There is no Science Behind Intention-Manifestation

[John Wesley]

Because someone started a thread about I-M and tried to discourage people with opposing view points from posting, I thought I'd start a thread with the opposite position. All replies are welcome.

I personally do not believe in I-M. Correlation does not equal causation. There is a connection between intentions and results, but the bridge between them is action. Without action nothing happens and all those great intentions are merely day dreams.

Intention Manifestation is another "system" concocted to sell books to people that don't want to think independently.

[Dharma]

and how do you define action? Is it physical? Volition? Energetic? Mental movement? Emotional movement? Multi-dimensional movement?

[unknown]

For me I-M is real. I notice it first when I was 13 (hmm.. seven years). There happened things without my action. Maybe there is no science behind I-M but it works If I wasn't so slow at writing in english, I could tell at least 8 stories.

You didn't tell about science witch prove there is no I-M. Would you like to tell me?

[John Wesley]

I would define action as physical. Moving things, writing code, creating, building. The only thing that manifests anything is hard work, or perhaps fortune, but we have no control over that.

I didn't intend to attack I-M. There is a lot to be said for positive thoughts and intentions, but I wouldn't go as far to call it a real theory with scientific backing.

[infinitethoughts]

Hey John,

If you don't believe in I-M what are you doing on a forum for I-M ?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by unknown

You didn't tell about science witch prove there is no I-M. Would you like to tell me?

Science can neither prove nor disprove the subjective, because science relies on experiments being isolated and repeatable. I can not put my consciousness into a jar and watch the results... Even if I had already done so (one hypothesis which explains the nature of reality), I wouldn't be able to objectively observe the experiment because I would be within the experiment. Also, nobody is able to exactly reproduce someone else's thoughts within their own mind, so it is impossible to repeat any experiments which rely on the thoughts of the subject.

I-M is non-scientific, not anti-scientific, so the original poster in this thread is right in saying that "there is no science behind intention-manifestation."

With that being said, however, I have seen many examples of I-M working in my own life, and as expected, when I believe that I-M can not work, it does not work, and when I believe that I-M does work, well, it works. Despite I-M being non-scientific, I am working on an experiment for myself, to see what the effects of physical symbolism may have on I-M. I'm trying to be as neutral about the results as possible, but again, I can't put my consciousness in a jar.

[John Wesley]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

Hey John,

If you don't believe in I-M what are you doing on a forum for I-M ?

Thanks for asking. Are you the person who started the original thread that I replied to?

I'm in a forum about I-M because I felt like discussing it and debunking the original one-sided thread claiming I-M is a science. But in the end, just believe whatever works for you and I will do that same.

[Angela]

Here's a non-scientific experiment I've performed which has had a 99.98% success rate (and 75% of statistics are made up on the spot.)

I'm with a man -- known, unknown, mailman, doctor, blind date, ups guy, grocery shopper -- and say to myself - silently - "this man is the most attractive guy I've ever seen." Which may or may not be true, doesn't matter. I cannot remember even one time that this experiment has not resulted in the man responding suddenly and favorably with extreme interest. They just light right up. I've left my statistic at 99.98% because it's possible that I have forgotten someone, but I don't think so.

My point is the only action involved in this scenario is a simple thought, and it has a rather profound outcome. There's probably a way to test this scientifically, but why would I bother? Probably there are physiological effects that I put off - pheromones, pupil enlargement, miscellaneous erections, etc. that I'm not conscious of but that would scientifically explain why men react the way they do. But it's just way too much fun using my "magical" power (for good, not evil, I swear!) to take up my time attached to electrodes in order to convince anyone else.

LoA etc. is the same to me. I'm a little surprised that the folks here who have success with IM feel the need to convince anyone else. Seems like y'all might just have more fun going out and manifesting love, joy, abundance, a jaguar, raucous sex, vitality, or whatever your heart desires!

Also, John Wesley, it doesn't require spending money. In my case, I received a book as a gift, but there's always the library!
Love,
Angela.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by John Wesley

Thanks for asking. Are you the person who started the original thread that I replied to?

I'm in a forum about I-M because I felt like discussing it and debunking the original one-sided thread claiming I-M is a science. But in the end, just believe whatever works for you and I will do that same.

Sure its a science. Apply the same scientific procedures and you'll see results.

I don't see any problem doing tests with groups of people, where they intend things and within a certain amount of time, that will happen.

Am I going to do those test? No. I don't need to, I know and have proven it works.

But what I would like to do is make it more accessible and find out more the reasons behind it. Hence my original post. The Science behind Intention-Manifestation.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by John Wesley

Because someone started a thread about I-M and tried to discourage people with opposing view points from posting, I thought I'd start a thread with the opposite position. All replies are welcome.

