Is The LoA A Con?

[Tim Brownson]

Well of course not many here think so, but where's the proof and why does the majority of the serious scientific community dismiss it out of hand?

Let me have your proof here, not hyperbole, coincidence and instincts because they are meaningless in the great scheme of things.

[Andrew Brunelle]

The reason they dismiss it is because they do not believe in it, thereby activating the LoA against itself. And no proof is needed because belief trumps proof.

[Angela]

Really? Instincts are meaningless in the great scheme of things?

[Tim Brownson]

<Groan> I thought after I posted that somebody would say something about the instincts things.

What I meant was scientifically speaking instincts are a useless form of proof. They are highly valuable in many things and I often encourage clients to back their instincts more often (even though it can be wrong).

Belief trumps proof, huh? Yeh that's what every religious bigot on the planet believes too. It's also such an easy cop out and has little value in an intelligent debate.

[Wax Frog]

Perhaps most here are also indifferent to the matter of proof?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Tim Brownson

Yeh that's what every religious bigot on the planet believes too. It's also such an easy cop out and has little value in an intelligent debate.

There are quite a few situations in my life where instinct trumps rational knowledge or debate.

It made me laugh to read your reference to "little value in intelligent debate" right after you <groaned> because I responded to what you said, rather that what you meant.

But as to your original post, what do you have to gain by obtaining proof? Are you just looking to stir up a nice debate? Cuz, boy, that's been done to death around here! (not that you shouldn't do it again, mind.)

[smartile]

Hi Tim,

What is the benefit of proving that it doesn't work? How does proving this help me or others?

If I'm not a deliberate creator then what am I? And what am I here to do?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Tim Brownson

why does the majority of the serious scientific community dismiss it out of hand?

Did they? I wasn't even aware that the majority of the serious scientific community had even studied it.

And I lurrrrrve your careful selection of words - "serious scientific community".

I suppose if I cite you the names of scientists from NASA, Princeton, Cambridge, Harvard etc who have done some research and do subscribe to some version of "mind over matter" theory, you will immediately say that they aren't members of the "serious scientific community".

And if I ask you, "Oh ... Why aren't they considered members of the serious scientific community?", you will reply: "Oh ... because they subscribe to some version of "mind over matter" theory".

Right?

[Tim Brownson]

ALG - So you think they are ignoring something that could change the course of human history do you? Yep that makes sense.

Some mind over matter (which I happen to believe) is not subscribing to the LoA.

@smartile - The same value as proving anything incorrect. I actually get what you mean and do see some value in people believing, but I also doubt you have had to deal with people that think their life is a mess because of something they did. It has no value in those cases because people don't say "Oh well now I know that I'll change this instant" Id love it if that happened, but it doesn't.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Tim Brownson

ALG - So you think they are ignoring something that could change the course of human history do you? Yep that makes sense.

In general, scientists ignore what cannot be studied scientifically. That happens to include history. The study of history is normally done by historians. Other things not normally studied by scientists include:

accountacy; business management; art; music; human resource management; philosophy; theology; sociology; political science; financial engineering; pedagogy; property markets; marketing; economics; law; linguistics; literature; media; architecture; interior design; values, morals and ethics; Microsoft Excel; modern trends in emigration; graphic design; actuarial risk; religion; and how to have good sex, hit a great tennis backhand and how to cook a good pasta.

Please do not say that accountants do not exist, because scientists have not proven accountancy.

The point here is that you have to be very clear. About what science can prove (or disprove); what science cannot prove (or disprove); and what science has not tried to prove (or disprove).

There are small little nuggets here and there; of scientists attempting to study consciousness and reality. Quite intriguing, but in general, they cannot be considered mainstream. Consciousness simply remains an area where mainstream science has made very little progress. We don't even have a base unit of measurement for it.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Tim Brownson

Well of course not many here think so, but where's the proof and why does the majority of the serious scientific community dismiss it out of hand?

I love it when people bring up examples in OTHER peoples lives why the LoA doesn't work. You simply cannot know what other people are thinking, and because of that, there is no point debating the so called "evidence" or lack thereof. If bad things happen to other people, and if it WAS the result of thought offered by them, you can't know it, they are not you, and you are not them. Unless you can read minds, there is no way to know what they were REALLY thinking. You are trying to test something that is predicated on belief itself. Look to your own life. The evidence is in your thoughts and the experiences that follow. If you believe in a random universe, that is what you will find. If you believe in an ordered universe, that is what you will find.

Does belief have an effect on observed reality? How could you possibly test that, objectively? And as a side note on beliefs. They are not necessarily binary in nature. That is to say, there can be percentages to the given strength of a belief. A 50% belief is going to have a stronger effect than a 25% belief. The only way you can ever know if the LoA is real is to try out some new beliefs, think some new thoughts, consistently enough for an effect in your life to be observed.

