Garbage, all of it.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

In the pre-Howard Gardner days, natural mental ability was mostly measured in terms of a concept known as IQ.

Gardner wasn't satisfied with this - a single number, the Intelligence Quotient, seemed to him to be inadequate to describe / measure the wide range of mental abilities that human beings have.

Gardner did his research (beginning with brain-impaired children) to identify the different & distinct sorts of mental abilities that human beings have. For example, an idiot savant might be unable to speak or write properly, but might be hugely capable in mathematics / logic puzzles. This suggests that linguistic ability is a separate thing from mathematical / logical ability.

To identify distinct, different sorts of mental abilities, Gardner found it useful to work with young children. With adults, the extra difficulty that arises is that any "abilities" or "lack of abilities" they demonstrate may be due to cultural or environmental factors, rather than anything more intrinsic.

In the end, Gardner identified eight unique types of intelligences:

1. linguistic (relates to language, words)

2. logical/mathematical (concerns logic, cause-&-effect analysis)

3. visuo-spatial (relates to diagrams, images, pictures, sense of proportion)

4. musical (awareness of sounds, rhythms, pitch; how they combine)

5. interpersonal (understanding how other people think / feel / behave)

6. intrapersonal (understanding one's own thoughts / emotions / motivations)

7. bodily-kinesthetic (natural ability with one's own body; important, for example, in sports, dance and other physical activities).

8. naturalist (ability to interpret natural environment - animals, plants, weather etc - probably not much use for urban dwellers; but useful for people living close to nature)

And all this which leads to the idea that "intelligence" isn't a single concept. Instead people can be "smart" in different ways (and also "stupid" in different ways).

Let's take for example, the stereotypical high school nerd - someone who excels in maths and science, but is very bad in sports and poor in making friendss. In MI terms, he has high mathematical/logical intelligence; but is poor in bodily-kinesthetic intelligence and poor in interpersonal intelligence.

Now, of course, as you say, a person's ability in just about anything can be improved through practice, persistence, proper training etc. For example, if the high school nerd practised really, really hard, there's the possibility that he probably could become good in some sport. Nevertheless, it doesn't change the fact that some people have more natural ability than others, in different things.

I'm suggesting that as far as conscious creation with LOA is concerned, intrapersonal intelligence is probably the most directly relevant intelligence. It doesn't mean that other intelligences are not relevant - there are very few human activities where only one kind of intelligence is relevant - but I'm suggesting that for conscious creation, intrapersonal intelligence is most relevant.

You are saying that if a person fails to manifest successfully, it could be due to their goals are not aligned with greater good for all; or they weren't motivated to use LOA properly; or didn't learn the right techniques etc.

HOWEVER - what we're talking about in this thread (before it got heavily sidetracked by Mrs Cogan) are people like Dave Angeles and Floridagal. They apparently did everything right, knew all the LOA theory, practised and persisted with LOA for a considerable time (Floridagal even attended classes or consulted psychics or professional LOA coaches or something ), visualised, thought positive, felt positive ..... and still fell completely flat on their faces.

At the other end of the spectrum, a few individuals who frequent this forum seem to manifest their intentions quite easily, quite successfully and quite regularly. Me, for instance - I started experimenting casually with LOA only in mid 2006, and by 2007, my monthly salary shot up so much that I'm in the 98.5th percentile of all income-tax paying citizens in my country (and I'm not yet 35 years old).

So I am suggesting that this difference (in results with conscious creation) possibly has something to do with the natural distribution of a particular intelligence (intrapersonal intelligence).

I like what you write. And then at the end it still sounds a bit elitist. "natural distributions of particular intelligence" that makes conscious creation work? I just don't see that, sorry. Is that not the same as telling someone they will not be able to manifest? Manifesting intentions of a certain kind of goal for material gain of the ego is maybe not spiritual. However, that you are gaining in your $$ has got to be a good thing and am happy for you since you seem like someone that cares greatly about fellow beings (just my impression from your posts)

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by cylon

I have the intrapersonal intelligence on my side, and what I often think about regarding IM is the emotions I want to feel in life, and they way I want to experience life... I want that connection and sense that I'm at one with the universe. There are things that make me feel that way, friendships, especially writing music, so the things I work on manifesting relate to that. I haven't said "I want a new car!" (even though I do). Some of these material things seem very small to me (even though they are important, of course I want material things).

The other day I said "I am drawing things into my life to help improve my self image" and that is my main focus now. Today at work I stumbled across a public folder of a guy who left a long time ago. There was some mp3s in there with great music, but also "unknown artist"... I listened to unknown artist and it was a series of guided meditations on... improving self image. And a lot of the affirmations it had, were things I've been saying to myself already. Too "coincidental".

But anyway. Maybe I should manifest a mansion, a BMW, and a jet plane or something. Right now I'm manifesting a new job and healthy, positive co-workers, and my own apartment. But maybe I should be thinking "bigger".

