Scientific sources that shows LoA is real?

[Sindre]

Originally Posted by mej023

My message stands and was specifically intended for Sindre.

I appreciate your intention, but I kind of agree with PlanetaryNapkin that you're "proof" isn't really scientific. Let's say you all of the sudden started to hear people reporting how they suddenly could start to fly... Just by thinking about it. And you still hadn't seen anybody fly, so you went to a "fly-forum" and asked for "proof". Would you believe me, or take me seriousely if I said "Hell yeah, I can fly, and my response to your question is scientific proof"?

I'm sorry to be the one bugging you about "proof", as I just recently had to deal with sceptics myself, and I had to give them my own best answers.. Now I have taken their place and ask you for answers. It's just out of curiosity.. Like I said, when people actually promote it as a law, or power, how credible is it if all they have to show for it is "well, at least I got my dreamhouse, and made my fortune by thinking this way"...

Btw, all you intention-manifesters in here - have you attracted your dream home/spouse/life/health yet? Or are you still waiting? Are you living the best possible life you could live, or could you do better? In that case, why aren't you there? When will you be there? Do you really believe in LoA or are you clinging on to the hope?

Hmm.. I got very much respect for Steve. He seems to me like one of the most intelligent people I've ever come across. If it wasn't for the fact that he regulary reports of results with LoA, I guess I would be much more on the sceptic side myself.

So does the Law reeeeaaaally exist in nature, or is it simply a way of thinking?

[mej023]

Since you do not believe that proof exists then it does not exist.

The fact that the statement above proves the law of attraction will be lost to you.

It's like proving that love exists to someone that has never experienced love.

That being said, everything that I see and experience is proof of the law of attraction because I know that thought creates reality.

The cool thing that we have here in this "physical" reality is time or rather the perception of time.

It allows us to explore, develop, make mistakes, expand and create. What more could you want?

Understanding the law of attraction allows me the freedom to ignore cold hard reality (If I want to). It allows my belief systems to be flexible.

I know what you want though. You want the secret. You want the secret steps that if you follow them then you too can have anything that your heart desires.

It is kind of a catch 22 though. Since your belief system dictates that there is no such thing then that is what your reality provides.

You can't look at something and then wish for its opposite. The mere fact that your looking at something causes you to vibrate at that same frequency.

You can't watch the comedy channel and wish it was the discovery channel.

That's what you are doing with your demand for scientific proof. You're watching the comedy channel and screaming for proof that the discovery channel exists and you don't have a remote to change the channel.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Sindre

Btw, all you intention-manifesters in here - have you attracted your dream home/spouse/life/health yet? Or are you still waiting? Are you living the best possible life you could live, or could you do better? In that case, why aren't you there? When will you be there? Do you really believe in LoA or are you clinging on to the hope?

Oh it has brought me a tremendous amount of benefit.

I'm not shy about discussing either. I used to give extensive details on this forum - for example, I would post my salary statements to show how my income has grown sharply since I started using the LOA; and earlier this year, I manifested a quarter of a million dollars in one lump sum - I posted the documentary evidence too. I also use the LOA successfully in many areas of my life - actually, pretty much everything; eg health; career; family etc etc; and yes, life does get better and better.

However nowadays I don't bother to post the details anymore, because I see that those who will believe, will believe anyway, and those who are skeptical, won't believe no matter what.

I do continue to keep fairly detailed, written personal records of my LOA experiments; it's been almost 3 years. Regular readers of this forums know where my personal blogs are. I promptly blog the details of my mind sessions soon after they are done, and I then use the blog as a diary to record how events subsequently unfold in my life.

When I first started keeping records, it was to monitor the success / failure rate to see if the LOA was real (I was rather skeptical at first). Over time, my own collection of evidence made me realise that it was illogical for me to doubt the existence of the LOA. I still continue to maintain the blog, no longer to test whether the LOA is true or not; but for the purpose of seeing how I can improve my ability to make it work more accurately.

A tip for the interested - "The Secret" is just a beginner's book. To learn more, you have to look elsewhere. You can learn a lot about LOA from books that do not even use the term "Law of Attraction". For example, you can learn a lot about LOA by examining areas such as religions; psychology; hypnosis; occult practices; meditation; and so on.

[Sindre]

Originally Posted by mej023

Since you do not believe that proof exists then it does not exist.

The fact that the statement above proves the law of attraction will be lost to you.

