Any LoA doubters here? And: LoA-believers wanted for discussion.

[Shane]

Ok, so I've been registered here for almost 24 hours now. Time to make myself unpopular.

Seriously: I won't be offensive to anyone here, I hope to start a discussion that is beneficial for myself as well as anyone else participating, even if my views might deviate from yours.

So, I noticed that there is quite a lot of talk about intention-manifestation or LoA in most of the forum sections here. I am personally doubtful of the LoA and I was wondering: Anyone else here a doubter?

I have read and seen a fair bit of LoA material. I read Steve's blog semi-regularly, I saw The Secret, I've seen some of the Hicks's work, I read Conversations With God (which I really liked) and for a while, I spent a lot of time reading up on the subject on various blogs around the net. So I'm not totally ignorant about the LoA and just dismissing it off-hand.

I have quite a lot of questions about it, but here's two to get started:

1. Openness:
The "rules" of the LoA, as they are usually stated, are incredibly open, allowing any outcome to be explained. If someone tries to manifest something and it comes about: Great! LoA works!
If it doesn't come about: Well, they were doing it wrong. They didn't add emotion to the visualizations, they only wrote their goal five times a day instead of 30 times a day, they consciously wanted it, but subconsciously refused to manifest it, they wanted it too much and "wanting" itself implies "not having", etc. etc.
This openness makes it very easy for your confirmation bias to work in favour of belief in LoA. What's the LoA believers' stance on this?

2. Effectiveness
How many of you have experiences that you are sure were brought about by LoA? I mean things that are so specific that they seem very, very unlikely to be coincidences (even knowing about randomness and the number of people on the planet)?
And do any of you have numbers? Like how many things you tried to manifest/how many came about? How long it took? I'd really love to know some stuff like that.


Oh, and in case you're wondering: Yes, I have tried it myself. I didn't keep track, unfortunately, but overall some stuff I tried to manifest came about more or less, but nothing was very concrete or very convincing (e.g. wanted a motorcycle; ended up buying one for a reasonable price). About 60%-70% of things I tried to manifest never happend.

Ok, that's it for starters. Hoping for some interesting replies.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Shane

I hope to start a discussion that is beneficial for myself as well as anyone else participating, even if my views might deviate from yours.

How exactly do you hope to benefit from a conversation about doubting LoA? What purpose will that serve for you?

Anyone else here a doubter?

I think you must not have done too much reading in this forum, because if you had, it seems like it would have been hard to miss that the place is crawling with 'em. There are lots and lots of discussions about doubting the LoA.

Just one little tip for you: what tends to happen a lot is that doubters often start off respectfully, following forum rules and such, and often just go kittywompus and end up getting banned for being disrespectful, personal insults, and generally being schmucky. Somehow the nature of the discussion just often leads people in that direction, and it often starts off with the best of intentions, like "seriously, I won't be offensive here." I've lost count of how many times that has happened. Don't become a statistic!

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Angela

How exactly do you hope to benefit from a conversation about doubting LoA? What purpose will that serve for you?

Actually I'm more on the 'doubting' side too, exactly for the reasons Shane states. I'm interested in what's working for me. If LOA won't work for me, why put (more) effort in it? So I can see value in discussing 'Does LOA work?'.

I think you must not have done too much reading in this forum, because if you had, it seems like it would have been hard to miss that the place is crawling with 'em. There are lots and lots of discussions about doubting the LoA.

Really? Somehow I didn't see them before.

...Don't become a statistic!

Well, better an interesting statistic than a non-interesting non-statistic .

[Angela]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

Actually I'm more on the 'doubting' side too, exactly for the reasons Shane states. I'm interested in what's working for me. If LOA won't work for me, why put (more) effort in it? So I can see value in discussing 'Does LOA work?'.

Yeah, that's why I was wondering. I'm not sure what the upside is.

Really? Somehow I didn't see them before.

Are you messin' with me? There have been a boatload of them. Must be the difference in our reticular activating systems -- I've been manifesting them and you haven't. I'll look at that!