I personally do not believe in I-M. Correlation does not equal causation. There is a connection between intentions and results, but the bridge between them is action. Without action nothing happens and all those great intentions are merely day dreams.

Intention Manifestation is another "system" concocted to sell books to people that don't want to think independently.

It seems to me as if you're agreeing with IM. You stated your beliefs and claim that you live in a reality that's congruent with them, which is the essence of IM.

I guess the difference is that you're implying that external reality conditions your beliefs rather than vice versa, but that assumption is itself a belief, so you're still 100% congruent with a reality in which your beliefs are causal.

Can you provide any evidence to prove that your beliefs don't create your reality? It seems to me that your reality is still fully congruent with IM.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

It seems to me as if you're agreeing with IM. You stated your beliefs and claim that you live in a reality that's congruent with them, which is the essence of IM.

I guess the difference is that you're implying that external reality conditions your beliefs rather than vice versa, but that assumption is itself a belief, so you're still 100% congruent with a reality in which your beliefs are causal.

Can you provide any evidence to prove that your beliefs don't create your reality? It seems to me that your reality is still fully congruent with IM.

The only difference being whether you're consciously aware that you're creating your own reality or just living in a world created by your subconscious.

[maryelyn]

there was a belief that the earth revolved around the sun rather than vice versa long before there was the 'science' that proved it.

so...were those who believed it anyway 'unscientific'?

i'm cool with science. i love science. i just don't think that it's the answer to everything.

[Michael Chui]

One: Science is not a belief.

Two: Science cannot prove anything; it can only disprove.

Three: I-M is treated by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. You cannot regard it completely unless you are outside the system. Good luck making your way there.

[Radical]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Can you provide any evidence to prove that your beliefs don't create your reality?

Yes, when I was a kid I firmly believed in Santa Claus. I believed he was a mystical being with a red suit and white beard, and I believed he flew around on a sleigh pulled by reindeers, delivering presents to children all over the world at Christmas. However, I soon found out the truth when my parents disillusioned me. It was my dad all along, even though I strongly believed it was Santa Claus bringing me presents and eating my cookies.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by John Wesley

I personally do not believe in I-M. Correlation does not equal causation. There is a connection between intentions and results, but the bridge between them is action.

Sure. Thought is action. Just by thinking, I am able to alter the molecular structure of water.

Just ask Masaru Emoto.

[TheColonel]

Originally Posted by Radical

Yes, when I was a kid I firmly believed in Santa Claus. I believed he was a mystical being with a red suit and white beard, and I believed he flew around on a sleigh pulled by reindeers, delivering presents to children all over the world at Christmas. However, I soon found out the truth when my parents disillusioned me. It was my dad all along, even though I strongly believed it was Santa Claus bringing me presents and eating my cookies.

That's hilarious. I thought about the act of deceiving my kids last week. I don't like it. But that's for another thread...

[Steve Pavlina]

Since only the present moment is real, then within the scope of IM all that matters is what you believe right now. A past belief is only an illusion, an echo of a present belief.

So if you don't believe Santa Claus every really existed, you'll manifest a past, present, and future that are congruent with that belief.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

One: Science is not a belief.

Two: Science cannot prove anything; it can only disprove.

So science should be able to disprove the notion that it's a belief.

Let's see it...

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

So science should be able to disprove the notion that it's a belief.

Let's see it...

Actually, near as I can tell, it's just a condensed version of sociology. I think it's correct.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Since only the present moment is real, then within the scope of IM all that matters is what you believe right now. A past belief is only an illusion, an echo of a present belief.

So if you don't believe Santa Claus every really existed, you'll manifest a past, present, and future that are congruent with that belief.

Aha! An answer to a totally different question I had before. What you're saying then is that via IM we can change the past. Meaning, there is no past or future, there is only now, and in this momen we remember the past a certain way. For example, we remember that our job pays X amount of dollars per year, but if we really want to manifest a higher paying job in the present moment we could manifest that immediately, without delay, it's just that our memories of the past would change and we would believe "what do you mean? I've always made $100k/year at my job."

In other words, Intention Manifestation is instant in the present moment, it just might take some time to get to the point when it's instant. Hard to explain, but I get it.

[Nelson]

If you don't think there is any scientific basis for the power of thoughts and intentions then you are mistaken. I suggest reading "The Hidden Messages in Water", it will truly open your eyes to the power of our thoughts.

Thoughts are energy, plain and simple. They are ACTIVELY producing change in the world around us. You can say that hard work is the only process that actually creates results - however, I say that our conciousness works very hard to attract the reality we are aligned with.

[Kristoffer]

Originally Posted by John Wesley

Intention Manifestation is another "system" concocted to sell books to people that don't want to think independently.

