Alternative View of "The Secret"

[Acting Like Godot]

Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.

[Megan]

test test test

[Megan]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.

Hey, I manifested an answer! Thanks, Godot!

Thinking positively...and it only took me 433 posts to do it!

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Shamou

So it is because the lawyer gets paid for thinking that's is called "taking action."

I like your logic...

He might charge for thinking but it is whatever he finally does with the result of that thinking that is the real action... and that is why he gets paid...
.

Not really, because I might ask him a single question that has a whole crapload of very important implications and he might think about 2000 different possible scenarios in his head for a period of 4 hours, and then call me up and say "No." That "No" just cost me $2800, but it will save me future problems. I guess if you want to state that then the physical action of saying "no" is what he gets paid for, but then again some lawyers just give their client a nod, so I guess the nod would be the $2800 action.

Also, I was once called to give testmiony in a deposition as a witness and my lawyer sat beside me and whenever the other attorney would say something my lawyer would either let me know that it's ok to answer that question by being quiet or object. Whenever I got a "strange" question I would look at my lawyer, he would look back at me, and I would answer the question. I guess there he was getting paid for giving me a look.

Anyway, I think the arguement over wheter "taking action" is necessary or not is strictly a matter of value. People who can't grasp that LoA can work without taking action don't take into account "value as seen by the universe", they only take into account "value as seen by me" or "value as seen by someone else". If you believe in a higher consciousness, a God, an intelligent Universe, then you would have to agree that the highest value you could provide to the world is whatever it is THEY need from you, because they have the entire universe's value in best interest not just your own. So my point is that we're kind of trained to think "Provide X amount of Value to humanity and I'll get X amount of $$$ back." and we quantify X in terms of value given from the eyes of others.

I used to think that way for a long time and it kept me pretty busy as I was always trying to "do more" and "provide more value". However, later on I found out that it doesn't work long term. I found out that when I use LOA and I become clear on what I want and then listen to my intuition, which is my channel to source/universe/God/WhateverYouWantToCallIt , I would get tremendous value back for simple "easy peasy" amounts of value I put out.

For example, I might get the intuitive gut feeling NOT to stay late at work to finish a project, but instead go home. And because I was at home, someone called me that I haven't spoken to for a while. Because I was there to answer the phone I had a chat with him and we met for lunch the next day to talk, and the person was feeling *really* depressed the night before and he was really happy that I was at home to answer the phone. Do you see what I'm getting at here? Yes we need to provide value. However, that value can come from action (This is the paradigm most humans are addicted to right now), but it can also come merely from thinking, or even just sitting around and doing nothing.

For example, if you could go back in time and implant a message from source into the head of Hitler before he bacame Hitler, wouldn't it sound a bit like "Just go play Golf. Don't do anything, don't try to change the world, just go play golf." If he listened, wouldn't that have provided massive amounts of value to the world with so many lives saved because the war didn't happen? So lets say that Hitler all of a sudden won the lottery and had $5 Million in his pocket so that he could just sit around and play Golf, wouldn't that be "worth it" from a universal valuation point of view?

I guess it all depends if you believe in a higher power. If you don't, then yeah I totally agree that you have to constantly look for ways to provide lots of value at the physical level.

BTW, I know you're a fan of Tony Robbins. I used to think he was all about Action. When I changed my paradigm and re-listened to a lot of Tony's work, he is actually TOTALLY into Law of Attraction and doing as little work as possible to attract maximum results. He just doesn't use words like Law of Attraction, Ego, etc. because he wants to connect to the "common man".

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Shamou

He might charge for thinking but it is whatever he finally does with the result of that thinking that is the real action... and that is why he gets paid...
.

LOL. Most of the time, what he does with the result of that thinking is that he types his thoughts out on the keyboard, prints it out and faxes it to his client. It's called "legal advice".

Now, are you paying the lawyer $700 for his physical action (typing), or are you paying him for his thoughts?

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Now, are you paying the lawyer $700 for his physical action (typing), or are you paying him for his thoughts?

That's non siquitur Mr. Attorney... you're taking that out of context... the discussion was to determine if thinking was an action... which it is obviously not...

Of course you are paying the lawyer for thinking... and btw... most of that thinking goes into how to stretch the litigation so that he can bill you more...
.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Shamou

That's non siquitur Mr. Attorney... you're taking that out of context... the discussion was to determine if thinking was an action... which it is obviously not...

It is not? Are you sure?

Of course you are paying the lawyer for thinking...

So you agree then that it is possible to get paid for "thinking". And since you just said that "thinking" is not an action, you CAN get paid for something without taking "action" as you define it, right?