Maybe I think too much. Because this post is basically about nothing.

I think your post says everything and is far from nothing. It sounds like you have tunned in very well. Not everyone "needs" the BMW, you know? And you description of the sychronisity shows that. Your focus or intentions are part of your spirit and are showing up along with your desires and drive to write music. I don't usually get a feeling through the internet - but I bet your music is to be heard and people will be enriched to hear your sounds. However, thinking bigger is great as along as you can without that dreaded attachment to that picture. I can't think or dream too big since I get attached and feel a longing - that I must work on, I suppose.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by RT Wolf

It seems to be a fairly simple experiment

Oh, there are numerous ways whereby we can test the possible effects of thought on reality. The basic idea simply goes as follows:

1. An experiment is done. The results are measured. (This is the control group).

2. The same experiment is done again, under essentially the same conditions, except that one additional variable relating to thought is introduced. Again, the results are measured.

In this way, we investigate the possible effects of thought on reality. Any difference in the measured results would / could support the hypothesis that the additional variable had caused the difference. That's basic experimental methodology in science.

Simple illustration. We get a large number of patients, suffering from similar same medical condition / disease. We adjust for variables such as age, severity of symptoms etc, and we divide the patients into two groups.

Both groups are given the same kind of medical treatment. However, one group is asked to do some kind of mental exercise, eg meditate, be hypnotised, visualise good health etc etc.

We then monitor both groups and see whether there is any difference in how quickly the two groups recover from their medical condition / disease.

It's not as if this kind of stuff hasn't been done before. For example, in a 2003 study, researchers from Harvard Medical School found that hypnosis helps broken ankles to heal much faster (on average, six weeks faster than the control group).

In a follow-up study, also by Harvard Medical School, researchers found that hypnosis helps patients with surgical wounds (following surgery for breast cancer) to recover faster.

Harvard Gazette: Hypnosis helps healing

So I trust this example makes it clear that there are certainly many ways whereby the effects of thought on reality can be tested.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Oh, there are numerous ways whereby we can test the possible effects of thought on reality. The basic idea simply goes as follows:

1. An experiment is done. The results are measured. (This is the control group).

2. The same experiment is done again, under essentially the same conditions, except that one additional variable relating to thought is introduced. Again, the results are measured.

In this way, we investigate the possible effects of thought on reality. Any difference in the measured results would / could support the hypothesis that the additional variable had caused the difference. That's basic experimental methodology in science.

Simple illustration. We get a large number of patients, suffering from similar same medical condition / disease. We adjust for variables such as age, severity of symptoms etc, and we divide the patients into two groups.

Both groups are given the same kind of medical treatment. However, one group is asked to do some kind of mental exercise, eg meditate, be hypnotised, visualise good health etc etc.

We then monitor both groups and see whether there is any difference in how quickly the two groups recover from their medical condition / disease.

It's not as if this kind of stuff hasn't been done before. For example, in a 2003 study, researchers from Harvard Medical School found that hypnosis helps broken ankles to heal much faster (on average, six weeks faster than the control group).

In a follow-up study, also by Harvard Medical School, researchers found that hypnosis helps patients with surgical wounds (following surgery for breast cancer) to recover faster.

Harvard Gazette: Hypnosis helps healing

So I trust this example makes it clear that there are certainly many ways whereby the effects of thought on reality can be tested.

That sounds like the mind/body connection, not the thoughts create reality connection.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

"natural distributions of particular intelligence" that makes conscious creation work? I just don't see that, sorry. Is that not the same as telling someone they will not be able to manifest?

It's not that I am telling Dave Angeles and Floridagal that they are not able to consciously create. It's themselves who are telling everyone that they are not able to consciously create ... despite (they say) having done everything right.

If Dave and Floridagal are accurate in describing their personal experiences with LOA, then the two most obvious explanations are:

(1) LOA doesn't work; or
(2) LOA doesn't work for them.

Explanation (1) doesn't seem correct to me, because LOA seems to work fine for me. So I go with Explanation (2) - LOA doesn't work for them. Since they claim to have done everything right (in terms of LOA technique), ther must be some other reason for their failure, and I am suggesting that the Multiple Intelligences concept could provide that reason ...

[RT Wolf]

Wolfgang, I believe ALG is just saying that some people have an advantage at conscious creation, like the advantages that do exist in the world. Does that mean they can't become better at conscious creation? Of course not. They could simply intend to become better manifesters. ALG's hypothesis might explain the immediate problem that they are having, though. I have my own pet hypothesis: that IM is an advanced concept in PD and that you are better off doing other stuff (like improvin emotionally, or spiritually, depending on what that word means to you) before you approach IM.

I get the impression that you don't really like any sort of inequality in this manner? This isn't about judgement, this is simply about ability. If ALG rates a 9 out of 10 on the intrapersonal scale and I rate a 5, its that he might have had a natural advantage, and that he's practiced it. I can become a 9, though, maybe even a 10 through greater practice.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

It's not that I am telling Dave Angeles and Floridagal that they are not able to consciously create. It's themselves who are telling everyone that they are not able to consciously create ... despite (they say) having done everything right.

