Manifestation Experiment - Easy Way to Learn About LOA

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Angela

Well, I don't know if I changed the nature of reality -- I just know I changed the content of reality. That is, how the world occurs for me. ("How the world occurs" is how I would define reality.) By changing what I believe.

I wonder about how this works. Do we create an entirely different reality that did not exist a moment before? Do we tap into a reality that already exists? Do we create a reality subjectively that already was there but we were unable to see it because we didn't believe it was possible? Are we tapping into the universe so that we get good at being in the right place at the right time? Does it matter?

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Actually, I think everyone is working on their personal growth at all times, whether or not they realize it. Does the tree ever stop trying to grow? Only if it's dying, I suppose.

Yes, I think you're right. I think I spend too much time pondering these things.

Note for myself: Stop being so cerebral. Relax, go and have a beer, watch a comedy show!

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

I don't owe you an apology.

That is so. You do not.

...He didn't even come to your house to perform....you would be working on walking through walls or gliding from building to building.

Those are not my choices, either consciously or consciously. Except, once in awhile, the gliding from building to building thing, and I DO do that. Your choices (walking on water, walking through walls) don't inspire me at all, but I'll think about that having Goran Bregovic over to my house thing. That might be fun. (If I liked you more, I would tell you about the many other famous musicians who have performed in my house, and how easily and effortlessly I created that. )

You believe something

I believe you didn't read, or didn't understand, what I wrote earlier in the interest of presenting another perspective, and I believe you are not interested in understanding or seeing another perspective. I believe you are one of the win/lose projections I was speaking of earlier, and that's fine, but I prefer to hang out with Win/Win projections as a matter of choice, so I'm uninstalling you now. Bye!

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Angela

If I liked you more, I would tell you about the many other famous musicians who have performed in my house, and how easily and effortlessly I created that. )

Always nice to keep some forces in reserve

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

A belief is where the magic starts.

It can also be where delusions and heartbreaks start as well: 'Look at me, I'm going to fly off the Eiffel Tower. Wheeeeeeee! Splat!'

So if someone were to tell me that it was possible to turn the moon into cheese, I would probably think it was quite silly... but completely impossible? Well yikes, I don't want to be the fool who doubts the airplane.

I wouldn't think it was silly. I believe that one day it may be scientifically possible to turn the moon into cheese (as I explained in my post). What I was claiming was that it could not be done solely by believing it.

Just by having a belief in your mind is not going to change the molecular structure of something. It takes a bit more than that.

Having a scientifically, verifiable idea that a plane can be built and flown, then going ahead and building it, is not quite the same thing as thinking something will pop into existence solely because you believe it will.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Having a scientifically, verifiable idea that a plane can be built and flown, then going ahead and building it, is not quite the same thing as thinking something will pop into existence solely because you believe it will.

I agree. And I don't think 99.9999% of people are currently capable of making an airplane pop into existence (in the way that you mean it). But I'm open to the possibility of people having these sorts of abilities, like Jesus Christ for example. I would have to see it with my eyes to believe in such a claim though. I'm very much a "Doubting Thomas."

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I agree. And I don't think 99.9999% of people are currently capable of making an airplane pop into existence (in the way that you mean it).

Doesn't sound like a very high success rate for LoA practitioners, then, considering that LoA is based on the premise that you instantly create/manifest absolutely everything in your reality (including the physical) through your thoughts and beliefs!

[Angela]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

I wonder about how this works....Does it matter?

Hey, moonrambler. I look at it this way: it's like eating ice cream.

Every time I've eaten ice cream, with a few exceptions, I've enjoyed it tremendously. I'm pretty sure someone somewhere has some kind of a natural world explanation for why that is, and that's fine -- that's their game, and that's something they enjoy tremendously. I enjoy natural world explanations, too, but it's not so important to me in the case of subjective reality, although it's not hard to imagine that it might be someday.