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Angela

Yeah, that's why I was wondering. I'm not sure what the upside is.

Improving scientific insights into LOA? Reproducible results? Getting more effective in LOA? What are the limits of LOA? Lots of upside.

Are you messin' with me? There have been a boatload of them. Must be the difference in our reticular activating systems -- I've been manifesting them and you haven't. I'll look at that!

Me, messing with you? I wouldn't dare risk the wrath of Lord! Seriously, I really didn't see them. They will be there, but LOA was not what attracted me to this forum.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Shane

1. Openness:
The "rules" of the LoA, as they are usually stated, are incredibly open, allowing any outcome to be explained. If someone tries to manifest something and it comes about: Great! LoA works!
If it doesn't come about: Well, they were doing it wrong. They didn't add emotion to the visualizations, they only wrote their goal five times a day instead of 30 times a day, they consciously wanted it, but subconsciously refused to manifest it, they wanted it too much and "wanting" itself implies "not having", etc. etc.
This openness makes it very easy for your confirmation bias to work in favour of belief in LoA. What's the LoA believers' stance on this?

I think the reasons why an IM fails shows up in various ways. But those ways are all about ego based motivations being in the equation. The whole LoA is about letting go of the ego and allowing what is there for you to spring into existence. It might be life can give you a motorcycle or not - then the ego can want it and get it or not. But the real deal is to let go of the personal desire and then the ego will automatically pick up on what life can give you and that is what will become the subjects of visualizations. We don't have any power in our personal thoughts - my opinion - but we have infinite power in letting our thoughts and feelings tune into life's way.

2. Effectiveness
How many of you have experiences that you are sure were brought about by LoA? I mean things that are so specific that they seem very, very unlikely to be coincidences (even knowing about randomness and the number of people on the planet)?
And do any of you have numbers? Like how many things you tried to manifest/how many came about? How long it took? I'd really love to know some stuff like that.


Oh, and in case you're wondering: Yes, I have tried it myself. I didn't keep track, unfortunately, but overall some stuff I tried to manifest came about more or less, but nothing was very concrete or very convincing (e.g. wanted a motorcycle; ended up buying one for a reasonable price). About 60%-70% of things I tried to manifest never happend.

Ok, that's it for starters. Hoping for some interesting replies.

I don't IM. I get myself out of the way of life and tune in. I don't wish against what is. If I want something it's got to be what life is already going to give me and then it happens. It's like unlocking what is already there instead of trying to pry open an oyster to find a pearl. The only reason someone can visualize that something is to manifest and have no doubt at all - is because life has it in the works for you already. I don't take notes on how many times I imagined something and then it shows up. I may not be the IM type you are looking for. And of coarse all I write is just my take and not much of a method or successful path for me - although it's not about me anyway - it's about life.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

Improving scientific insights into LOA? Reproducible results? Getting more effective in LOA? What are the limits of LOA? Lots of upside.

Ahh, got it. The only trouble is talking about the LoA with doubters tends to reinforce the doubt, rather than improving effectiveness. I think that's generally true of anything you want to improve your effectiveness at: talk with people who are really good at getting results, not with people who are really bad at getting results.

Scientific insights and reproducible results? Also best gotten from people who are getting results than from people who aren't. (I personally believe the best science in the matter of subjective experience is simply self-testing. If it doesn't work for you, try something else.) What are the limits? People who are effectively using the LoA are more interested in finding out how limitless they are, I think, than in finding limits. If you're looking for limits, you'll find them!

[Shane]

Don't worry, Angela, I'm not like that.

And I'm actually looking for input from both LoA-doubters and LoA-believers/users (see second half of the thread-title). So, I totally agree with you: I want to learn about it from the people who are good at it.
I also want to test the LoA for myself again and I want to get some input on the subject before I get started. Generally, I'm not invested in either doubting nor believing in it - to put it differently, I don't mind if it exists or doesn't exist, I just want to learn a bit about the world.