If Dave and Floridagal are accurate in describing their personal experiences with LOA, then the two most obvious explanations are:

(1) LOA doesn't work; or
(2) LOA doesn't work for them.

Explanation (1) doesn't seem correct to me, because LOA seems to work fine for me. So I go with Explanation (2) - LOA doesn't work for them. Since they claim to have done everything right (in terms of LOA technique), ther must be some other reason for their failure, and I am suggesting that the Multiple Intelligences concept could provide that reason ...

OK, that;s a fine suggestion after all, I guess. What would be the next step for them? Wouldn't they also be able to manifest with intention? But could it be that they have been kind of barking up the wrong tree? Well, I mean asking for things for that the ego wants instead of finding what the spirit is whispering?

OK, so there some intelligence that is involved. But is that intelligence just the ability to recongnize what is possible to manifest with one's current set of beliefs and thinking and a failure to recognize that it may not be for the good of all or ]isn't actually part of their spiritual plan? Is it really that everyone can manifest a BMW? Or is it that certain people can because the spirit can agree that will help the good of all?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

That sounds like the mind/body connection, not the thoughts create reality connection.

The former is surely a subset of the latter? In fact, many LOA books, such as the Hicks', would also discuss how to use your thoughts to improve the state of your health.

But anyway it is equally possible to do experiments whereby we investigate the effects of thoughts on some aspect of reality other than the thinker's own body. Some examples from the world's leading universities:

(1) Robert Rosenthal (Harvard University) has an experiment whereby certain people are tricked into believing that the rats that they have been given belong to some "superior" breed possessing high intelligence. Other people are tricked into believing that their own rats belong to some "inferior" breed and are mentally slow. (Actually the rats are of the same breed).

All the people are then required to train their rats to navigate a maze. Rats believed to be super-smart get through the maze much faster than rats believed to be stupid. (Many of the rats believed to be stupid never make it through the maze at all).

(2) William Tiller (Stanford University) gets a small group of experienced meditators to meditate and send positive energy to some fruit fly eggs. These eggs hatch faster, and the larvae grow faster, and the fruit fly live longer, than the eggs/larvae/flies in the control group.

(3) Robert Jahn (Princeton University / ex-NASA rocket scientist) has an experiment where there is a random event generator (think of it as an electronic coin flipper that in the long run, should produce heads and tails in a proportion that goes closer and closer to 50/50). He investigates the effect of a person's thoughts on the REG results (analogous to whether a person intending "Heads", "Heads", "Heads", will exert a statistically significant result on the final outcome).

Once you consider the (diverse) examples above, you will probably see that it's quite possible to devise all sorts of experiments testing the effect of thoughts on reality in different ways.

Rosenthal's experiment could be re-done in many different ways (eg by substituting rats with some other living things and substituting maze navigation with some other task). In fact Rosenthal's experiment has been replicated on human children (in place of rats, and with IQ tests in place of maze navigation) and that is the experiment for which Rosenthal is most famous.

William Tiller's experiment could also be re-done in many different ways (get experienced meditators to meditate on all sorts of different things - apple seeds? Cancer cells? Goldfish? - and compare results with the control group).

More interesting to me would be experiments along these lines (because I am really more interested in human beings, than in fruit flies or rats or electronic coin flippers):

take a big group of people involved in a certain activity; divide them into two groups; adjust for variables; and get one group to think positive thoughts. Then you check for statistically significant differences in the results of the activity done by the two groups.

Specific examples - you could measure the performance of students in a certain academic course; or the pass rates of soldiers in a certain military training course; or the recovery rates of alcoholics undergoing rehab; or the rate of promotion of 3,000 young executives, or whatever.

In each case, you'd have a control group, and you'd have another group where the members would, say, do a guided meditation or a hypnosis session or a visualisation exercise three times a week, focusing on thoughts with themes like "I am an excellent student"; "I can pass this course and become a commando"; "I do very well in my career". etc etc.

So, yes, the effects of LOA are not only testable, but testable in a wide variety of different ways.

[mochamajesty]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

OK, that;s a fine suggestion after all, I guess. What would be the next step for them? Wouldn't they also be able to manifest with intention? But could it be that they have been kind of barking up the wrong tree? Well, I mean asking for things for that the ego wants instead of finding what the spirit is whispering?

OK, so there some intelligence that is involved. But is that intelligence just the ability to recongnize what is possible to manifest with one's current set of beliefs and thinking and a failure to recognize that it may not be for the good of all or ]isn't actually part of their spiritual plan? Is it really that everyone can manifest a BMW? Or is it that certain people can because the spirit can agree that will help the good of all?

If I may interrupt...

At first, I read ALG's posts the same way you did. But when I thought about it, what he said made perfect sense.