Having said all that, if you don't want to believe in the LoA, that is absolutely fine. It doesn't affect its usefulness in my life one iota. But I sympathize with your desire for evidence, it is certainly understandable to want evidence, but unfortunately it cannot come in a form removed from you. You can't separate yourself from the experiment. So you might call that a test of faith. No one is forcing you to believe, obviously, but try to keep an open mind (not so open that your brain falls out though).

The true nature of reality (which happens to be your own mind) is so enormously rich and deep it is unbelievable.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Tim Brownson

Some mind over matter (which I happen to believe) is not subscribing to the LoA.

Then it may well be that your personal difficulty with the LOA is nothing more than that you believe it to mean a certain thing, which you do not believe to be true.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Consciousness simply remains an area where mainstream science has made very little progress. We don't even have a base unit of measurement for it.

This is an excellent point.

[Acting Like Godot]

For those who don't understand, base units are the simplest units that scientists use for measuring the most basic properties that science can measure. For example:

kilogram is the base unit for mass
ampere is the base unit for electric current
second is the base unit for time
metre is the base unit for distance
candela is the base unit for luminous intensity

More complicated properties (that scientists are able to study) are expressed as combinations of various base units.

For example, speed is essentially a property measured by the combination of metre and second (or distance and time). Force is essentially a property measured in terms of the base units of kg, metre and second (or mass, distance and time). Thus, through base units, we can draw connections between every scientifically-measurable property with every other scientifically-measurable property.

Now, consciousness is not expressible in terms of any base units, or any combination of base units. Which means that basically, scientists are unable to measure consciousness. Therefore they are unable to establish, according to their own scientific method, how consciousness affects reality.

[Acting Like Godot]

I will give a simple example. So simple that it may seem absurd, but it is a valid example.

Suppose a ball is rolling towards an certain inanimate object X. Given sufficient information, a physicist can tell you exactly what will happen upon impact. Relevant information include:

1. the speed of the ball
2. the distance between ball and X
3. the co-efficient of friction between ball and floor
4. the mass of the ball
5. the mass of object X
6. the co-efficient of friction between X and floor
7. air resistance
8. the shape of X, etc etc.

In other words, given enough information, a physicist can tell you whether the ball will bounce off X, or X will be knocked over, or X will be pushed 10 centimeters 30 degrees to the left in a particular direction, or the ball's direction will be changed to 20 degrees to the right etc etc.

All of the above can be determined by slotting the relevant information into the relevant scientific equations.

Once consciousness enters into the scenario, however, the physicist becomes quite helpless. For example suppose X was not an inanimate object, but a conscious eight-year-old boy named Tim Brownson.

Tim Brownson's mind cannot be scientifically studied. Therefore the effect of his consciousness on reality, cannot be scientifically predicted. There is simply no known equation to predict what might happen next.

Tim might jump over the ball. Tim might step to the side, and let the ball roll by. Tim might kick the ball, as it approaches. Tim might stand still, and allow the ball to hit him and bounce off. Tim might stretch out two hands, catch the ball, put it into a plastic bag and walk off.

In each scenario, the ensuing reality will be different. However, the scientists are essentially helpless. Since Tim's consciousness cannot be slotted into any scientific equation involving base units, scientists cannot know how his consciousness will affect reality.

[smartile]

Originally posted by Tim Brownson
@smartile - The same value as proving anything incorrect.

And what would that be?

Inherently, nothing is right or wrong - it just is. If you want to be 'right' then say that.

If you are creating an empowering context to inspire others, then do that. If you are propelling others towards a greater good, then do that. If you are showing us that we can make a higher choice then do that (and I will listen).

[fellowtraveler]

Let's put this in context with some of your pre-packaged thoughts from that link you gave us:

One of the most distasteful aspects or more accurately by-products of the LoA is the high and mighty attitude of some of the devotees. Don’t get me wrong; there are some thoughtful, considered and intelligent people that support the LoA and they have my respect. However, there are also a lot of evangelical drum beating, smug types that hang around on message boards and think non-believers are heretics deserving of their wrath and occasional sympathy.

As the risk of seeming flippant, what the hell are these people doing on message boards defending their position. Can’t they do something more productive with their unearthly powers? Maybe they could manifest food for the starving, shelter for the homeless or a head of hair and waist size less than 40” for Joe Vitale.

So you came here with your lamp looking for an honest man? Or do you (like most sceptics) so want to believe in something that you try to provoke people into giving you the proof you so desperately want? It's a win-win, eh? You either leave the poor fools destroyed with your science, or you get the info you want.