@wolfgang: Thanks for your answers. What you describe is completely different from what I've come to think of as the LoA so far.
Where does life's way come from, in your opinion? What is it that guides you when you get out of the way? I'm pretty ego-driven, I guess, so what you describe seems really alien to me (not meant in a bad way).

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Shane

Don't worry, Angela, I'm not like that.

And I'm actually looking for input from both LoA-doubters and LoA-believers/users (see second half of the thread-title). So, I totally agree with you: I want to learn about it from the people who are good at it.
I also want to test the LoA for myself again and I want to get some input on the subject before I get started. Generally, I'm not invested in either doubting nor believing in it - to put it differently, I don't mind if it exists or doesn't exist, I just want to learn a bit about the world.

I'm not worried - it doesn't bother me when people go kittywompus, just wanted to point out a potential hazard. You'll find a lot of information if you look particularly at member Acting Like Godot's posts. I'm not sure he'll participate in your thread, because he might have had enough, but he's a good one to listen to if you want to hear from someone for whom it's working well.

Okay: 1: Openness: for me, it's all about feeling good on purpose, so confirmation bias is not a problem; in fact, it's a boon. I'm also a big proponent of placebos. If good things are showing up for me and the LoA is an effective anchor for that, I'm good with that. It doesn't preclude me from also seeing what dynamic action I'm taking or not taking that works well or doesn't work well. In other words, I don't think it hinders my alignment with truth, to notice that I tend to get more of what I focus on, so why not focus on what I want?

2: Effectiveness: I'm not SURE about much of anything, but I do think I have a special genius for noticing patterns and tendencies in my life. What I've noticed is that when I'm practicing LoA techniques, particularly the deliberate thinking of thoughts that feel good when I think them, I get a pretty remarkable rate of return of more good-feeling thoughts and good-feeling results. And also that when I'm not practicing, when I'm allowing myself to be run by my old habitual thought patterns, I tend to get results and thoughts that provide contrast (what I don't want).

It's not something I know of scientific proof for, nor do I require it; it's like noticing the pattern that when I approach people as if they are already my friend, I tend to get a very friendly response, and when I approach people with resistance, the response tends to be resistant as well. I don't need any *proof* in order to have enough data to make an effective choice.

[Shane]

Thanks for your responses. I'll check out Godot's posts.

Your angle on this is very interesting. What you describe is actually something I totally agree with and practice myself. I have a positive outlook on life and thus I experience more positive things. I am greatful and thus I notice more things to be greatful for. And I also agree that the confirmation bias is a total blessing, when "used right".

But that's not really what I think about when I think LoA. That stuff is just psychology (to me).
The impression I have of LoA (as it is often marketed) is more like: "I am now a millionaire" -> repeat -> Yay! Millions of dollars!

I know I'm charicaturizing it here, but that's the direction it often seems to take. LoA is supposed to be able to attract specific stuff, right? Life partner, success, money, car, traveling the world, being outgoing instead of shy. Stuff like that. Not just feeling good more often.
Or have I misinterpreted the whole thing?

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Shane

Thanks for your responses. I'll check out Godot's posts.

Your angle on this is very interesting. What you describe is actually something I totally agree with and practice myself. I have a positive outlook on life and thus I experience more positive things. I am greatful and thus I notice more things to be greatful for. And I also agree that the confirmation bias is a total blessing, when "used right".

But that's not really what I think about when I think LoA. That stuff is just psychology (to me).
The impression I have of LoA (as it is often marketed) is more like: "I am now a millionaire" -> repeat -> Yay! Millions of dollars!

I know I'm charicaturizing it here, but that's the direction it often seems to take. LoA is supposed to be able to attract specific stuff, right? Life partner, success, money, car, traveling the world, being outgoing instead of shy. Stuff like that. Not just feeling good more often.
Or have I misinterpreted the whole thing?

The great thing is it is not necessary to understand HOW it works to make it work. And even if it was just a product of your RAS or confirmation basis, if it's bringing you good results, hooray for you right?