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by impaul99

So you agree then that it is possible to get paid for "thinking". And since you just said that "thinking" is not an action, you CAN get paid for something without taking "action" as you define it, right?

No one will give you a penny for your thoughts if you keep them to yourself...

But they could pay you a bundle for the result of those thoughts... but... to give that result... YOU HAVE TO TAKE SOME ACTION... Capice...
.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Now, are you paying the lawyer $700 for his physical action (typing), or are you paying him for his thoughts?

Aren't you paying him for the work that he does? Work which involves both thinking and action.

Megan: I'd be interested to read that study about mental weight lifting. Do you remember where you came across it? And suppose it were valid, and that thinking can build muscle, or make other changes to the body. That doesn't support the argument that thinking can directly influence objects disconnected from the body. Particularly if the study could isolate the mechanisms of thought influencing muscle (release of hormones which stimulate growth for one example, and unconscious clenching of muscles during the 'thought' exercises for another...)

This thread of the discussion highlights the issue of scope; Some believe all thought can influence all matter, while others believe that thought does have some influence, but only through physical mechanisms, which could be psychological/neurobiological mechanisms which only seem to directly link thought to results.

As for the review, I agree that The Secret is presented in a way which depicts the LoA as an irrational belief. I don't agree that it is irrational at it's core, just that there is a lot of unnecessary mysticism surrounding it, such as the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of quantum theory (appropriately called quantum mysticism by some).

In that respect I (surprisingly) agree with dorothy hanna; the author didn't 'get it'. But I can't blame him, the creators of The Secret put it together in a way that doesn't allow someone to really get it. The core message is surrounded by far too much distraction. You can understand it if you're already familiar with (or even willing to embrace) all that distraction, but otherwise you'd miss the point.

The Secret is great for believers, and potentially convincing for those who are unsure, but little more than confirmation of wilful misguidance to sceptics.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Shamou

No one will give you a penny for your thoughts if you keep them to yourself...

What you mean? What about people who get paid not to say a word about something? You know, as in "We'll pay you $100k to keep your mouth shut." type of deals.

But they could pay you a bundle for the result of those thoughts... but... to give that result... YOU HAVE TO TAKE SOME ACTION... Capice...
.

OH yeah, I understand what you're saying. I just don't agree with it that's all.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Megan: I'd be interested to read that study about mental weight lifting. Do you remember where you came across it? And suppose it were valid, and that thinking can build muscle, or make other changes to the body.

This isn't just one study. They've done tonnes of studies with this. I remember reading one where they broke up basketball players into a couple of groups. First they established a base point for free throw percentages. Then, for a period of time they had one group practice for a certain period of time by shooting the ball. Another group spent half of the same time visualizing shooting and half the time shooting. I don't remember the exact stat, but the group that did the visualizing+shooting something like a 80% better improvement rate compared to those who were just shooting, even though both groups had the exact same amount of time to "practice".

You can also listen to how Tony Robbins turned around Andre Aggasi. It was all about getting him to be in State and helping him control his thoughts. He didn't do any "tennis lessons" with him, considering Tony knows nothing about tennis compared to Andre. Yet he was able to affect his thinking and he won Wimbleton afterwords.

That doesn't support the argument that thinking can directly influence objects disconnected from the body.

Quantum particles. The observers intention influences whether an electron becomes a particle or a wave. Can't remember the name of this experiment but I'm sure someone on here does.

This thread of the discussion highlights the issue of scope; Some believe all thought can influence all matter, while others believe that thought does have some influence, but only through physical mechanisms, which could be psychological/neurobiological mechanisms which only seem to directly link thought to results.

Yup, you nailed it. I used to think that thoughts only affect matter through direct physical mechanisms, however I no longer think so.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by impaul99

What you mean? What about people who get paid not to say a word about something? You know, as in "We'll pay you $100k to keep your mouth shut." type of deals.

In that case you're not being paid for your thoughts and actions, you're being paid to not speak your thoughts. Completely different.

Originally Posted by impaul99

This isn't just one study. They've done tonnes of studies with this. I remember reading one where they broke up basketball players into a couple of groups. First they established a base point for free throw percentages. Then, for a period of time they had one group practice for a certain period of time by shooting the ball. Another group spent half of the same time visualizing shooting and half the time shooting. I don't remember the exact stat, but the group that did the visualizing+shooting something like a 80% better improvement rate compared to those who were just shooting, even though both groups had the exact same amount of time to "practice".

I found a similar study. Both involved all participants engaging in some activity. Hence not support for the argument that only thought is required. The argument that visualisation improves muscle growth (or anything else) is a very different argument.

If I misunderstood what Megan was referring to, then yeah, I agree, visualisation can influence results (when those results are achieved through action).