I think that when it comes to manifesting, we have to start where we are. If I am living in squalor, my thoughts and beliefs have gotten me to this point. So, asking for a mansion may be too big of a leap for me. In fact, maybe I should work on my beliefs about myself before asking for anything material at all. So maybe the two people who aren't getting the results are asking for something that is too far out of reach considering where they are now. Only they (and the Universe) knows for sure.

I would like to think that the Universe is non-judgemental; that when I ask for something, the Universe doesn't say "Oh, that is for your ego, I'm not going to give it to you". I really don't think that you HAVE to use LOA only for spiritual purposes.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

but I bet your music is to be heard and people will be enriched to hear your sounds.

Thanks wofgang, I'm sure you're right.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by RT Wolf

IM is an advanced concept in PD and that you are better off doing other stuff (like improvin emotionally, or spiritually, depending on what that word means to you) before you approach IM.

And if you approach IM you may find (like I did) that if you hadn't done enough proper PD beforehand, you'll probably be forced into doing that PD anyway.

Along with intentions being manifested and synchronicities and things like that comes a connection to your "true self" that you may not have felt before and if that "true self" has issues with your "conscious self" IM (or anything that requires a change of perspective about life--and to learn to let go of struggle) will absolutely make you face that conflict and it's not always fun.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by cylon

And if you approach IM you may find (like I did) that if you hadn't done enough proper PD beforehand, you'll probably be forced into doing that PD anyway.

Here's an idea. Apart from "magical things", one may just as well use LOA for the more prosaic versions of "personal development". For example, under the broad umbrella of PD, we have broad areas such as"

"health & fitness"; "personal finances"; and "time management".

If you don't believe that you could use the LOA to "magically" manifest health; money; time etc, then what you could do is use the LOA to manifest things like:

more self-motivation to exercise regularly;
more discipline in saving regularly;
more ideas on how to get things done efficiently.

P.S Of course, LOA may still give you a "magical" surprise with how it makes your intention come true. For example, my personal LOA records tell me that on 2 November 2007, I manifested for more time. See what happened 5 days later.

P.P.S Of course the above example may be dismissed as just a strange coincidence. Then as you conscientiously practise your LOA, you'll get another strange coincidence .... and another .... and another ..... and another .... and another ..... all helping you towards your goals. Then one day you will see ....... as the great psychologist Carl Jung did .... that there are no coincidences.

[cylon]

Cool ALG. When the synchronicites started, I kept saying "coincidence", but they happened too frequently. I can't deny what I'm seeing happening around me... but it really SCARED me. Of course when they happened, they weren't scary AT ALL... every time a "synkro" would happen I felt fantastic.

It was AFTER, when I was back in the state of my every day "negativity" that I had to deal with this sci-fi stuff that seemed to be happening in my life. It's a lot to process. Like... if you decided one day "man, I want to understand French" then you'd start hearing people speak in French and you'd be like "wow! I don't even know French and I can understand this language! Cool!"

Then a little while later you'd think "Uh... I don't speak French. Why am I understanding a language I never learned. I'm getting a little freaked out here. This isn't normal. No more French."

So like you said, I've changed my goals for the time being. I want to draw as many things into my life that make me feel good and deserving of abundance. It's the only way of facing this "new" reality. I like many people grew up thinking you only got the good stuff if you struggled for it, that you weren't worth much unless you really suffered in life. So to go from that to actually GETTING something without having to EARN it is a big value/self-image change.

So I'm facing a lifetime of negative self-image, mixed in with people on tv repeating the things I write down as I write them and people calling me that I haven't talked to in ages just a few hours after I think "I wonder what they are up to". Or it's my birthday and I am thinking "you know, there's a lot of abundance in my life" and there's a $20 bill lying in the street. Sometimes it's too much.


I don't want to "bust my ass" for what I want. What I want is to feel good about not having to bust my ass in the first place.

Future posts will be more to the point. This is a good place to "let it out".

(PS-- much of this stuff started happening after I rediscovered a book I bought years ago "the Tao of Psychology" which is about Jung)

[RT Wolf]

^ Heh, do like I did and get a blog. Journalling is also awesome for this respect, but I sometimes just feel like explaining someting to someone at length. Just a different feeling with another person.

Its interesting you mention busting your ass for what you want. I also want to take effortless action, rather than hard, difficult manifestations.

I also read that book, but it didn't really do anything for me. Perhaps I shall revisit it.

You and I sound like we're on a similar page, we should have a long chat sometime.

[cylon]

Cool. Yeah I do have a journal and pour it out there too. I think I'm going through a great "resistance purge" .

[Lil Chris]

I found this the other day... Might pose some interesting questions to those on the scientific lean...

Link

You may have to sign up, but it's free (I'm not affiliated in any way with this site) just thought it was a good listen... It sites refferences to Teleportation, remote viewing, etc...