So why not just keep ratcheting up the scale of attraction possibilities until you reach whatever heights are possible with it? Or are you on an evangelical-esque mission to convert all believers in the metaphysical aspect of law of attraction to your psychological/materialist explanation? In which case, good luck with that.

The thing is, you will never know through evidence whether law of attraction is real or not, metaphysically speaking. It may suggest it is real, but you will never know. Does evidence bring belief, or does belief bring evidence? One is a scientific approach, the other is a mystical approach. And you can't do away with the question, without doing away with the questioner. And of course, that is not a viable option.

It's like the old idea that God can give you anything you ask for through prayer, *IF* he wants to.

Law of attractions says, I can give you anything you ask for....*provided* you are in proper alignment.

You see, in each circumstance there is a quality or factor there which CANNOT be observed objectively, even though the actual answering may be visible (but may also be something intangible like "self confidence" or "happiness" which also cannot be observed directly).

So OBJECTIVELY speaking, I'm agnostic on the issue. You can't know through objective observation of this phenomenon. However, I *FEEL* that there is more to it than just psychological/material explanations, and that is all I can really say.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

Seriously, I really didn't see them. They will be there, but LOA was not what attracted me to this forum.

Just on the front page of the IM forum thread list now there are at least four of them. You're right though that they don't have obvious titles like the infamous 'Garbage, all of it.'

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Shane

Or have I misinterpreted the whole thing?

I would just say that there are just about as many ways of using the LoA as there are people who use it.

There are quite a few different perspectives; there's no one right way to approach it, and I think that's where a lot of resistance and confusion comes in. It can be frustrating and bewildering for some people to be left on their own to figure out what works for them; some folks prefer step-by-step instructions (and someone to holler out of those instructions don't work. )

For me, it may be "just psychology" as you mention, and that's enough -- using the LoA as a natural world, non-supernatural phenomenon works quite well for me. I suspect that there's more that I just don't and may never understand about how it works so well for me, and that's ok with me. When I come across a concept that resonates, or someone I trust makes a suggestion, I just try it on and see if it works better.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

...
It's like the old idea that God can give you anything you ask for through prayer, *IF* he wants to.

Law of attractions says, I can give you anything you ask for....*provided* you are in proper alignment.
...

I get what you say, but how is LOA not a religion then? 'Believe in LOA and all is well' is analogous to 'Believe in God and all is well'.

Another aspect: before science people explained phenomena by 'mystical' explanations. Through scientific advancements we know more about the physical world. Saying that LOA is to be experienced only by mystical approaches is similar to saying that Darwinism is sin...

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

I get what you say, but how is LOA not a religion then? 'Believe in LOA and all is well' is analogous to 'Believe in God and all is well'.

Another aspect: before science people explained phenomena by 'mystical' explanations. Through scientific advancements we know more about the physical world. Saying that LOA is to be experienced only by mystical approaches is similar to saying that Darwinism is sin...

First off, I never said "believe in LoA and all is well." I merely was pointing out the fact that there will always be an unobservable component in any use of the LoA. One that is beyond objective empirical observation. Second of all, much as one might look at a light switch and correctly deduce that the flipping of the switch is connected with the light coming on, there is much more to the story of how the light comes on. Similarly, LoA doesn't mean there is no mechanical aspect to reality, just that there is more to the story that science hasn't caught up with yet.

"Mystical" and "magical" are just words for things that are not well understood. To those that understand, those things are not mysteries. And any sufficiently developed technology is indistinguishable FROM magic (in practice), and the greatest technology is consciousness, from my perspective.

Science has value, but there are things which science simply cannot study, because it is not designed to study them. Empirical analysis presumes externality. Because of that, it is confined to that externality. And I don't see how saying that even remotely compares to calling Darwinism a "sin". I'm simply recognizing an inherent limitation in the scientific method.

I also don't see how LoA is like a religion anymore than gravity could be considered a religion. Gravity is certainly more externally visible and easier to notice, but neither of them requires belief to work, in my opinion. It is just that one has a more internal component, which can't be observed from a place outside of that frame of reference.