Yawn...

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Tim Brownson

Let me have your proof here, not hyperbole, coincidence and instincts because they are meaningless in the great scheme of things.

One of the ways I proved the existence of LoA to myself when I was still skeptical was through the use of "Coincidence", so you might not want to dismiss it if you're truly trying to test if it exists or not.

See, in my opinion, for LoA to work in our personal worlds without it actually "breaking reality" is for it to do it's thing for us, but to leave everyone else's world alone.

Meaning, if me and you were at McDonalds sitting beside each other, and I wanted to manifest a free Big Mac, and inside my mind I focused my intention to get a free Big Mac and then 5 seconds later the manager walked over and said "Hi sir, I'm sorry to disrupt your lunch but we're currently doing a survey with our customers about the taste of our Big Macs. Would you like to have a free Big Mac and then fill out this online survey whenever you have some time?" ... that TO ME would be "Manifesting a Free Big Mac".

However, if I turned around and said to you "Guess what, I was just thinking about getting a free big mac right before that manager walked over here." you would think "Cool...what a co-incidence".

So, what's my point? Well... two things.

(1) You can't see inside another person's head to see what they are truly believing and thinking, so LoA can't be proven/disproven to you by someone else because even if someone tells you that they believed and used all the steps that the LoA teachers teach, you can never know if they are lying because we can't hear their thoughts or see their beliefs, so the only way to TEST LOA properly is via SELF EXPERIMENTATION.

(2) One way to prove that it exists to yourself is to use co-incidences. Meaning, you first have to establish in your mind what level of co-incidence would be so unlikely that you would have to attribute the event to LoA and not co-incidence. For example, if you tried manifesting a Pizza one day and then 7 days later someone offers you a pizza slice at work, that could be a co-incidence.

However, if you're sitting at home and you try to manifest a Domino's Large Tripple Pepperoni Pizza with Extra Mushrooms and 3 Cokes, and a Side of Cheese Sticks and you tell nobody about it and then the doorbell rings 5 minutes later and it's Domino's delivering a Tripple Pepperoni Pizza with Extra Mushrooms and 3 Cokes, and a Side of Cheese Sticks, I'm pretty sure you'd agree that this is fairly unlikely of an event to be a co-incidence, right?

If still not convinced, maybe for you, this type of even might have to happen 10 times in a row before you truly believe in LoA. That is the way that I proved LOA to myself, and a few of my friends.

[WordKeeper]

Tim Brownson's mind cannot be scientifically studied. Therefore the effect of his consciousness on reality, cannot be scientifically predicted. There is simply no known equation to predict what might happen next.

explain that to Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz and other neuroscientist who study the mind and the brain, along with Princeton's Prof. of Aerospace and Dean Emeritus Robert Jahn who studied consciousness. Their works, very different in nature from each other, involve quantifying the functioning of the mind.

[Niki]

I think the LoA is false. The people who claim to "know" it is working can't put proof on the table. It's always a twisting of words and arguments until their point is proven. If somebody who doesn't believe in the LoA gets rich it's because the LoA works and he unknowingly used it. If that same guy didn't get rich it's because he didn't believe in the LoA. If somebody who believes in the LoA gets rich it's proof it works. If somebody believes in the LoA but for some reason he doesn't get rich, he did it wrong...

[jawillie]

Originally Posted by Niki

I think the LoA is false. The people who claim to "know" it is working can't put proof on the table. It's always a twisting of words and arguments until their point is proven. If somebody who doesn't believe in the LoA gets rich it's because the LoA works and he unknowingly used it. If that same guy didn't get rich it's because he didn't believe in the LoA. If somebody who believes in the LoA gets rich it's proof it works. If somebody believes in the LoA but for some reason he doesn't get rich, he did it wrong...

But, it's not a matter of "believing in LoA" as if LoA were some kind of god or something.

I don't "believe in LoA".... I believe that I create my own reality.

[Niki]

Originally Posted by jawillie

But, it's not a matter of "believing in LoA" as if LoA were some kind of god or something.

I don't "believe in LoA".... I believe that I create my own reality.

With believing in I mean believing it works and that it is true. I also believe I create my own reality. But I don't believe I magically attract what I want in my life. I do believe that I can change my focus, and see things I never seen before, but this is just the reticular activating system in work.

[Mind Institute]

Originally Posted by Tim Brownson

Well of course not many here think so, but where's the proof and why does the majority of the serious scientific community dismiss it out of hand?

Let me have your proof here, not hyperbole, coincidence and instincts because they are meaningless in the great scheme of things.

Firstly, nice plug of your blog, together with a topic that is emotionally engaging for quite a few people...

my simply question: What does science have to do with it? And are you talking about, science ( the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment) or the nature of "scientific proof"(basically, providing opportunity for falsification through prediction), which in itself is an oxymoron.