I really don't think you get my point. If I wanted scientific proof of the Law of Gravity, then I would go to a scientist and get it proved right away. But if I wanted scientific proof of Law of Attraction, then I just get the kind of statements you provide above. My point is that - when they actually promote it as something "scientific", they gotta have some scientific proof.

Or else, this is not yet scientific proven, and therefore should not be marketed as something scientific, because it's just a theory. A theory that seem to work for many people, myself included (when consciously applying the principles) but that doesn't give them the right to pretend it's something scientific, does it?

Just my thoughts.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Sindre

If I wanted scientific proof of the Law of Gravity, then I would go to a scientist and get it proved right away.

Technically this isn't correct, according to the scientific method. Scientific laws are never proved - they only fail to be disproved, despite repeated attempts. Anyway I am being pedantic.

But if I wanted scientific proof of Law of Attraction, then I just get the kind of statements you provide above.

No, you can look at scientific studies. What you would look for is studies that focus on how thoughts affect physical reality.

Naturally, few, if any scientists, conduct experiments with the deliberate intention of testing the Law of Attraction.

However, occasionally we do get scientific studies where there is some practical purpose which might be achieved through studying the effect of thought on physical reality.

For example, there is a medical study in Cleveland which shows that imagining gym workouts will contribute to greater muscular strength. Why was such a study done?

Well, the scientists were hoping to find a way whereby patients who had to remain immobile in bed for a long time (eg due to serious leg injuries) could nevertheless maintain their muscular strength, or reduce the rate of muscle atrophy.

That was the practical purpose. It's not as if the scientists deliberately set out to investigate the "LOA" as portrayed in books like "The Secret". Nevertheless their study sheds some light on the possibility of LOA.

Similarly, the "consciousness causes collapse" theory in quantum physics was not developed by scientists seeking to investigate the "LOA". Instead it was a phenomenonological theory, that is, a theory developed to explain observable, repeatable results in a scientific experiment.

It just so happens that the "consciousness causes collapse" theory also sheds some light on the possibility of LOA.

[gr8tocre8]

Look at the LOA in the same category as love; it can't be proved, but it's very real. When you love someone or something, the feeling is undeniable - it alters your life experience. When your heart gets broken, it's extremely tangible and very painful. Yet you can't physically prove that "love" is real.

All you can do is look at someone's life who has lots of love. They are very happy people. Then look at someone who does not have a lot of love. They're very unhappy. Of course, in order to experience love, you have to believe in it. Some people don't, and they never get to truly experience it.

Same thing with the LOA. Look at the lives of the people who believe in it and practice it to the fullest (being grateful, visualizing, taking inspired action, etc). They are very happy, fulfilled beings. On the flip-side, the ones who "kinda" believe in it, and aren't willing to do what it takes to prove it to themselves always seem to find themselves at arms length from their true goals and dreams.

...so since there is no physical proof that the LOA is real, I suggest to either lay it to rest - accept that without physical proof, it will not work, so why bother practicing disciplines. OR, embrace it with every fiber of your being - use the techniques and plunge headfirst into everything LOA. The great thing about that is, even if LOA was not real, simply by doing the work, your life cannot help but improve!

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by PlanetaryNapkin

Tautologies, like mathematics, are always, always, always capable of being proven conclusively true, because they operate separately from reality. Mathematics is based on the idea of equality -- something equals itself and only itself. Everything in mathematics stems from this, and as long as this rule of equality is obeyed to the fullest, all mathematical ideas are fully sound and fully provable.

Yeah. Funny thing about mathematics though: theories with a certain degree of complexity can be very hard to prove to be true for all applications and variables. One example is the Goldbachs conjecture which states:

"Every even integer greater than 2 can be written as the sum of two primes."

This is true for the four first even integers:

4 = 2 + 2
6 = 3 + 3
8 = 3 + 5
10 = 3 + 7 = 5 + 5

And most probably for even integers much bigger than this. But this theory has yet to be proven as true or false when it comes to the question of whether or not it holds true for absolutely all even integers. Put another way: it has not been proven to be true generally (the english math lingo is not something I am familiar with, forgive me). The theory was proposed in 1742.

Pierre Fermat proposed a ”formula” that was supposed to give primes every time. To cut to the chase, mathematicians had to try every increment in order to disprove it. And a guy finally did it, by proving that the number 4 294 967 297 (a sum given with the formula when the variable n=32) is dividable by 641.