Meanwhile, it's possible that I could eat some ice cream and not enjoy it thoroughly. That time I tasted coffee crunch, for example, and also the time I re-filed ice cream in the same part of my brain that I keep frozen yogurt. Yechh. It would be possible to say, "I don't like eating ice cream" and with the perspective of these examples, it would certainly be true. And as a way of operating in a life I love, "I enjoy eating ice cream" works really well for me -- and it works well to use that mode responsibly. I wouldn't, for instance, want to eat nothing but ice cream, or talk about it all day long. You could say that eating ice cream is one tool among many that I use in getting the results I want in the human game.

I'm not interested in proving to anyone that I enjoy eating ice cream, because I recognize that it's a subjective experience, but I do enjoy sharing things that work well for me, so I'm likely to offer you a bite of my cone, or recommend chocolate mousse royale from 31 flavors, because maybe you'd like it, too. Especially if you come onto a forum thread and ask, "why would anyone enjoy eating ice cream? what's that all about? is it healthy and ecological? I don't think it's a good choice because dairy is bad for you. know of any alternatives? what's your favorite flavor?"

That's a good metaphor for my using subjective reality or the law of attraction. I've noticed it works really well in my life, and I like to share it with people who are genuinely interested. Plenty of people would like to have a taste, and plenty of people are not interested, and plenty of people say, "Hey, you shouldn't be eating that!" And that's all fine with me.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Cantando

considering that LoA is based on the premise that you instantly create/manifest absolutely everything in your reality (including the physical) through your thoughts and beliefs!

Do you know many people who truly believe that they can instantly pop an airplane into existence? I'd guess about 99.99999% of people don't think they can. So LoA says, "Okay then, you won't."

And the delusional man who jumps off a tower and falls to his death? I don't think he really believed he could fly. If he did, then he wouldn't have taken the elevator to the top.

[Angela]

I'm uninstalling you now.

Speaking of instant manifestations, take a look at Kanzeon's status.

I must remember to be careful with this power!

[TonyToneTone]

Originally Posted by Angela

Speaking of instant manifestations, take a look at Kanzeon's status.

I must remember to be careful with this power!

Whoa! What did he get banned for?

[Daffy Duck]

He was walking the offensive line for a while. He made some strong statements towards Angela when he said she was lying, but I've also seen ALG imply strong things towards others as well, so we can't warn one person for something and not warn others for similar actions. That's not fair.

But then he crossed the line when he said things like:

I find you, Mr. Godot, quite disgusting.

You lack the intellectual maturity to have a reasoned, focused discussion.

You have nothing to offer anyone.

The last line was especially ironic, as this forum alone shows that people are thankful for ALG's posts, thus proving Kanzeon wrong.

A proper debate has has no need for personal attacks. They will only attack the argument. The viewers of the debate can decide for themselves whether or not the participants are crazy.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Just by having a belief in your mind is not going to change the molecular structure of something. It takes a bit more than that.

But Cantando. That particular one has already been established by science. In fact Dean Radin has gone to Round 3 of his experiments with how thoughts affect the shape of water crystals, and each experiment has been more stringent than the next.

Entangled Minds: Water crystal replication study

(Okay, technically the change in shape of the crystals do not reflect a change in the molecular structure of the water, but a change in the hydrogen bonding between the water molecules. But close enough).

You see, this is the peculiar thing about the LOA. People will often say, "It can't be true, because if it were true, someone could just think XYZ and then XYZ will happen." And XYZ will represent their best personal attempt to find a ludicrous, impossible example, one that will hopefully disprove the LOA.

But even then they usually fail.

1. For your XYZ, you mention changing the molecular structures with thought. But I just cited you an scientific experiment which, at the very least, suggests that this is possible,

2. In another thread, for his XYZ, Kanzeon mentioned levitation. But I cited numerous instances where this has reportedly happened.

3. Kanzeon also mentioned leeches, and how they have no medicinal value even though ancient people believed so much in them. Well, I cited that the US FDA has now approved leeches for use as medical devices.