Quote from site

The Synchronized Universe

Dr. Claude Swanson was educated as a physicist at MIT and Princeton University. During those years he worked at the MIT Science Teaching Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory and a Virginia cyclotron in the summer. At Princeton he received the National Science Foundation Fellowship and Putnam Fellowship. His Ph.D. thesis at Princeton was done in the "Gravity Group," which focuses on experimental cosmology and astronomy, and was headed by Nobel laureate Robert Dicke. His thesis advisor was Prof. David Wilkinson, who later became chairman of the physics department.
For the last fifteen years, interspersed with his conventional professional career in applied physics, Dr. Swanson has pursued investigations into "unconventional physics." His principal interest has been unified field theory, the so-called "Theory of Everything" which could explain the universe at the deepest possible level. This has led him to investigate many aspects of the paranormal, which appear to be completely real phenomena which violate our present science.
Paranormal phenomena, which have now been proven in the laboratory in many cases, offer a window into the deeper universe, the mysteries of consciousness, and unlock new forces and principles which conventional science has only begun to glimpse

[fellowtraveler]

I'm just another ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ on the internet....well, not really but that's the most non-threateniing intro I could come up with...

Anyhow, I know it works. I think it's possible to have slight doubts occasionally and still have it work, but that's not ideal. You simply have to let go - it seems contradictory, but it's true...keep the intention in your mind, but not in anxiety...just keep it there so it doesn't fade. Decide on the intention, and then let the universe take over. Just decide that it's going to happen and that's that.

And, if it doesn't happen, there's a good reason for it. Say I decide a certain number is going to win the lottery for me. Well, no matter what my intentions, there might be someone else who needs the money more than I do at the time, and they decided on a different number. Oh well.

And I think it's not a matter of earning anything or deserving anything - if you're vibrating correctly and not feeling constant anxiety, it will come.

Too, I find that the more momentous the purpose of the intention is, the more likely the universe will manifest it. My adult son suffered a psychotic breakdown a year ago. He got better, but had a relapse a few months ago and had to come live with us. I got him to resume taking a medication that he'd stopped (not his main med..this is an antidepressant). When one resumes a medication, oft-times it won't work as quickly or as well, or sometimes not at all.

Well, two weeks came and went, then three...and he only seemed to be getting worse. But at the begnning I had told myself that 6 weeks would be the cutoff...if it didn't work after 6 weeks, it wasn't going to - but my intention was that it would work.. What do you think happened? Six weeks to the day after he resumed the med, he began to rise up out of his illness. It was spooky, but I "knew" it would happen.

So, don't tell me it's a bunch of crap, dude. Just by saying that, you negate any possibility of it ever happening for you. If you have negativity, you are negativity, and you will receive negativity.

Which reminds me...two atoms were walking down the street, and one turned to the other and said, "Ooops, I just lost an electron!" The other atom says, "Are you sure?", and the first atom answers, "Yes...I'm positive!".

Think about it.

[MrsCogan]

Originally Posted by Lil Chris

Originally Posted by MrsCogan:
"so persistent that it existed for billions of years before you were born and will exist for billions of years after you die."

LilChris:
Prove it...Prove it...

I don't have to. It was proved over 100 years ago. That ship sailed a long time before either of us was born.

[MrsCogan]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Nearly every cell in the body has renews itself within eleven months. Every eleven months a person has a practically new body.

Even if the universe is billions of years old that doesn't mean its "persistent." Its always changing.

"persistent" isn't the same thing as "static." Nobody believes the universe is unchanging.

[MrsCogan]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Go away, Mrs Cogan.

and I love you too . . .

Try reading "The Intention Experiment" by Lynne McTaggart and then come back and discuss.

Even if you don't want to read the book, try checking the bibliography at the back. (It will give you the references to the various scientific papers / journals discussing the various thought-related phenomena discussed in the book).

I'm not sure how you get an entire book out of "I wished for it and magic happened."

ah! I found their website and read about their experiments. They are really shy about telling you the details of how they conduct the experiments. They are equally shy about telling you exactly what "significant" means. I have a feeling there's a reason for that. I looked through it in Google books and couldn't find anyplace where they describe the experiments in detail. I could have over looked it. What chapter is it in?

[MrsCogan]

Originally Posted by RT Wolf

Just a question Mrs Cogan, how do you think that LoA works? While I've heard it said that super-LoA masters have the ability to materialize things (sorta like Jesus or Sai Baba), for most normal people, LoA is supposed to manifest intentions through meaningful coincidences or synchronisities.

it works through hit counting. If you intend something and it comes to you--however it comes to you--you count it as a hit. If it doesn't, you don't count the miss. You make an excuse instead. You had a negative thought, you didn't visualize hard enough, you ate a hot dog and now your body is impure, it was "not meant to happen."