Things like these does seem to almost be examples of ”pure mathematics”, even if they do have practical applications when it comes to generating complex codes. Maybe there aren’t so much difficulty in proving formulas that have more practical applications, I don’t know.

Some mathematical formulas are always true. Some formulas are true, but with exceptions and/or prerequisites, for example that X has to be a whole positive integer or/and that n has to NOT equal 0. It is interesting that such a thing as mathematics, a very ”basic” (though with the potential of infinite complexity) field can seem so situational, if you know what I mean. This doesn’t need to have anything to do with the LoA, but it can be interesting to see it in light of that. Maybe the LoA works with specific prerequisites (well, of course it does, but you get what I mean). Maybe the LoA the way it is proposed is not the most basic and straightforward formula that is necessary, and that there is actually a much simpler recipe for it then what is commonly believed. Some mainstream teachings say that there are three steps:
1. Ask
2. It is given
3. Allow

Plus they add onto things that you have to do for each step, for example that you have to look out for signs and opportunities at the 3rd step, and that you have to put the intention (1st step, ”ask”) out like a pure and noncontradicting intention ”out to the Universe”. Other teachers, like Abraham, says that the third step is all that we have to concern ourselves about, since the two first steps takes care of themselves. Most teachers do say that the 2nd step is not something that we have to take care of, but Abraham says that even the 1st step is not something that we have to think about. They go further in saying that in order to utilize the 3rd step, there are no set rule on ”things to do” other than to use our emotions as measurement of our direction. It seems like this approach, which according to them is the most efficient way of bringing what we wish into our experience, is even harder to empirically measure.

No matter which teachers that are right about this, I think that if one is to even come close to measuring this phenomen empirically, then one has to stick to a simple formula. Start with testing a simple formula and theory. Maybe walk before you can run, if you will.

[mctechie]

I would certainly class the famous 'double slit' experiment as scientific evidence for the LOA.

The bottom line of this experiement is that is shows that the concious observer (i.e. a person) affects the outcome of events simply by paying attention.

Heres a simple cartoon video explanation of the experiement - (I prefer this to the heavy-weather physics lol)

The Amazing Double Slit Experiment | Inspiring Films

Regards,
Martin C.

[fellowtraveler]

Originally Posted by mctechie

I would certainly class the famous 'double slit' experiment as scientific evidence for the LOA.

The bottom line of this experiement is that is shows that the concious observer (i.e. a person) affects the outcome of events simply by paying attention.

Yes, that's a good one. I'd love to read what "classic" physicists have to say about that one, but then I haven't looked that angle much, yet. I suspect they just shrug their shoulders.

Even more interesting to me is the concept of...ummm...my understanding is that once two electrons particles have been in contact, they are forever linked no matter the "physical" distance between them - what affects one affects the other. This apparently drove Einstein nuts - he called it "spooky action at a distance". Not sure how they experimented to figger that one out, unless it's pure math.

If you look at it as a whole in the simplest form...it's obvious that we and all creation are linked. My body's atoms as I sit here are mixing with the air molecules around me, which eventually touch the air molecules around you, which mix with your particles wherever you are. Fascinating.

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by fellowtraveler

If you look at it as a whole in the simplest form...it's obvious that we and all creation are linked. My body's atoms as I sit here are mixing with the air molecules around me, which eventually touch the air molecules around you, which mix with your particles wherever you are. Fascinating.

Sort of like the 70s Reese's ads

[richloaguy]

Here's your answer.

If you are searching for science proof of L.O.A. then you are in for treat as you probably havent seen this yet.

YouTube - Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment

(watch this 5 minute cartoon of double slit experiment)

This is the most famous experiment/breakthrough ever in quantum physics and was a milestone understanding for me personally, and if you can quantify the results you'll be famous.

I have a need to understand how the universe works, and LOA has become a religion to me. It led me to the "double slit" experiment.

Now if you watched it you will see that protons (light) behave differently when observed.

Einstein had to rewrite his theory of relativity because of it, and currently 80% of the worlds quantum physicists believe in the "coppenhagen interpretation" of this experiment which basically states

"matter does not exist unless it is observed".

That has been proven.

The movie "What the bleep; down the rabbit hole" is based on that experiment. So is much of our "new age" thought.

So the video will open your mind a bit. The teachings of "SETH" are currently the best description of reality as I see it.

Now beyond science experiments such as related schroinders (mispelled)"cat in the box" experiment dealling with realities of thought merging on a world scale into actuality (manifesting), there is not a lot of scientific proof beyond theories.