Truth be told, our definition of science does not apply to this. And why are we so obsessed with science anyway, it is as if the unambiguous nature of science and maths is our new religion to compare anything to.

LoA is a metaphor that works for some people incredibly well. For others it might be NLP, or shamanics, or EMDR, or psychology (oh yes, that ain't a science either), psychiatry (=pharmacology), Reiki, Sound Therapy,.... whatever helps someone feel empowered and able to change things in their life is valid FOR THEM. That is all that matters, what works for the individual.

How about this: Love is a con. I want scientific proof of this "Love" thing. Not hyperbole, coincidence and instincts because they are meaningless in the great scheme of things.

[Niki]

Originally Posted by Mind Institute

Firstly, nice plug of your blog, together with a topic that is emotionally engaging for quite a few people...

my simply question: What does science have to do with it? And are you talking about, science ( the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment) or the nature of "scientific proof"(basically, providing opportunity for falsification through prediction), which in itself is an oxymoron.

Truth be told, our definition of science does not apply to this. And why are we so obsessed with science anyway, it is as if the unambiguous nature of science and maths is our new religion to compare anything to.

LoA is a metaphor that works for some people incredibly well. For others it might be NLP, or shamanics, or EMDR, or psychology (oh yes, that ain't a science either), psychiatry (=pharmacology), Reiki, Sound Therapy,.... whatever helps someone feel empowered and able to change things in their life is valid FOR THEM. That is all that matters, what works for the individual.

How about this: Love is a con. I want scientific proof of this "Love" thing. Not hyperbole, coincidence and instincts because they are meaningless in the great scheme of things.

Maybe for you it's a metaphor, but it is sold as an exact science in a lot of books . So science has something to do with it, they asked for it themselves. In reality, when science comes into play, it suddenly doesn't matter any more, because science is "not qualified".

[Angela]

Niki, I think you're on to something here, and you're right to listen to your instincts.

In my experience, there are just about as many approaches to the "Law of Attraction" as there are people who are doing the approaching. And it seems to boil down to a couple of ways of being: there are people who are selling it, and then there are people who are generating it.

The Sellers are the people who get something, or who have something to lose, in convincing others what they believe. (Not just about the LoA, either; you'll notice that it's a microcosm of the rest of their life, too.) I'm not talking about just money that they want to get or have to lose; sometimes it's righteousness or hope or sense of self, among other things. I think that one of the things that Sellers do is try to convince you, and themselves, that the LoA is The Truth, scientifically provable, and if you don't agree, You Are Wrong. Not that there's anything wrong with being a Seller!

The Generators have nothing riding on whether or not you buy into the LoA or anything else they talk to you about. These are people who have noticed that, like love, principles of the law of attraction work really well in their lives, and they are fun to practice generating for themselves and for others. They would love to make their discovery available to others (to generate it for others) because that generates love and joy for the world, not as something that an individual avatar *gets.* Not that being a Generator is "right"!

And sometimes a Generator gets so caught up in making it available that they slip into Selling. Often you'll see them catch themselves and apologize or back out of the sellingness or simply say, "well, just try it for yourself, or not." For me, generating feels better and works better than being a seller, and others will surely disagree about this whole concept. It's not a science.

For me, what works really well is the school of thought that deliberately thinking thoughts that feel good when you think them tends to open up generous pathways for more feeling good to flow. And likewise, when I fall back into thinking thoughts that don't feel good when I think them, I am tying a knot in the hose and preventing good feelings from flowing. That's what the Law of Attraction is for me. You don't have to buy anything or believe in anything; there is nothing to prove, only to notice. Do you feel good, or is there something missing that you could be letting go of or generating that would make a difference? And of course, not everyone is interested in deliberately feeling good, and that's fine. My preference would be that everyone would be interested in feeling good on purpose, but I've noticed the Universe doesn't always go along with my preferences!

If you feel like you're being conned, it's probably a good idea to pay attention to that feeling. And you might have something really valuable available to you if you explore why you're attracted to something and feeling conned by it at the same time -- like, what would this provide? What do I have to lose? I mean that not rhetorically but literally: what specific quality or condition might I risk losing if I were to try on this perspective? And: Is that The Truth? Can I really lose that thing?

Anyway, that's how I feel about it. Do I sound like a Seller? I'm not trying to convince you of anything -- I trust you to make your own great evaluations in what works for you and I know you do the same for me. And I'm grateful that you're listening, because writing this helps me to clarify what I'm seeing, and to understand my own thinking on the subject and to be connected with you. Thank you very much!

Lots of love,
Angela