But, LoA is similar to love in the fact that you can't "see" love, you can only experience it, but when you do experience it, you know it's real, and don't need any physical evidence to know that it is, you just feel that it is.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

First off, I never said "believe in LoA and all is well."

I'm not stating you said so. It's what I get from reading about LOA and your post merely triggered me.

I merely was pointing out the fact that there will always be an unobservable component in any use of the LoA. One that is beyond objective empirical observation.

How do you know? (Not saying it's not true, but how do you know LOA will never be explained scientifically?)

And I don't see how saying that even remotely compares to calling Darwinism a "sin". I'm simply recognizing an inherent limitation in the scientific method.

Stating that something can be experienced only by mystical means has long been the strategy of religious leaders to 'keep the faith' among their followers. Lots of scientists were banned, imprisoned or otherwise punished whenever their scientific research produced results that were not aligned with religious doctrine.

I also don't see how LoA is like a religion anymore than gravity could be considered a religion. Gravity is certainly more externally visible and easier to notice, but neither of them requires belief to work, in my opinion. It is just that one has a more internal component, which can't be observed from a place outside of that frame of reference.

What I get from LOA is that it's kind of like a circle reasoning as stated in Shane's first post in this thread (the Openness paragraph). And that is similar to religion.

But, LoA is similar to love in the fact that you can't "see" love, you can only experience it, but when you do experience it, you know it's real, and don't need any physical evidence to know that it is, you just feel that it is.

Agreed.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

How do you know? (Not saying it's not true, but how do you know LOA will never be explained scientifically?)

Because of what I said in my last post, which was:

Science has value, but there are things which science simply cannot study, because it is not designed to study them. Empirical analysis presumes externality. Because of that, it is confined to that externality.

And because of,

...[LoA] has a more internal component, which can't be observed from a place outside of that frame of reference.

Originally Posted by spirit4711

Stating that something can be experienced only by mystical means has long been the strategy of religious leaders to 'keep the faith' among their followers.

As I said before, the "mystical means" is no more mystical than "love", in that you just have an inner knowing that it is there, like the way you just "know" you exist. If that is mystical, then mystical it shall be.

Originally Posted by spirit4711

Lots of scientists were banned, imprisoned or otherwise punished whenever their scientific research produced results that were not aligned with religious doctrine.

Yeah, but, see....the thing is....I don't care what anybody believes. That's the difference between this and religion. Religion cares what you believe and actively tries to convert you, and offers consequences if you don't. I don't do that. I couldn't care less what anybody consciously chooses to believe. And I say that with love, believe it or not.

Originally Posted by spirit4711

What I get from LOA is that it's kind of like a circle reasoning as stated in Shane's first post in this thread (the Openness paragraph). And that is similar to religion.

Apples are similar to lemons, they are both round fruit that grows on trees. Doesn't mean they are the same or that they taste even remotely the same.

[MidasGirl]

Originally Posted by Shane

1. Openness:
The "rules" of the LoA, as they are usually stated, are incredibly open, allowing any outcome to be explained. If someone tries to manifest something and it comes about: Great! LoA works!
If it doesn't come about: Well, they were doing it wrong. They didn't add emotion to the visualizations, they only wrote their goal five times a day instead of 30 times a day, they consciously wanted it, but subconsciously refused to manifest it, they wanted it too much and "wanting" itself implies "not having", etc. etc.
This openness makes it very easy for your confirmation bias to work in favour of belief in LoA. What's the LoA believers' stance on this?

You have it wrong. LoA is always working, always works. What you are talking about I think, is conscious manisfestation. Yes, that takes a lot of focus and perhaps many years of practice. A lot of de-gunkifying too. (real word degunkify, check urban dictionary). The reasons people give for why it didn't work may or may not be valid, what matters is the growth they experience to become more conscious manifesters.