Watch this experiment again and again though as it is important.

YouTube - Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment
YouTube - Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment
YouTube - Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment

now affirm/visualize/meditate/ask for/intend and everything else you see here and keep tabs on your synchros. It will help with your belief.

I also have a youtube video concerning telepathy as I've had extraordinary results that were able to convince me. Try this experiment as well.
YouTube - Telepathy for dummies (easy proof with this method)
I manifested 20000 hits already.
i also have a simple loa video on will smith
YouTube - Law of Attraction Wisdom from Will Smith (the actor)

sorry off topic. Just wanted to explain that I'm not a novice and although I cannot offer James Randi type proof. I have proven enough to myself that I can never doubt again.

Isn't that all that matters. Knowing yourself.

Law of attraction is more valid than any other science as far as I'm concerned.

Yet that Double-slit experiment is one of the greatest discoveries of our time. It literally means that your bedroom does not exist when you are not in it.

If a lone tree falls in the forest it does not make a noise because it exists only as a possibility wave (wave of potentials). It cannot materialize into reality (particles) unless it is observed, and then it must fit with the expectations of others before it is actualized. (pause for breath)

good luck grasping it all. You can find thousands upon thousands of speculation on the double slit experiment. Try wiki though for 2nds.

The "E.P.R." paradox and schrodingers cat in the box experiment also are thinking type experiments as well. You have a whole new world to view.

good-luck period.

Hope it helped.

wayne

[Mindfuel]

Agree totally with everybody recommending What The Bleep. I have now reached the level of full faith in LOA now that I couldn't care less whether it is scientifically proved, as I have experienced so many miracles; but I understand that when you come up against sceptics then it is great to have some of this under your hat.

What The Bleep is a brilliant work (film and book) and will give you some good soundbites to throw at people when they challenge you.

However, I would advise you to maybe be discreet about the work you are doing with LOA to those who will be sceptical and rubbish it, and only share it with those who understand and are open minded. The risk is that your faith will be shaken (and level of faith is directly related to speed of manifestation) and you will block your own creativity. Later on, once you have full, unshakeable faith (and some personal examples of how LOA works!) then you will feel stronger about taking them on in debate.

Good luck and happy creating!

Vicky

[Marty McFly]

You cannot get "scientific proof" to explain the paranormal - which is subject to the experiencer's consciousness only. You can, however, observe nature and consider evolution - how animals adapt to nature to suit their needs. That's the law of attraction.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Marty McFly

You cannot get "scientific proof" to explain the paranormal - which is subject to the experiencer's consciousness only.

This assumes that scientists can never study consciousness - which is incorrect. Science can, and does, study consciousness - it's just that science hasn't very good at it so far.

Examples of how science studies consciousness would include scientific studies on meditation, hypnosis, neuroscience, sleep, brainwave activity etc etc etc.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by richloaguy

It literally means that your bedroom does not exist when you are not in it.

Do you really mean this literally? or is it

"It literally means that your bedroom does not exist in your consciousness when you are not in it?"

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Maguru

Do you really mean this literally? or is it

"It literally means that your bedroom does not exist in your consciousness when you are not in it?"

But, can anything be proven to exist outside of consciousness?

Right now, I may not be conscious of the moon, so the moon does not exist in my consciousness. You may give me sound arguments that it does exist, show me photos and videos and the moon’s effects on the tides, but all of that is just happening within my consciousness. Only when I am going home tonight and look up and see the moon, will it exist in my consciousness.

This can be applied to all scientific experiments, laws, theories and hypotheses. Does any of it exist until there is someone there to be conscious of it?

Let’s go back to primitive and Old Testament thought and phenomenological consciousness. For example, the sun is not a massive burning planet millions of miles away, around which the earth revolves. It is a small light above that moves from east to west. It is an image in the mind, part of you, it is not separate and external.

For many native tribes (and for children, come to that), this is still the reality: the mind, body, consciousness and all that ‘seems’ external, are all blended into one, with no distinct ‘I’ observing the external. The whole, combined experience is the ‘I’, with no inside or outside.

Since Renaissance times, or even earlier, the scientific movement has been attempting to prove that all which we thought was part of our consciousness, is rather, something external and objective. It has been most zealous in drawing out this ‘I’ from its surrounding consciousness, like pulling a fish out of water, out of its natural environment, by using the Western, rational method. We have been taught to believe, from an early age, that there is an inside and an outside, and that the ‘I’ is separate.