Originally Posted by impaul99

Quantum particles. The observers intention influences whether an electron becomes a particle or a wave. Can't remember the name of this experiment but I'm sure someone on here does.

If anyone does reference an experiment, make sure the experimenters understand quantum theory and demonstrate a clear correlation between quantum effects on subatomic particles and macroscopic events. Otherwise it's pure speculation (and thus fine for coming up with ideas, but useless for supporting an argument).

Btw impaul99, Godwin's law.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Megan: I'd be interested to read that study about mental weight lifting.

Here's one article.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

If anyone does reference an experiment, make sure the experimenters understand quantum theory and demonstrate a clear correlation between quantum effects on subatomic particles and macroscopic events.

Oh Mark. You're a bit behind times. The effects of quantum entanglement have already been demonstrated on the macroscopic level. Try googling these names - Rosenbaum and Sayantani Ghosh.

I guess you understand the implications, right. If two subatomic particles have ever experienced quantum entanglement, they will always be entangled. Distance becomes irrelevant. The behaviour of one particle will instantaneously affect the other. The affected behaviour of that one particle will in turn affect the behaviour of every other particle it has ever experienced quantum entanglement with.

Thought for you to chew on. I think a thought. Electrons move in my brain. Electrons are subatomic. Each of them instantaneously affects every particle that they have ever experienced quantum entanglement with, since the beginning of the universe. Each of those affected particles affect all other particles that they've ever collided with.

My thoughts are linked to the entire universe.

See?

Oh sorry, for being boring. We already knew all that, didn't we? It's in Chapter One of Abraham Hicks, very basic.

[Acting Like Godot]

This action / thought thing is stupid.

Let me give you an example of what can happen, with thought alone.

EVERY deliberate, intentional physical action of your body.

[Akashic_Librarian]

Well technically you don't use your conscious mind to move your body. Try and "think" your arm into moving...it doesn't work.

[themaster]

The Secret is great for believers, and potentially convincing for those who are unsure, but little more than confirmation of wilful misguidance to sceptics.

I will say what I always say.. the Secret/LOA is a religion the foundation for that religion seems to be channeled material (minus some earlier tapings)

The experiment cannot be exactly ever proved repeatable and it can always be analyzed and skeptisized exactly as any religion..

I'm sorry that other people don't join me in this...

I myself would one day like to run a simple sugar pill experiment.. I mean really the human body does have the ability to heal itself.. sugar pill experiments have shown that.. is that loa or is that what abraham calls "letting it in"

There's some other great source material out there.. some is the remote viewing experiments done by the CIA.. some is psychic/metaphysic abilities such as people like Uri Geller claim to have.. and some is just a interesting scientific experiment about manipulation of random number generators by proposed human conscious.. all of this comes from a interesting paranormal series I saw which I can't honestly remember the name..

I quite honestly think if there was a instruction manual to this life.. then the abraham material our those instructions.. but I wait to be proved wrong.. and what I mean from that is for every piece to the puzzle the answer fits.. but of course that is a religious experience

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

Well technically you don't use your conscious mind to move your body. Try and "think" your arm into moving...it doesn't work.

Try moving your arm when you're in a coma or brain-dead then. Or ask our hypothetical lawyer to type out his letter of legal advice, when he is asleep.

More pertinently, you're drawing your own distinctions between conscious mind and other forms of mind - while I believe that the Law of Attraction has something to do with all of it;

for example, many different aspects of LOA deal not with left-brain conscious thought, but with images, visualisation, emotions, subconscious limiting beliefs etc. If you consider what Abraham Hicks has got to say about dreams, you'll see that dreams have their definite place in the conceptual framework of how LOA works too, although dreams are certainly not a prime example of your "conscious mind" at work.

You'll note that as per standard LOA theory, when you manifest an intention, your "conscious mind" doesn't need to know how the intention will come true, in order for it to come true. You could draw an anaology here, to physical movements of your body that the "conscious mind" can't "think" into reality.

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Try moving your arm when you're in a coma

Done all the time while under anaesthesia.. (which is induced coma)...

That is the reason the patient is given a muscular paralyzing substance...

.

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

More pertinently, you're drawing your own distinctions between conscious mind and other forms of mind -

How many minds do you have ALG...???

.

[Lil Chris]

One mind - Infinite possibilities

[Megan]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Megan: I'd be interested to read that study about mental weight lifting. Do you remember where you came across it? And suppose it were valid, and that thinking can build muscle, or make other changes to the body. That doesn't support the argument that thinking can directly influence objects disconnected from the body. Particularly if the study could isolate the mechanisms of thought influencing muscle (release of hormones which stimulate growth for one example, and unconscious clenching of muscles during the 'thought' exercises for another...)