[themaster]

MidasGirl is 100% correct.. you don't need to know LOA theory or LOA rules or anything to manifest.. plenty of people manifest all the time but just see it as doing the things that they love..

If you're in search of knowledge such as LOA.. then you're either in search of the knowledge that binds reality.. or in search of a permission slip to allow yourself to do something.. I'm here cause of a "permission slip" how about you?

Angela is correct to warn in the idea.. that if you are trying to be skeptical about loa then having this thread or skeptics speak out isn't that good of a idea.. still I don't believe in suppression.. and so I allow skeptic's to voice whatever they want

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Shane

1. Openness:
The "rules" of the LoA, as they are usually stated, are incredibly open, allowing any outcome to be explained.

But of course. The same goes for theories in general. The broader the theory, the broader the range of outcomes it must explain.

Imagine if the law of gravity could only explain why apples fall down in England; and that it could not explain why oranges fall down in Florida; or why mangoes fall down in Malaysia. Would that not be strange?

The LOA purports to explain both mind & reality. Therefore the range of outcomes it must explain is very wide.

If someone tries to manifest something and it comes about: Great! LoA works!
If it doesn't come about: Well, they were doing it wrong. They didn't add emotion to the visualizations, they only wrote their goal five times a day instead of 30 times a day, they consciously wanted it, but subconsciously refused to manifest it, they wanted it too much and "wanting" itself implies "not having", etc. etc.

Correct. This explanation does not please you, because:

(1) you prefer an explanation that you personally find to be easily verifiable, testable and checkable; and

(2) LOA theory, as you currently understand it, is not easily verifiable, testable and checkable to you.

Firstly, you must understand that what is not easily verifiable, testable and checkable is not necessarily false.

Secondly, you must understand that the LOA is not necessarily difficult to verify, test or check. It is simply that currently, you are unaware of how this can be done.

But certainly there are ways.

This openness makes it very easy for your confirmation bias to work in favour of belief in LoA. What's the LoA believers' stance on this?

This is an interesting point. And I would write a lot more here, except that I need to go to work soon.

Let me offer you a tidbit to chew on. I suggest to you that all human beings are subject to the confirmation bias. I further suggest to you that the confirmation bias is in fact an integral part of the human psyche, operating constantly, ceaselessly, at a very, very deep level. The confirmation bias affects practically everything you say or do, as you go about your daily routine. It affects what you perceive about your friends; your family; your home; your school or workplace; your community; your country; your government; the world; the news you watch on TV or in the newspapers; your own body; your own skills and abilities.

In other words, you generally see what you believe.

To put it another way, your beliefs create your reality.

Errrr, does that sound familiar?

How many of you have experiences that you are sure were brought about by LoA?

[jacare]

Look at your job, your home, your living conditions, your bank account, your car, your clothes, your attitude, your demeanor. You manifested every last bit of it through LOA. The trick is to create conscious manifestations. I think most people (me included) have to first clear limiting beliefs, cultural beliefs, and all the other stuff that fogs our lenses through which we view life. Then we need to get clear on what we want, listen to our intuition, meditate in one form or another, and take inspired guided actions towards what we want. And our actions cannot be limited by our own limited beliefs of what is possible (see step one).

Better yet, all we really want is to be happy and content. If we can achieve that everything else is just stuff. And we all can achieve that right where we are without accumulating another item, just by shifting our thoughts.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

I get what you say, but how is LOA not a religion then?

I believe that it could be like a religion for some people. And for some other people, it is not.

In that sense, it is not that different from Buddhism. I've just been reading a book by Yongev Mingyur Rinpoche, a Tibetan monk. On the very first page of his book, he says that the more he understands Buddhism, the less he sees it as a religion. To him, it is more like a philosophy or a science of managing your own mind.

Then again that comment contains within itself the inherent implication that religion is different from science or philosophy.

Actually I see them as different kinds of lenses to examine the same one undivided reality.

[themaster]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I believe that it could be like a religion for some people. And for some other people, it is not.