There were figures in the past, with a highly developed sense of being a separate ‘I’, e.g., Ghengis Khan and Alexander the Great. They were great leaders, but they were great egos as well, and subject to paranoia and depression, and other ‘modern day’ ailments.

Which view is correct? Which view makes a human being feel more integrated? Is it just a question of getting the right balance?

Scientific progress has given us marvellous technological improvements, but at what cost? Doesn’t the modern ‘I’ now feel more alone and alienated from itself and others, from all that is, as a result?

[IsaachElric]

i have heard of an experiment where they used machines picking random numbers. then they had someone meditate and visualize a certain number, and this number reappeared several times, even though it was though to be impossible to guess right.

if i am not mistaken, the experiment has been repeated several times, but has generally been ignored and frowned upon by the scientific community.

no wonder. science is supposed to be prejudice free, but it sure isn't. instead of investigating that which they cannot understand or explain with their current understanding, they quickly dismiss it.

[Acting Like Godot]

You were referring to Professor Robert Jahn's experiments at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research lab, at Princeton University.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Cantando

But, can anything be proven to exist outside of consciousness?

Right now, I may not be conscious of the moon, so the moon does not exist in my consciousness. You may give me sound arguments that it does exist, show me photos and videos and the moon’s effects on the tides, but all of that is just happening within my consciousness. Only when I am going home tonight and look up and see the moon, will it exist in my consciousness. This can be applied to all scientific experiments, laws, theories and hypotheses. Does any of it exist until there is someone there to be conscious of it?

In this case scenerio, the 'moon' existed in others' consciousness before it did in yours. You required personal proof. Here the question is, did the moon exist before anyone's consciousness became aware of it?
I believe our knowledge and perceptions of the unknown do not change the reality of it. The moon is the moon until we call it something else or it changes.
I suppose what I think is that the 'unknown' exists and until we become aware or consciously experience the unknown, we cannot know it exists.

Let’s go back to primitive and Old Testament thought and phenomenological consciousness. For example, the sun is not a massive burning planet millions of miles away, around which the earth revolves. It is a small light above that moves from east to west. It is an image in the mind, part of you, it is not separate and external.

I believe this shows the mind connection, but this is just our perception of what the unknown might be. Once we know or think we know the unknown, it becomes a part of our experienced reality.

For many native tribes (and for children, come to that), this is still the reality: the mind, body, consciousness and all that ‘seems’ external, are all blended into one, with no distinct ‘I’ observing the external. The whole, combined experience is the ‘I’, with no inside or outside.

Don't you think it's possible that the lack of knowledge, awareness and experience create the feeling of being blended into one? I'm not saying we are not all connected and that we are not all one. I believe we are.

Since Renaissance times, or even earlier, the scientific movement has been attempting to prove that all which we thought was part of our consciousness, is rather, something external and objective. It has been most zealous in drawing out this ‘I’ from its surrounding consciousness, like pulling a fish out of water, out of its natural environment, by using the Western, rational method. We have been taught to believe, from an early age, that there is an inside and an outside, and that the ‘I’ is separate.

There were figures in the past, with a highly developed sense of being a separate ‘I’, e.g., Ghengis Khan and Alexander the Great. They were great leaders, but they were great egos as well, and subject to paranoia and depression, and other ‘modern day’ ailments.

Which view is correct? Which view makes a human being feel more integrated? Is it just a question of getting the right balance?

Scientific progress has given us marvellous technological improvements, but at what cost? Doesn’t the modern ‘I’ now feel more alone and alienated from itself and others, from all that is, as a result?

Yes, I have been privy to a couple of eras and in one sense I am more physically alone and feel alienated to others and yet, here I am discussing a fantastic subject with you, whom I do not know at all. One loss, one gain.
Is there always a cost for progress?

I can see that you are searching for a uniting force as I am. "God, you have to be careful about using words like 'force', haven't you?" All sorts of perceptions and meanings are evoked and I really think communication is the key. The 'new spirituality' is all metaphores and is creating chaos in our understanding. However, chaos precedes calm and I believe we are moving through the unknown towards a 'common' known.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Maguru

In this case scenerio, the 'moon' existed in others' consciousness before it did in yours.

Others? Others?

What "others" can Cantando ever know to exist, without his consciousness?

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Others? Others?

The others in the plural YOU that was referred to in the scenario below.