As an example of correlation might be that I set the intention to exercise daily (barring illness or pain) for a month, on December 22. That same day (I just checked the timestamp on this and this is kinda freaky), I won a fitness DVD in the Subway Greatest Contest Ever Contest (out of 5000 dvds). Yesterday, I won three free months of gym membership (I think this might be only if I buy a year's contract but an interesting example none-the-less). For reference, I don't enter many contests, prolly entered about four-five in the last three months. There were a few other minor things related to my intention to become healthier.

and hundreds of people who desperately needed the dvd or the gym membership didn't get them. Weightloss/fitness promotionals are really common in December & January. If you hadn't "won" a reduced price membership you probably would have come across a coupon or a discount. You'd have counted those as hits also.

Phew, long post. Generally, though, I don't care about the details or minutae. I'm testing it for myself, and if it don't work, it don't work. If it does, then hurrah! And it seems to be doing something so far, so even if I'm wrong and IM isn't actually the real cause of my recent good luck, I don't think it can hurt me much.

whether or not it's true has to count for something. A harmless delusion is still a delusion. Make your goals, think about your wishes. Work to make them happen. If you grab a lucky break don't kid yourself that you somehow manipulated the universe with your mind. It will set you free (truth does that, I've heard) because if what you want doesn't come to you, it won't be because you didn't manipulate the universe properly or weren't "pure" enough.

[Acting Like Godot]

Well, Mrs Cogan, let me put it this way.

Further discussion is rather pointless because your current perceptions won't allow you to see what I am saying. That's just the way the LOA works for you.

For example, you claim to be a scientific person, yet when I say:

"refer to this book "The Intention Expeirment" and see the bibliography which will give you a few hundred references to scientific papers and scientific journals and scientific experiments done by different scientists all over the world over the past 30 years, each touching on some aspect of how thought affects reality"

none of what I say can be received by your mind. Instead you start referring to some experiment on some website which is not what I was talking about at all and of which neither you or I know enough to comment about.

You say that you believe only in science. Yet when I mention a few examples of science experiments relating to thought/reality, which have been done at leading universities such as Harvard, Stanford and Princeton,

again this eludes your perception.

You say that unlike science or chicken stew recipes, LOA is not testable. I then give many examples of how LOA is testable. I offer examples of experiments that have already been done, and I offer examples of experiments that could be done;

and once again this eludes your perception.

Effectively, if there are any points which challenge or threaten the way you currently perceive reality, you will either:

(1) simply fail to perceive them; or

(2) succeed in bringing yourself to ignore them.

It's the reticular activating cortex of your brain at work, you see? That's a key part in how LOA works in humans.

You can only perceive things which are consistent with your beliefs. And if on any particular topic or issue, you have closed your mind, then you will perceive nothing inconsistent with those beliefs. This in turn fortifies the feedback loop - since you perceive nothing inconsistent with those beliefs, you will subscribe even more strongly in those beliefs.

So further discussion is basically pointless, you see? For those whose minds are closed, nothing further will happen until they succeed in opening their minds a little.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by MrsCogan

it works through hit counting. If you intend something and it comes to you--however it comes to you--you count it as a hit. If it doesn't, you don't count the miss. You make an excuse instead. You had a negative thought, you didn't visualize hard enough, you ate a hot dog and now your body is impure, it was "not meant to happen."

Mrs Cogan, if you even went that far, I'd applaud. But you haven't even tried, have you? You woudn't bother - because for you, if it happens, it is surely just a coincidence, but if it doesn't happen, well, there you go - the LOA doesn't work.

You are guilty of the same self-rationalising behaviour that you accuse others of.

---

A few side notes, for those who are undecided about the LOA but have a sufficiently open mind to bother testing it:

Mrs Cogan does have a point. If you are currently undecided about the LOA, then from your current perspective, if you intend X, and it happens, a logical point of view is that it could be a coincidence; similarly, if you intend Y but it does not happen, a logical point of view is that LOA does not exist.

What you therefore may strive to do is where your hit rate is so high, and your miss rate is so low, that you would be inclined to conclude that your thoughts are really influencing reality. If you fail to get to that point, then the failure could be evidence that LOA does not exist.

So go test it out. Go be a real scientist at heart and in spirit. Unlike you-know-who.

For those who still instinctively cling very, very hard to their subjective perceptions of an objective reality, here is a suggested approach.

There is no need to immediately attempt to manifest what is, to you, sharply wild and inconsistent with those subjective perceptions. Start from somewhere just slightly outside the comfort zone of your current belief system.

What do I mean? Well, let me illustrate. Suppose you are looking for a new job and you would like to be paid well, and according to your current belief system:

1. "$3,000 a month is low for someone with my qualifications".
2. "$4,000 a month is the market rate for someone with my qualifications."
3. "$4,500 a month is what I could get, with a bit of luck."
4. "$7,000 a month would be really cool! Very unlikely, though."
5. "I really think that $15,000 a month is impossible.

Now, in terms of a LOA experiment, aiming for $4,000 is pointless. If it happens, it proves nothing to you as far as LOA is concerned.