I still believe I quantify it as a religion.. however I acknowledge it can be sect based however just for clarification that is my definition.. and not shared by all.. I also give myself permission to pull it out of that box (if it's even in one) if I want.. you might hear me use the word 'spiritual' more..

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

What I get from LOA is that it's kind of like a circle reasoning as stated in Shane's first post in this thread (the Openness paragraph).

People do not understand what is the fallacy, in the fallacy of circular reasoning. Essentially the fallacy is that a proposition which itself requires proof is made without any proof being provided.

LOA is not a fallacy because it can be tested. As individuals, we can test different aspects of the LOA in the context of our own personal lives. Furthermore different aspects of the LOA can be tested, and have been tested, in the context of scientific research.

The same usual scientific methodology can be applied. For example:

(1) Take a group of people having a common characteristic (eg the same kind of physical ailment)

(2) Divide the group into two.

(3) One group serves as the control group.

(4) The other group will be asked to think thoughts in a certain way, about the common characteristic (their own ailment).

(5) Rates of recovery of healing can be compared.

I give one example of such an experiment here:

Harvard Gazette: Hypnosis helps healing

With a little imagination and cleverness, all sorts of other experiments could be devised. (The fact that no one may have done these experiments so far doesn't mean that they cannot be done). Since I have been in the military, I offer one idea for an interesting experiment.

(a) Take a large group of soldiers (eg several thousand soldiers) undergoing the same course.

(b) Half the soldiers serve as the control group.

(c) The other soldiers will undergo exactly the same training, except that three or four times a week, throughout the course, they will undergo guided hypnosis sessions or visualisation exercises on some aspect of their training.

(d) Eg they may be asked to visualise being able to shoot very accurately with their rifles, achieving a high marksmanship score. Or perhaps they may be asked to visualise themselves running the Standard Obstacle Course with very good times.

(e) After half a year, compare the average or median results of the two groups of soldiers, and see if there is any statistically significant difference in their marksmanship scores, or SOC timings.

I like the military example, because within the military, it is very easy to eliminate many other variables that might otherwise complicate the experiment.

All soldiers in the same course are roughly of the same age; have passed the same kind of medical tests; get the same type of training; get the same food; get the same number of hours of sleep; wear the same uniforms; are exposed to the same kind of environment, etc.

If the non-control group starts performing much better, the result is much more easily attributable to their mind sessions (which the control group did not do).

That's just one example, of course. Different kinds of experiments can be designed in many different ways, to investigate the relationship between mind & reality.

[spirit4711]

@ALG, thanks for the explanations. Some food for thought here, I'll get back to it later.

[Shane]

Thanks to everyone. There's some really great info, here. In fact, there's so much good stuff since I last checked, that I can't reply to everything, so I'll just pick a few things out (otherwise, I'd be typing all day).

MidasGirl: Yes, LoA is constantly operating, like gravity and such. So, you're right, what I mean is conscious manifestation. Making the LoA work for me, so to speak.

@themaster: I don't quite know what you mean by "permission slip".
But to answer your question: I'm "here" because this seems to be a cool forum and I'm looking for info on the LoA because of curiosity. If intention manifestation really can be made to work in an effective way to achieve specific goals, then I want a part of it. If now, that's okay too, I've been doing quite well without IM so far.

ALG:
(1) you prefer an explanation that you personally find to be easily verifiable, testable and checkable; and

(2) LOA theory, as you currently understand it, is not easily verifiable, testable and checkable to you.

Couldn't have put it better. That's exactly my situation. I prefer testable, verifiable information and I would like to get a handle on the LoA/IM from this perspective.
And as stated before, I plan to do some kind of test with this. First just for myself and then, if I can organize it, with a group of people and controls.

And yes, the confirmation bias is part of how we shape our subjective reality, no doubt about it. But from what I've read and seen, intention manifestation should go further than a confirmation bias can. I.e. want millions, get millions; want car, get car; or anything else that has components outside of subjective perception.