Originally Posted by Cantando

You may give me sound arguments that it does exist,

[Acting Like Godot]

Correct. You cannot exist in Cantando's reality, if he had no consciousness. Neither can he, or I, or the moon, in your reality, if you had no consciousness. Reality is inextricably bound up with consciousness.

To put it simply, there is nothing that you KNOW about reality, which is not KNOWLEDGE, and KNOWLEDGE depends on your having consciousness.

There is nothing that you SENSE about reality, which is not a SENSORY PERCEPTION, and SENSORY PERCEPTION depends on your having consciousness.

There is nothing that you UNDERSTAND about reality, which is not UNDERSTANDING, and UNDERSTANDING depends on your having consciousness.

Even if anything exists outside your consciousness, you will never KNOW it. Because whatever you know, is merely a function of your consciousness. Whatever is outside your consciousness, you cannot know.

You may claim that the moon existed long before you had consciousness, but if you examine all the bases for such a claim, you'll see that all such bases depend on your knowledge, understanding or sensory perception of SOMETHING or the other. And there is no knowledge, understanding or sensory perception of ANYTHING, without consciousness.

The belief that anything could exist outside your consciousness is, as a matter of strict logical proof, totally unsubstantiated.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Correct. You cannot exist in Cantando's reality, if he had no consciousness. Neither can he, or I, or the moon, in your reality, if you had no consciousness. Reality is inextricably bound up with consciousness.

To put it simply, there is nothing that you KNOW about reality, which is not KNOWLEDGE, and KNOWLEDGE depends on your having consciousness.

There is nothing that you SENSE about reality, which is not a SENSORY PERCEPTION, and SENSORY PERCEPTION depends on your having consciousness.

There is nothing that you UNDERSTAND about reality, which is not UNDERSTANDING, and UNDERSTANDING depends on your having consciousness.

Even if anything exists outside your consciousness, you will never KNOW it. Because whatever you know, is merely a function of your consciousness. Whatever is outside your consciousness, you cannot know.

You may claim that the moon existed long before you had consciousness, but if you examine all the bases for such a claim, you'll see that all such bases depend on your knowledge, understanding or sensory perception of SOMETHING or the other. And there is no knowledge, understanding or sensory perception of ANYTHING, without consciousness.

The belief that anything could exist outside your consciousness is, as a matter of strict logical proof, totally unsubstantiated.

I believe "awareness" places 'it' into the consciousness and does not place it into reality.

Do you think the unknown (whatever the unknown maybe) exists within consciousness waiting to manifest? Or is the consciousness manifesting the awareness of something previously unknown?

What is your concept of consciousness? I use this definition...

con·scious·ness (knshs-ns)
n.

2. A sense of one's personal or collective identity, including the attitudes, beliefs, and sensitivities held by or considered characteristic of an individual or group: Love of freedom runs deep in the national consciousness.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Maguru

I believe "awareness" places 'it' into the consciousness and does not place it into reality.

I believe that "awareness" places "it" into the "conscious mind", which for most people cannot hold more than six or seven items at a time.

"Conscious mind" however does not equate "consciousness".

Do you think the unknown (whatever the unknown maybe) exists within consciousness waiting to manifest? Or is the consciousness manifesting the awareness of something previously unknown?

No, I think that the consciousness is vast, very vast, perhaps infinite, probably originating from God/source.

What is your concept of consciousness? I use this definition...

Then we are using the word very differently.

A man falls down, hits his head, stands up and finds that he has suffered amnesia. He can walk, talk, move around, make decisions as to what to do next, but he can't remember who he is, where he lives, or how he fell down.

According to your definition, this man has no consciousness. This is not how I am using the word .... In the sense that I use it, this man definitely has consciousness. And so does a dog, a cat, a snail, a fish.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I believe that "awareness" places "it" into the "conscious mind", which for most people cannot hold more than six or seven items at a time.

"Conscious mind" however does not equate "consciousness".

The concept I gave of consciousness is much more than just the conscious mind.

No, I think that the consciousness is vast, very vast, perhaps infinite, probably originating from God/source.

So what are you saying it is? A creative force? An energy? Intention? A knowing?

My perception of consciousness is from an individual level. The whole consciousness of a single human being. I believe you are looking at the whole 'life' consciousness that permeates everything, including the human being?
In that case, we would be looking at the same thing but from different angles. I just figured it would be easier to know this consciousness within the self rather than through the complexity of science or religion.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Maguru

Don't you think it's possible that the lack of knowledge, awareness and experience create the feeling of being blended into one?