Aiming for $4,500 could prove something, but not much. If it happens, you could still dismiss it as a bit of luck.

Aiming for $15,000 is dumb, because if LOA is for real, you should fail (due to your own limiting belief), but if LOA is not , then failure can also be attributed to unrealistic expectations in an objective reality - therefore failure is ambiguous for your LOA experiment.

Aiming for $7,000 is the best test. You believe it is possible (therefore LOA can work for you, if LOA exists) yet unlikely (therefore success provides some strong evidence of LOA being true).

Now, after you have achieved your "unlikely" success, you can go on to repeat your LOA experiments again and again, on different things. For experimental purposes, you can keep aiming for those intentions that stretch your belief system without bursting it - the intentions which you judge are "very unlikely" to be fulfilled, but are "possible".

If more and more and more "very unlikely" positive events keep occuring in your life, every month, every week, every day, seemingly in response to your positive thoughts, then you may eventually reach the point when you conclude that it would be illogical for you to still not believe that LOA works.

I've done my own experiments - I've drawn my own conclusions. My personal experiments still go on, but they're only a little about whether the LOA exists; the focus is really more on aspects such as what I can specifically do with it; and how I can use it with ever-increasing consistency.

Go do your own experiments. It's fun.

You can start the experiment at any time. You can quit it at any time. You can restart it at any time. It costs no money, not very much of your time, and (if you do not consider thought to be action), you don't even need to take any action over and above what you would do anyway, if you had never heard of LOA.

If your experiment fails to prove to yourself that LOA exists/works, you really have lost nothing very much. If your experiment proves to yourself that LOA exists/works, then potentially this is the greatest discovery you'll ever make in yur lifetime.

What logical reason could there be, for not trying? None.

Unless of course your mind is closed.

[Acting Like Godot]

Oh here's another tip for those of you who don't trust yourselves not to delusionally self-rationalise.

Record your IM exercises in writing, promptly after doing them. Eg suppose you've manifested for X, with specific details like A, B and C. Write it all down. This way, you won't allow your memory to fool you later.

That way, when something like X comes along one week later, you can check your written notes and be exactly sure about what you had manifested for, and compare it to what has actually arrived.

Also, if X never comes, even after a long time, you can check your written notes and note X as a miss. This way, again you'll prevent your memory from deceiving you (ie you forget what you had manifested, and therefore are unaware of how many misses you've actually had).

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by MrsCogan

Weightloss/fitness promotionals are really common in December & January. If you hadn't "won" a reduced price membership you probably would have come across a coupon or a discount. You'd have counted those as hits also.

RT Wolf probably would have. And he would have said, "Thank you very much." You see, the theory on LOA doesn't say that LOA has to fulfill your intentions in some bizarre or unusual manner.

In fact, the theory on LOA says that all events that occur in your life - including events which are perfectly mundane and everyday to you - are manifested by yourself. After all, every day, most of your thoughts are mundane and everyday.

Now, from an experimental perspective - and by that, I mean someone who is still undecided about LOA and actively trying to test it out - getting a discount or coupon as RT Wolf did is probably not going to be very compelling evidence of LOA. After all, getting a discount or coupon for gym membership can be dismissed as a perfectly mundane and everyday event.

But then RT Wolf is not experimenting, or at least that is not his main intention. His main intention is to exercise and get fit. So when the universe sends him free fitness DVDs, free gym memberships etc, he says "thank you" and moves on. Feeling pleased, once again, that little events seemingly beyond his control are once again spontaneously happening to support his very specific intention of exercising every day in December.

But from an experimental perspective - as I've already mentioned - what you probably want to do is experiment with the "possible but very unlikely" category of personal intentions. "Possible but very unlikely" being an assessment to be made according to your own belief system.

[moonrambler]

This is a fascinating thread and I have very much liked reading through it.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

You are saying that if a person fails to manifest successfully, it could be due to their goals are not aligned with greater good for all; or they weren't motivated to use LOA properly; or didn't learn the right techniques etc.

HOWEVER - what we're talking about in this thread (before it got heavily sidetracked by Mrs Cogan) are people like Dave Angeles and Floridagal. They apparently did everything right, knew all the LOA theory, practised and persisted with LOA for a considerable time (Floridagal even attended classes or consulted psychics or professional LOA coaches or something ), visualised, thought positive, felt positive ..... and still fell completely flat on their faces.

At the other end of the spectrum, a few individuals who frequent this forum seem to manifest their intentions quite easily, quite successfully and quite regularly. Me, for instance - I started experimenting casually with LOA only in mid 2006, and by 2007, my monthly salary shot up so much that I'm in the 98.5th percentile of all income-tax paying citizens in my country (and I'm not yet 35 years old).

So I am suggesting that this difference (in results with conscious creation) possibly has something to do with the natural distribution of a particular intelligence (intrapersonal intelligence).