4. In the past, someone mentioned as his XYZ, money falling out of the sky. I provided a BBC article talking about a recent incident where money did fall out of the sky.

5. Other people have mentioned, as their XYZ, telekinesis. And I would give examples of people like Matthew Manning and Nina Kulagina, who did regularly perform telekinetic examples while under the observation of scientists. And it is rather common among qigong masters in China - I have provided links to videos about that as well.

6. And some other people mentioned, as their XYZ, the impossibility of being in two places at one time. And again I gave examples of reported instances when this has occurred - the technical term is bilocation.

7. Kanzeon also mentioned alchemy as an XYZ example. But i showed that in fact the technology for synthetically creating diamond already exists. General Electric was involved in a big way, in the research & development for that one.

8. And if you look at the scientific studies on hypnosis, you're just going to find so many strange examples of what thought alone can do. Increase muscle strength; accelerate the healing of broken bones; accelerate the healing of surgical wounds; cure eczema, warts and psoriasis; eliminate assorted addictions; reduce pain in cancer patients ... etc etc

And the list just goes on and on and on .... As I said, none of these examples in their own is going to prove that mind creates reality. But viewed collectively, they surely provide a lot of food for thought, yes?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Doesn't sound like a very high success rate for LoA practitioners, then, considering that LoA is based on the premise that you instantly create/manifest absolutely everything in your reality (including the physical) through your thoughts and beliefs!

Here is another explanation from that. I heard it from a magickal practitioner (who had never heard of the term Law of Attraction).

Notwithstanding the fact that he had never heard of the LOA, he also fully subscribed to the idea that we create everything in our reality. However, his explanation is that we do not know a lot of what we create. And the simple reason is that we do not know our minds very well.

His single most important key to magick is therefore self-knowledge. Which in his terms means that you have to meditate regularly and explore the mysterious depths of your mind.

And as any meditator knows, truly your mind is vast and mysterious and all sorts of thoughts continually ooze out of it, on their own volition, and if you have not developed the attribute of mindfulness through meditation, you would not even be aware of the oozing process. Yet you're oozing thoughts all the time.

And if you are not even very aware of the oozing process, how could you possibly know what you are creating?

In psychology terms, we know only a very tiny portion of our own thoughts. Most of our own motivations and intentions are unknown to ourselves. We call them the "subconscious" and the "unconscious". They are a much larger part of our minds than the conscious part. Freud has his iceberg model of human consciousness:





All we are aware of is the tip of the iceberg.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Here is another explanation from that. I heard it from a magickal practitioner (who had never heard of the term Law of Attraction).

Notwithstanding the fact that he had never heard of the LOA, he also fully subscribed to the idea that we create everything in our reality. However, his explanation is that we do not know a lot of what we create. And the simple reason is that we do not know our minds very well.

His single most important key to magick is therefore self-knowledge. Which in his terms means that you have to meditate regularly and explore the mysterious depths of your mind.

ALG, you are still missing the point of my argument. I am not disputing the possibility that someone may be able to direct energy waves from their brain which may then be able to affect the properties of objects, or move them.

What I am arguing is that it is not belief (on its own) that creates reality. As I said earlier, there is no evidence pointing to the LoA claim that a belief can create something in external reality (as we know it), or change the molecular structure of objects.

And, I repeat: LoA is based on the SR premise that you create the whole of reality within your consciousness, therefore, you have total control over what you create. What I am asking is: where is the evidence for that? I can provide many examples where that is not the case. Can you provide one example where a thought or belief (on its own) has created something within reality?

Give me one solid example where like thoughts attract and coagulate to some sort of combustible point, where they must manifest in reality?

Give me one solid example which shows that you create the whole of your reality within your consciousness through your thoughts and beliefs, and that whatever you wish for is instantly created/manifested? These are the premises on which LoA is based.

If you admit that we know so little about reality and the bulk of the subconscious mind, then surely you must also admit that we don't know if we definitely do create the whole of reality within consciousness. There is a lot more to it, as you said. At least, with science, we have something to fall back on and are able to say, 'Well, such and such does work in physical reality. We can repeat the experiment over and over, and it produces the same results every time'.