Many of the critics of IM seem to be very concerned with the risk of the "believers" being victims of different types of frauds or scams.

Thank you for your concern. But I have not spent any money on SP or any other I-M proponent.

I guess I-M is what you want it to be. For you it is an obstacle to think independent, for me it is the opposite. Since I started applying it I have got a lot more radical ideas, and followed through with them.

My blogs are now starting to make money and I have had victories in Martial Arts tournaments! This is not because of some mystical force, nor some scam sect. It is simply because I made up my mind to do it. For me it is as simple as that. If I can imagine it, I can make it happen.

[John Wesley]

It's funny we keep debating an obvious matter of opinion. I think the only thing that actually bothers me about I-M is that people have slapped a name on it, called it a proven theory, and act like it was invented in the last few years.

[Kristoffer]

Originally Posted by John Wesley

called it a proven theory, and act like it was invented in the last few years.

Personally, I do not call it a proven theory. I see it as a keeping a positive attitude. The film "The secret" claims the concept has been around a long time with many "examples" from historical peoples writing.

What surprises me is how it can be such a provocation and make people angry. What is it that you find offensive about it?

[Radical]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Since only the present moment is real, then within the scope of IM all that matters is what you believe right now. A past belief is only an illusion, an echo of a present belief.

So if you don't believe Santa Claus every really existed, you'll manifest a past, present, and future that are congruent with that belief.

I find the notion that factual past events are volatile and somehow fabricated by our present beliefs to be quite preposterous.

If that was the case, then how could we ever form a belief in the first place?

If reality was indeed totally defined by subjective beliefs, then what caused the first belief?

I'm sure you don't really believe that your entire past is just a fabrication of your current present beliefs, and that if you truly believed you were president at some point, then you could radically alter American political history... do you?

[TheColonel]

Originally Posted by Kristoffer

What surprises me is how it can be such a provocation and make people angry. What is it that you find offensive about it?

My theory is that whenever a person's identity is challenged, they defend. And 'definition of reality' falls squarely into a person's identity.

Many times, a decoy motive is used to explain the anger. Such as: "Somebody needs to protect all of the gullible masses who will be suckered into buying a bunch of useless nonsense."

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by John Wesley

It's funny we keep debating an obvious matter of opinion. I think the only thing that actually bothers me about I-M is that people have slapped a name on it, called it a proven theory, and act like it was invented in the last few years.

I can see where you're coming from. My opinion is due to mankinds proven short term memory loss, I would say it's definitely a good thing there are people around reminding us about how powerful we really are.

Originally Posted by Radical

I find the notion that factual past events are volatile and somehow fabricated by our present beliefs to be quite preposterous.

If that was the case, then how could we ever form a belief in the first place?

If reality was indeed totally defined by subjective beliefs, then what caused the first belief?

I'm sure you don't really believe that your entire past is just a fabrication of your current present beliefs, and that if you truly believed you were president at some point, then you could radically alter American political history... do you?

Here's my two cents on the subject.

The common conception of time is actually incorrect. Ask any physicist and he will grudingly agree. I say grudingly cause it's a hard pill to swallow that for thousands of years our common conception of time is incorrect.

Google time and quantum physics, you'll see.

[infinitethoughts]

Oh and John I'd like to set the record straight. Not to happy the way you worded what you said.

Originally Posted by John Wesley

Because someone started a thread about I-M and tried to discourage people with opposing view points from posting,

In order to get successful results from a thread, you have to stick to the subject. I started the thread The Science behind Intention-Manifestation to try and document all the methods people use succesfully and then have that available to cross reference.

I did not start the thread to debate I-M.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

Google time and quantum physics, you'll see.

An obligatory response: did you manifest those results?

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by Radical

If that was the case, then how could we ever form a belief in the first place?

If reality was indeed totally defined by subjective beliefs, then what caused the first belief?

The answer to both questions is choice. That's all a belief really is. You're free to make whatever choices you desire, including the option of believing that you have no choice.

The only choices that matter are those you're making right now through the application of intention plus attention. There are no past choices, only present ones.

I'm sure you don't really believe that your entire past is just a fabrication of your current present beliefs, and that if you truly believed you were president at some point, then you could radically alter American political history... do you?

The past doesn't exist at all. It's merely a formless concept. Only the present is real.

If you change your beliefs about the present, the past doesn't need to be altered since it isn't real to begin with.

Referencing the past is a convention of communication which has its uses, but the past has no actual presence in physical reality, no more than Santa Claus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Try your hardest to show me the past, and all you'll do is show me part of the present. The past is purely in your imagination, a mental delusion you're choosing to subscribe to.