective existence.

"But, but .... such a thing is just not falsifiable!", I hear you protest.

Exactly, Mrs Cogan.

tell you what. You write your dialog and I'll write mine. That way everybody is happy.

[tbushmoney]

Mrs Cogan,
First and foremost, I'd like to say "what's poppin?". Apparently thats the cool way to greet people now a days, more commonly used amongst the hip hop/street crowd, although I do not consider myself hip hop or street, I do find the phrase humorous, therefor I say it.

Basically, I believe that we're on the verge of a massive change in this world. Actually I don't really believe that... I know it. I can feel it in me and I can see it when I look around. The world is changing, something is happening all over. This feeling inside of me is not something I've had all of my life, and it's not something that science can explain.

Science is a good tool to understand lots of this physical world. But there is always a place where science ends, where it can no longer explain something. The science road always comes to an end somewhere. It's the point when you have to stop looking for proof and scientific evidence to support you and your beliefs. It's the end of the diving board and it's the place where you have to take a breath, shut your eyes, and step off. It's basically fully trusting in yourself. Not needing to "prove" everything to understand it and believe it. Taking it on faith. Not faith in some white bearded whacky god who exists outside of creation in a nice safety net of white clouds, but faith in ourselves. Faith that we will find the way and the right answers. And this faith derives from a feeling inside of us. That same feeling I explained earlier. The feeling that there is something else. This feeling and just a plain "knowing" that science can't explain.

I understand that you are 60+ years old. That is 60 years of life on this planet. That is impressive, I must say! That is also 60 years of holding onto vast amounts of beliefs about reality, existence, and life in general. I can see why it's not quite so easy for you to grasp the concept that you create your reality, after living for 60 years believing we live in a fully objective world where science rules every function of our lives and we just have to make due with whatever comes our way, I wouldn't want to listen to abunch of "new agers" sayin' that we create our own realities and that whatever pain/happiness/lack/abundence we experience is just that which we have brought to ourselves. In fact, at 60, looking back through my lifetime of love, loss, sadness, pain, happiness, I think I might be a little insulted hearing that I brought most of it to me!

So I understand! But a plain and simple fact is, no matter how hard you try and convince me that it's not true, you won't be able to. Because I know it is. Not because I read Steve's blog, or LoA books, but because I experience it in my life all the time. I've had experiences that science can never explain (out of body experiences, knowing what people are going to say before they say it, intending for something and receiving it, hell I intended money the other day and received a 250 check in the mail that got me out of debt plus 20 bucks). This experience is what proves this to me. Even when I get into arguments with family members during Christmas, I look back at what I was thinking during those times and sure enough I was thinking "Oh man, here it comes she's gonna start a fight with me over something." Now you may say that I just know my family pretty well, but would that fight have started had I not thought that? If I were thinking "Oh here comes mom! Let's have a great day together", would that fight have started? Who knows. Who knows.

There's going to come a point, hopefully, if you allow yourself to see this, that you realize that everything in existence is made of the same exact stuff. Everything is made of the same one substance. Once you realize that you realize that everything in existence is just an expression of that substance, including you, including me. And yes SCIENCE can prove this, that everything is made of the same stuff. Einstein attempted to prove it back in the day. Einstein. One of the smartest minds of our time believed everything was ONE. He even said that if he was religious he would be Buddhist (where they believe that everything is ONE and that ONE is the purest essence of everything).

Basically our society kind've sucks. The folks in charge don't exactly want the population to know this info, because well, then they wouldn't have the power they do. That's a whole other discussion, but basically, everyone's been fed abunch of lies and distractions (look at the mindless crap on television, just to keep the mind distracted, keep us from thinking too much) to keep us all from finding the truth, which is that we create our own realities and that we are all in fact one, and that ONE is in fact God.

That's the truth. Straight up. Take it or leave it. I know it's the truth because I experienced it in my own life, and I don't need you to believe it for me to believe it. I want you to believe it so you can live a better, more fuller life, for you. Because we're one. And as expressions of that one, it's our right to live life to the fullest that we can, and this is an essential tool to do that.

Look at the tools you are given. Let's say you had a paint brush, some paint and a canvas. These tools point to you being a painter. You have imagination to create the painting. Now look at the tools you were given at birth. Sight. Hearing. Taste. Touch. Smell. And imagination.
The first 5 deal with experience. This tools show us that we're meant to experience life, right? To see it, to hear it, to taste it, to touch it, to smell it....all of those combine to form a feeling of the experience, correct? Well why do we have imagination? The ability to create whatever we want, at will, in our minds? Literally, whatever you want to create you can in your imagination. Why is that?

[tbushmoney]

Yo baby doll,
I think you should use some psychedelic drugs. Just a suggestion. I smoked salvia before (its legal and you can buy it in stores) and oh man, I swear to god I was transported to another dimension with these crazy beings all around me. It's nuts! Or eat some mushrooms. Those things will do you wonders, definitely make you question alot.

Oh yeah, and Mrs Cogan, go listen to some Beatles, or Van Morrison's enlightenment CD. This is not some new thing. Folks have been saying all this for a long time now. It's not to late to change your life!