Can we really say that about LoA?

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Do you know many people who truly believe that they can instantly pop an airplane into existence? I'd guess about 99.99999% of people don't think they can. So LoA says, "Okay then, you won't."

And the delusional man who jumps off a tower and falls to his death? I don't think he really believed he could fly. If he did, then he wouldn't have taken the elevator to the top.

So, do you believe you can fly?

If you answer yes, then show us.

If you answer no, then why not? If you believe in LoA and believe that you are consciousness and that you create the whole of reality within your consciousness through your thoughts and beliefs, then why can't you believe that you can fly?

[Acting Like Godot]

See, Cantando, you got it completely the wrong way round.

Tell me one thing in reality that has existed without your consciousness.

You can't. If you can name such a thing, it is already within your consciousness.

There is therefore absolutely no evidence that anything can exist without your consciousness.

Whereas EVERYTHING that you have ever known to exist in reality, has existed in your consciousness. But of course. The fact that you know it to exist means that you have a certain state of knowledge.

And what knowledge can you ever have, without consciousness?

[newmark]

ALG; you have existed, and for the most part, still do, exist outside my consciousness. And me to you.
Many things exist without my consciousness. Of course when I learn about them they become a part of my consciousness, however they do not need my conscious awareness to exist.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by newmark

ALG; you have existed, and for the most part, still do, exist outside my consciousness. And me to you.

That's incorrect. Steve discussed this in a recent post.

Events, Perception, Truth, and Subjective Reality

In the context of me knowing you, this could be said to be an "event". Next, read Steve's post about events.

I'd set out in greater detail here, but Steve's writing, you see, is quite elegant and clear, so just reading his post would be fine.

[Acting Like Godot]

Anyway, folks, let me get down-to-earth and explain what all this means for me, on a very practical level. At the practical level, it actually does not matter to me whether:

(a) my thoughts really create my entire reality; OR

(b) my thoughts do not really create my entire reality, but are merely capable of performing a very, very wide variety of very useful, very interesting feats in my reality.

Theory (a) makes more sense to me, when I consider the sum total of what I've read about quantum physics; Buddhism; Abraham Hicks etc etc, plus my personal mind experiments. BUT it does not really matter. It's fun & interesting to discuss it in these forums, BUT at a practical level, it really does not matter.

Why?

Because (b) already gives me tremendous potential to create a more fulfilling, more meaningful, more satisfying life for myself. Probably much more potential than I can finish developing, in this lifetime anyway.

Take for example the Silva Method. (I am a Silva graduate by the way). It's a course in various esoteric mind techniques; covering stuff like

ESP;
energy healing;
communicating with spirit guides;
eliminating physical & emotional pain;
removing addictions;
communicating with other people's higher selves;
remote viewing;
gaining valuable information from your dreams;
gaining creative ideas from your subconscious;
developing a superb memory;
psychic diagnosis

etc etc etc.

Now, the Silva Method never says that your thoughts create your reality entirely. The Silva Method doesn't teach that this is true. Neither does it say that it is not true. It simply has no opinions on the matter.

That's because Jose Silva the founder was a practical man. So he focused on useful stuff, not philosophical discussion.

And that's what I like to do too.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Tell me one thing in reality that has existed without your consciousness.

You can't. If you can name such a thing, it is already within your consciousness.

There is therefore absolutely no evidence that anything can exist without your consciousness.

OK, how about all the things that are around you right now? I haven't a clue what they are. I am not conscious of them. But there are things around you, right now. Isn't there?

When I was at school, I learned a lot of history and facts from books. I wasn't conscious of that information till I read about it. Yet, the information already existed - in books and in my teacher's head. I didn't just make it up, off the hoof.