So, if I may, here's another question that came up:
Source: Where does your knowledge of the Loa / IM come from? As you can surely guess, I'm not a great fan of "knowledge" coming from what authoritative people in a certain field say or write. I like my knowledge to point to some kind of evidence. This of course, doesn't invalidate any other kind of source.
(And, just to avoid such a discussion: I'm aware that the scientific field is all but free from authoritative pseudo-knowledge and I believe that about 95% of everything even the most scientifically minded person believes is taken on faith or personal experience, not evidence.)

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Shane

@themaster: I don't quite know what you mean by "permission slip".

It is a Bashar term.

It means any general concept, belief system or technique that allows you to change or override your other beliefs on a given topic.

Eg a belief in God can be a powerful permission slip. A person may be in a dire situation, and logically speaking, there is no way out. However, the person may strongly believe in God, and this strong belief in turn may allow him to believe that somehow God will rescue him via a miracle. This belief will then allow him to manifest a miracle enabling him to escape.

(Note that the above example neither implies that God exists, nor implies that God does not exist).

Other permission slips may be hypnosis, witchcraft, the placebo effect, magick, fengshui etc. For example, a person may believe that if he carries a certain magic stone with him, he will have good luck. Then he carries the magic stone. His belief that he will now have good luck may in itself attract a series of lucky events.

There are other kinds of permission slips. For example, a "what if" technique, where you simply permit yourself a period of time to daydream and imagine what your life would be like, if only you were very talented; or could afford a big beautiful house; or managed to get your dream job etc etc.

But from what I've read and seen, intention manifestation should go further than a confirmation bias can.

That may be because you have not realised how far a confirmation bias can go.

You are seeing the confirmation bias in the conventional sense. That is, an objective reality exists, but a person's own bias shapes the way he perceives that reality.

I am suggesting that you explore the concept at a deeper level. No objective reality exists, or if it does exist, it is unknowable and therefore might as well be treated as if it does not exist. Reality is whatever you perceive it to be, and whatever you perceive it to be is a product of your own senses and interpretation.

In other words, the whole of reality is your own confirmation bias.

So, if I may, here's another question that came up:
Source: Where does your knowledge of the Loa / IM come from?

It is an ongoing process.

Firstly I read a lot, and I read quite a range of different materials, some of which might not immediately strike you as LOA-related, but are.

For instance, I read about religion, psychology, quantum physics, neuroscience, personal development, behavioural finance, meditation, hypnosis, witchcraft, medical science, channelled texts, biographies of successful people, paranormal phenomena, neuro-linguistics programming etc etc.

Secondly, I test out what I read, where it is feasible to do so. Meditation and self-hypnosis are two of my tools.

Thirdly, I have a wife who uses the LOA regularly too. So we get to compare notes every day. It is interesting, because I see firsthand that people can approach the LOA quite differently, and still get results. My wife and I have different personalities, so we definitely don't apply the LOA in the same style, yet it works.

[Indy107]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

In other words, you generally see what you believe.

To put it another way, your beliefs create your reality.

Errrr, does that sound familiar?

Hey, I think I'll create a blog about that! Oh wait - I already did

[ssandra]

Something small that I do not really understand:

If you think* about money you attract more money
If you think* about debt you attract more debt
If you think* about lack of money you attract more lack of money

Yet... most people and websites also state:

If you think* about lack of debt you attract more debt...

Anybody knows how, what or why?

*think/focus/visualise etc.

[Indy107]

Words are very misleading. Money, more money, lack of money, debt....

Does Esther Hicks translate Abraham word for word? No, she translates 'blocks of thought". I would say she is translating more along the line of images and feelings than words.

If you think More Money, you may find a penny on the ground that day. There you go. More money. Which is why you need to be specific. What is the feeling you would get if you had say an extra $5000. That is a different feeling than finding just a penny.

When you use the word debt, it is also associated with a feeling. Lack. Like they said in The Secret, whether you think Get In Debt or Get Out of Debt, you still get the feeling of debt. You feel lack. Not enough.

Change your words to represent more abundant feelings. And you'll attract more abundance.