Not necessarily. In fact, the reverse could be true. For example, an experienced tribesman hunting in the desert feels at one with his environment. He can sense a lot more things going on than a casual visitor would. Even at the point of releasing his arrow, he is not just being a ‘self’. He is in the zone, when ‘it’ just happens (as Bruce Lee once said). There is something truly magical about the experience.

Even though we appear as separate beings, we are constantly reminded through our culture, through our art and music, and even through science, of this urge to be connected, to be reunited. We constantly play out scenarios in our lives of leaving home, going away and returning, of wishing to be reunited with our friends and loved ones.

In a cosmic sense, we could say that the primal state is the womb (the female aspect), with the desire to be separate, to go out and explore, as the male aspect. Obviously, there needs to be balance (yin and yang).

Originally Posted by Maguru

I can see that you are searching for a uniting force as I am. "God, you have to be careful about using words like 'force', haven't you?"

I don’t recall using the word ‘force’. In fact, I am quite averse to using that word.

I don’t see it as a search, but rather, as letting go of negative, limiting aspects of the self, so that one is more aware as/of this primal state of being/consciousness, from whence all things arise. Force doesn’t come into it.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Cantando

I don’t see it as a search, but rather, as letting go of negative, limiting aspects of the self, so that one is more aware as/of this primal state of being/consciousness, from whence all things arise. Force doesn’t come into it.

The 'force' was my word in way of describing the 'consciousness' (your word) from whence all things arise. Surely this would be the primal life energy that unites everything?

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Maguru

The 'force' was my word in way of describing the 'consciousness' (your word) from whence all things arise. Surely this would be the primal life energy that unites everything?

I must remember to use ‘being’ instead of consciousness as we seem to use the word in different contexts.

I believe there is underlying ‘being’ which is eternal and which contains and supports the whole universe. From ‘being’ arise states of being, ‘selves', you and me. The underlying being-ness just is. States of being change and come and go, like waves on the ocean, they rise and fall.

What we think of as the ‘I’ is: ‘being’ identified as a separate, individual ‘state of being’.

You had a state of being when you were a child, when you were at school and when you were grown up. You have been through many states of being. What connects all those states – just ‘being’.

States of being manifest, channel energy and manipulate it. So, yes, there is a common energy which pervades all life forms, referred to as ‘chi’ in Chinese thought and ‘prana’ in Indian thought. ‘Being’ is contained within all life forms, and all life forms are contained within ‘being’.

So, everything is connected within ‘being’. Each one of us has the capacity to expand within ‘being’, beyond the limited concepts of self and become more as ‘being’. In doing so, we become more connected, more integrated, more happy and joyful.

You may think you lose consciousness sometimes, but you are still ‘being’ somewhere, at some level. If you were the only life there was, when your body died, you would still ‘be’, since ‘being’ is all there really is. You may not be conscious as ‘all being’ but you would still be in a ‘state of being’.

The moon only appears to exist because light from it appears to enter your eye and form an image in your mind.
If you pointed a sufficiently high powered telescope at the moon, you would not see anything except subatomic particles vibrating at great speed with great distances between them. There would be no apparent separation from the moon and anything else.

Our current reality is an interpretation, a model, and our sensory interpretations are part of that model. If there were no life forms in the universe, would the universe still exist? Yes, so long as ‘being’ wished it so. But ‘being’ would see it in a completely different way – as unimaginable structures of vibrating energy and particles.

The universe itself is an awesome, energy construction. It is suspended within ‘being’ because ‘being’ wishes it so, and it is visible to us since we have the sensory apparatus (constructed from the same energy) to make some ‘sense’ of it. Its reality (as we view it), however, is relative.

[richloaguy]

I like the thinking here.

My ideas on whats reality is pretty solid in my mind now.

That double slit esperiment that I emphasized earlier.
YouTube - Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment

cleared up a lot.

What if exist as completely spiritual beings?

The whole "created in gods image", or "on earth as it is in heaven" taken to another level.

What if "Ether/Source/Universe/God" came from nothingness (Edgar Cayce), began to contemplate its own emptiness and grew from experience. This immense "being" (lack of better word), seeks experience to grow. All experience great, good, bad, and awful.

We (god/source/universe/ether/ALL ONE); have divided into "spiritual families" for the purpose of experiencing many avenues.