You have already said that the conscious mind is just the tip of the iceberg. So, by your own admission, we don't know much about what is going on in the subconscious mind. So, how do you really know what consciousness is? And, even if you give me an acceptable definition, how do you then know that we actually 'create' everything within consciousness.

It doesn't necessarily follow that if everything does exist in consciousness, it means that we created it through our thoughts and beliefs. Aren't you, in fact, contradicting yourself by accepting all that as LoA gospel truth, while at the same time stating that reality is so very rich and complex and that consciousness is just the tip of the iceberg and that we don't know the half of it?

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Cantando

If you believe in LoA and believe that you are consciousness and that you create the whole of reality within your consciousness through your thoughts and beliefs, then why can't you believe that you can fly?

Well for one, Daffy Duck doesn't believe that his thoughts create all of reality in the same way that ALG or some others do. My very first posts on this forum were discussing that. Out of the two theories ALG listed, theory (b) makes more sense to me.

And for two, even if I did believe in the full concept, that doesn't mean I have the full control over my mind required to do something like flying. The belief of "humans can not fly" is deeply ingrained in our minds. It would probably take a master of LOA to break it. However, it is much easier to break other beliefs in our minds, ones like "I will always be poor" or "I am not attractive" or "I'm not a good speaker" and so on. These are relatively easy to break. So easy, that thousands of people do it every day, I'd imagine.

[Angela]

Ducks may not believe they can fly, but I certainly believe I can fly.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Angela

Ducks may not believe they can fly, but I certainly believe I can fly.

It seems most of the people in that video are falling downwards. Their flying technique is not very good.

Ah, at the end they even use parachutes. Yep, they don't believe they can fly. Too bad, too bad...

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

It seems most of the people in that video are falling downwards. Their flying technique is not very good.

Did you not see the people who are flying horizontally?

Anyway, do you believe that because someone's technique is not very good, it's impossible? That because I'm not a very good cook, humans can't cook?

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

And for two, even if I did believe in the full concept, that doesn't mean I have the full control over my mind required to do something like flying. The belief of "humans can not fly" is deeply ingrained in our minds.

Is it? How do you know that? Who do you think put that belief there and why?

Are you saying then, that the only reason you cannot do anything out of the ordinary, is because there is a deep seated belief that you can't?

Conversely, do you believe that the only reason you can do something out of the ordinary is because you have a deeply engrained belief that you can?

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Angela

Did you not see the people who are flying horizontally?

Temporarily falling horizontally is not the same thing as flying. I'm about to use the S word.

Anyway, do you believe that because someone's technique is not very good, it's impossible?

I never said it was impossible. Just that 99.999% of humans can't seem to naturally fly (without a machine or device or special suit that catches wind).

This seems like a pointless explanation. You know what I mean, Angela. I'm not interested in playing semantics. I see no growth in doing so... only mental masturbation.

Originally Posted by Cantando

Is it? How do you know that? Who do you think put that belief there and why?

I don't know anything for sure.

Are you saying then, that the only reason you cannot do anything out of the ordinary, is because there is a deep seated belief that you can't?

Conversely, do you believe that the only reason you can do something out of the ordinary is because you have a deeply engrained belief that you can?

I'm saying: Maybe! And I'm saying that's what LOA is about. I'm explaining the concept... not asking you to accept it as truth.

It's worth mentioning that I have a deeply ingrained belief that anything is possible. So even if I think something is very unlikely, it is still possible. It might surprise me though. I like surprises.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Temporarily falling horizontally is not the same thing as flying. I'm about to use the S word.
I never said it was impossible. Just that 99.999% of humans can't seem to naturally fly (without a machine or device or special suit that catches wind).
This seems like a pointless explanation. You know what I mean, Angela. I'm not interested in playing semantics. I see no growth in doing so... only mental masturbation.

I'm sorry you see it as pointless; I don't. What you see as "temporarily falling horizontally," I see as the possibility of flying -- these people are not just falling; they are moving parallel to the earth for extended periods of time, and not only in a downward path. It's just a matter of perspective.