I wonder about all this too. It is frustrating when working with IM on certain issues and nothing happens, and people will say it's because I'm not doing it right, or haven't done it long enough, or aren't positive enough, or whatever. There's no way to win at this. If the IM doesn't work, then it's always because I've done something wrong. I've come to a point where I don't believe this, because IM success shows up for me in startling ways, but in certain issues (money in particular), I fall flat on my face.

Money is a huge issue for me and it is the reason I found this website, because I've been spending a fair bit of time every morning working with affirmations, IM, PD, reading, and so on. An epiphany for me has been that I find it hard to attract money in easy, relaxed, healthy and positive ways; while being able to attract it in stressful and negative ways. This tends to be my attitude about money.

When I started this heavy concentration on IM for money a couple months ago, I started with the intention for an extra $100 that week. The next day, I discovered I'd made a $140 error in my checkbook in my favor. I was shocked that the amount was so close to what my intention was, that it was so immediate, and also because I don't think I'd EVER made an checkbook error in my favor before!

Ok, that was easy, relaxed, positive, and healthy. Next, I decided to go for $1,000 by the end of the month. I concentrated on that $1,000 like crazy. I woke up one morning and it was in the mid-50s in the house because the furnace had gone out. The furnace people showed up and said it needed replacing. It was 15 years old and had pretty much died. They got it up and running but said it could start spewing carbon monoxide and I had to replace it. Their first estimate was $3100.

I completely freaked. Completely. I had no easy way to get that kind of money right away. The only thing I could think of was cashing in a chip with a friend who I'd done a big financial favor for years back, who now is doing very well financially. She talked me down from my hysteria and got me to call around for estimates, and eventually my own heating contractor came down to a less expensive option for $2400. My girlfriend loaned me the money in cash. The heating contractor then said they would take half down. Poof, I had my thousand bucks.

I felt like Willow on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, unable to channel her power, doing things like asking for the group to be able to get through a locked door, and then having the door explode and the doorknob breaking Zander's nose.

I tried manifesting another $1,000 by specifying it as "income", but nothing happened.

So it seems to me that IM and LoA works, but I have a block in regard to this issue which is tough to break.

I get a lot of synchronicities/coincidences. I seem to have a peculiar talent in this area. However, they don't seem to point to answers to difficulties, they often seem random, though sometimes I seem to be able to get the ball rolling until it even gets a little disturbing.

[Acting Like Godot]

I have said several times that in the end, it is you who has to verify LOA for yourself, and be convinced of it by yourself. Why? Here's an illustration:

Originally Posted by moonrambler

When I started this heavy concentration on IM for money a couple months ago, I started with the intention for an extra $100 that week. The next day, I discovered I'd made a $140 error in my checkbook in my favor. I was shocked that the amount was so close to what my intention was, that it was so immediate, and also because I don't think I'd EVER made an checkbook error in my favor before!

We all understand that to really prove LOA to yourself, you'd logically look for a string of unlikely coincidences, actually occurring and seemingly in response to specific thoughts that you had had (as part of your own experiment).

But how unlikely is unlikely? This is something you have to decide for yourself. How unlikely are you to make an error in your checkbook? Some people often make such errors; some people would never make such errors ...

.... how unlikely are you to make a $140 error in your own favour, and discover it just one day after manifesting for $100?

Only you can judge, since you are the one who knows your own behaviour and habits best.

[Acting Like Godot]

As for you, Mrs Cogan, since you seem to have some difficulty understanding what a bibliography is, I've decided to scan two pages from the bibliography of the book I mentioned - "The Intention Experiment". Hopefully the scanned image will give you some idea of the kind of scientific experiments and discoveries that are discussed in the book.

Click to see:

IMG_0001.jpg (image)

[Lil Chris]

Thank you for your wisdom ALG... It is much appreciated.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I have said several times that in the end, it is you who has to verify LOA for yourself, and be convinced of it by yourself. Why? Here's an illustration:



We all understand that to really prove LOA to yourself, you'd logically look for a string of unlikely coincidences, actually occurring and seemingly in response to specific thoughts that you had had (as part of your own experiment).

But how unlikely is unlikely? This is something you have to decide for yourself. How unlikely are you to make an error in your checkbook? Some people often make such errors; some people would never make such errors ...

.... how unlikely are you to make a $140 error in your own favour, and discover it just one day after manifesting for $100?

Only you can judge, since you are the one who knows your own behaviour and habits best.

I couldn't agree more. This was highly, highly unlikely. I think the last time I'd made an error of this size was around 1993, and then it was not in my favor!

It seems like a quantum leap, though, to make the jump from manifesting $100 to manifesting $1000 (without having appliances self-destruct). When reading on this site about manifesting money, in the million-dollar experiment, I was looking at the baby steps advised, thinking, how hard is it to manifest $1? I'll bet anyone $500 I can manifest a penny in 10 minutes without asking anyone for one. Yet there are lots of people, I'm sure, who see my difficulty with the $100 vs. $1000 the same way.