All of our thoughts are immediately real yet are not necessarily apparent to us in our shared view. For items to manifest themselves in our lives they must not conflict with equally powerful thoughts of other "god/source/universe/oneness" spiritual entities.

We see flesh and blood, and it could have started out as "ether/oneness/source/universe/god" playfully turning itself into matter for fun.

To gain experience life was born. A combination of creationism and evolution transpired, and the Universe expands further.

Experiences can be great if someone overcomes adversity, however without adversity the experience would not be the same. This is why we have good and evil have also evolved. Manifestation at will may be possible, and on some plain of existence probable, yet for the purposes of our little experiment called life we go by certain rules.

These rules are self imposed. If 1 god wanted another gods farm/car/anything, and they could both manifest weapons instantly, then it could be very temultuous.

However since both "gods/spiritual beings" can create weapons instantly, perhaps their oneness and creative abilities could also be made to undo the other beings weapon.

Maybe reality has to fit. Maybe all of our thoughts, dreams, etc. must fit with the beliefs/powers of everyone around us.

It is not as limiting as it sounds.

Notice how your synchros operate. If you think a thought it will try to manifest itself as quickly as possible. The thought and reality of it exist while you are thinking of it.

Time is actually non-existent. There is only your present. I know you remember stuff, but history can change based upon beliefs.

Our lives are lived in many different "waves of possibility"

The Visionary Window: A Quantum ... - Google Book Search

Our "reality" is subject to outside influences by others "Beliefs".

So can you see an alien?
The answer would be more probably yes, if you were secluded. This would allow for many things to be "true". Maybe you could fly if you believed it with faith "as small as a mustard seed". Walk on water?

According to SCIENCE. Again with the double-slit experiment.
YouTube - Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment

We now know that nothing is "real/actuality/our perception" unless it is observed. One theory postulated by SETH, say that all matter consists of "ether/source/universe/god/all that is". The idea is that your toaster is aware that it is a toaster. Your stapler knows its a stapler. There is no "id" to worry about in them though. It is just a natural part of "all that is".

We see things based upon "human" perceptions. We all see things according to our own expectations. I do not expect to see a pig fly, so it doesnt.

We are spiritual and have grown in many ways, yet have forgot our path either by design or acceptance or both.

We choose our parents, and our pathway prior to birth. We grow spiritually through all experiences?

Why would someone choose to be born disabled? Maybe that is a growth experience the soul wanted. Some teach that reincarnation involves Karma, and I believe we are trying to elevate our vibrational levels to greater coincide with "all that is". It would give a new meaning to "hell on earth".

So my beliefs are my beliefs, and I'm sure to hear some religious arguments about it. In my belief sytem though, all religions are REAL, there is no wrong one. A combined thought makes it real on so many levels.

Now back to scientific proof.......
The double-slit experiment showed us "god".

YouTube - Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment

I copied this from another website, as it says it well.

It should be remembers that our ideas shape and mold our reality, so, God, has real impact on your reality.

Also, it is not appreciated how much mundane physical reality is directly affected by information. Young's double slit experiment proves that as does Einstein Podolsky and Rosen experiment involving correlated spins of widely separated particles, or any of a variety of delayed choice experiments. Hawking and Bekenstein also showed that the area of a black hole was a measure of its information content - which has other sppoky implications for all information.

So, there are direct spooky connections between ideas and mundane reality which are barely being developed by modern science and will continue to illuminate out place in the cosmos over time.

This aspect of ideas is developing along with an appreciation of the psychological import of ideas to shape perceptions of reality for each of us. For example, somone who believes themselves to be attractive, behaves in ways that are more attractive to others, while their perception is filtered to reinforce that belief. Similarly, someone who believes themselves to be un-attractive, behaves in offensive ways that make them less attractive, and their perceptions accentuate their beliefs.

So, looking at the world today, we certainly see God operating in the world in a wide variety of ways, and at a variety of levels - some beneficial - most not.

It seems we really are what we've been taught all along - part of God. And together, we are the whole thing. No wonder we are each as important as the other! No wonder we need each and every one of us. No wonder religions have taught us to love others as ourselves... we are each other.. we are one!

If you want scientific proof look towards "the double-slit experiment". It is the most unappreciated experiments ever. Spend a day googling it. We are so accepting of miraculous discoveries that we have ignored it.

Show this experiment to your friends and let them explain it for you. Once you understand that we have "proven" nothing is real.

sources
Quantum mysteries
YouTube - Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment
Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Copenhagen interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (of slit experiment)

You wanted science.......