So far in the conversations we've had here on the thread, there has been no stipulation that human flight must take place with no winged suit or equipment or whatever. I can see how you (or anyone) might think, "oh, semantics, trickery, etc... she KNEW what we were talking about." But only imagine how impossible even flying with a plane might have seemed to people at one point. The idea that it goes from impossible, to possible but only in a plane, to possible in a harness & parachute, to possible in nothing but a spandex suit -- presents a pattern to me. It's not hard for me to see that pattern leading to something that looks more and more like what would qualify under your unspoken rules.

It's the same thing with any inspiring possibility. If we, as humans, have the capability of inventing new *helps* for ourselves, things that are extraneous to our bodies and that did not exist until very recently, then I believe it's logical to assume we *can* believe in and do what we don't currently believe is possible.

It might not look exactly like what you think it *should* -- it probably won't -- but shoulds are how people get old.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Angela

I'm sorry you see it as pointless; I don't. What you see as "temporarily falling horizontally," I see as the possibility of flying -- these people are not just falling; they are moving parallel to the earth for extended periods of time, and not only in a downward path. It's just a matter of perspective.

When I used the word pointless, I wasn't referring to this.

Airplanes, parachutes, "falling horizontally" are all steps forward to our understanding of gravity and how to defeat it. That's important.

What is pointless (to me) is when I talk about flying and someone shows me a video of people falling and says, "Here's some flying!" No, that's not flying. If I ask for a picture of a train, and you show me a picture of a car, then you're being a bit silly and off-topic. In other words, pointless.

So far in the conversations we've had here on the thread, there has been no stipulation that human flight must take place with no winged suit or equipment or whatever.

When I say that 99.999% of people can't fly, it is strongly implied that I mean flying like Superman does. I'm not talking about airplanes or anything like that. This is obvious to most people I've ever talked to about the subject of humans flying. When someone tells me "I was able to fly in a lucid dream, it was so amazing!" I know what they mean. I know they're not talking about airplanes.

Originally Posted by Angela

but shoulds are how people get old.

Only if you think so.

Playing semantics is how people waste time.

[Angela]

That's one of the misunderstandings people have about subjective reality and reality creation (or the term I prefer, "generation") -- that creating reality means you *poof* things into existence out of thin air, like Bewitched. Some people sometimes do that *poofing* generation (I've done it, ALG has done it, and probably you have done it, too, without noticing), and that's one aspect of reality generation.

But -- it's not necessarily about the poof. Would you want every little thing you thought about or desired to instantly appear out of thin air? I wouldn't, personally. That would be pretty chaotic, and not the way I designed my human game or the way I'd consciously prefer it to work. Although it's a lot of fun, and can be very entertaining (and sometimes a more serious "lesson" -type of challenge), generation of what people often think of as "external" stuff -- you know, physical laws, like the ones that govern flight; the thoughts, words, and behaviors of "other" people; cows flying through your window; stuff like that -- works really well, for me, anyway, the way it does.

And "how it works" is my responsibility. The "events" (as Steve calls them) are *my* events; through a lens of subjective reality, my consciousness creates them. Also, through a lens of subjective reality, "you" may believe that there are objective *rules* for how it works. That works for me, and my consciousness generates that, too.

I'm fine with believing in gravity. It works well for me in my human game. And I'm fine with believing that, at least right now, "flying" for me has some built in limitations, like until we figure out how to do it without equipment or a special suit, we can fly using equipment or a special suit. I also believe that it's possible to fly without equipment or a special suit, or with ever-decreasingly obtrusive equipment or clothing, to the point of none at all. I just don't know how yet. I'm not so inspired that I want to place my laser-like focus on discovering how, but I am inspired enough to add my possibility energy to the universe, and I'm confident that there are people who are placing their laser-like focus on flying, even as we speak. And it will very likely happen, to my satisfaction and maybe even to Daffy's or Cantando's, in our lifetime.

So, I believe it is possible for humans to fly, just like I believe it is possible to speak a foreign language fluently.