I couldn't remember, but looking back over the thread, I see that Acting Like Godot brought it up before I did.

I'll post a link.

Megan

[Megan]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Yes, the current scientific understanding of the universe is somewhat lagging behind. To understand what's scientifically available, though, you can consider reading Lynna McTaggart's book "The Intention Experiment" which surveys scientists' fledging attempts to understand how intention, thoughts etc can produce observable, measurable changes in reality.

The examples are really quite diverse - I'll just give a few. Stanford physicist William Tiller has got an experiment demonstrating how meditators' focused thoughts affect the rate of development of fruit fly larvae.

There are a few interesting neuroscience experiments about how, merely by IMAGINING that you're working out with weights, your biceps actually gain in muscular strength.

Professor Jahn, a NASA rocket scientist who was also with Princeton University, gets mentioned for his experiments on how human intention affects the outcomes generated by a Random Event Generator (which you can conveniently think of as an electronic coin flipper). Etc etc.

Unfortunately the book was published too late to cover Dean Radin's double-blind, and successful, scientific attempt to replicate Masaru Emoto's experiments about human thoughts directed at water end up affecting the shape of the water crystals subsequently formed from the water. Radin's attempt was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal late in 2006.

Where did we read this, Godot? Thanks.

Megan

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Here's one article.

This article and follow up research highlights the problem with making assumptions and using those assumptions in psuedoscientific explanations. The first two experiments, one on finger joints, and one on both finger and elbow joints, showed that mental training increased strength. But how was the strength increase achieved? Not through increased muscle mass, but though enhanced cortical output signals. In other words, stronger signals being sent from the brain to the muscles. The muscles didn't change much.

And yet a different study wasn't able to replicate the results.

So, thinking, under some circumstances which haven't been isolated, may create neurological changes which influence strength. Saying anything else, including that thinking is real external action, is unsupported speculation (though I welcome anything which shows otherwise).

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Oh Mark. You're a bit behind times. The effects of quantum entanglement have already been demonstrated on the macroscopic level. Try googling these names - Rosenbaum and Sayantani Ghosh.

Ahh, thanks for that. Interesting stuff; Rosenbaum and his colleagues showed that quantum entanglement effected the magnetic alignment of atoms in salt crystals. I read a news article and had a look at the abstract of the paper itself but I'll admit the details go over my head. Can you explain how these findings relate to thoughts being linked to the entire universe, and how thoughts influence objects? As far as I'm aware the implications of quantum entanglement don't extend to mechanisms of thought over matter.

If there is an explanation in Hicks' book, and it's backed by science I'm happy to read it. Note that I'm not questioning anyone's theories, just the misuse of science in explanations of those theories. It's a huge series of leaps to go from entanglement, to everything being entangled, to influence over matter through thought via entanglement.

[Megan]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Can you explain how these findings relate to thoughts being linked to the entire universe....

By the tendrils of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, of course.

You wouldn't understand, because you don't have faith.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Megan

By the tendrils of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, of course.

All hail His noodly appendage!

Originally Posted by Megan

You wouldn't understand, because you don't have faith.

Ahh right, one of those "it just is, don't ask questions" kinda things... I have faith in the ability of humans to understand without resorting to mysticism

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

I have faith in the ability of humans to understand without resorting to mysticism

I agree with you Mark and I feel that sometimes it's OK to say, "We don't know and probably never will know..."

An inquisitive doubt is always better than an unfounded and juvenile certitude...
.

[Megan]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Ahh right, one of those "it just is, don't ask questions" kinda things... I have faith in the ability of humans to understand without resorting to mysticism

I think this book is an interesting compendium of the writings of twentieth century physicists on science and mysticism:

Amazon.com: Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists: Books: Ken Wilber

[Acting Like Godot]

Lol, do not be upset from mark, he comes from a different angle, that is all. If he had been born in a diferent time, he would have called Louis Pasteur superstitious for saying that milk has little invisible living things in it that can make it go bad.

I will write more later, currently I am on the move andtyping from my blackberry, it is inconvenient. I will explain later what science has uncovered so far, but the key point to note is that what's unprovable or currently unproven in science is not necessarily false, but merely unprovable or currently unproven in science -

And the reasons could be manifold - eg the sheer backwardness of science in a particular area; the inherent non-replicability of a particular phenomenon (eg no one else on the planet being able to think exactly like esther hicks. Or ALG. Or mark); the lack of scientists researching the matter or the difficulty of obtaining research funding.

Key point to note is not to make the mistake of dismissing the non-scientific as false. Theories and concepts in economics, philosophy, law, business, architecture, art, religion, pedagogy, literature, design, psychology etc etc are all largely non-scientific.

As for LOA, well, it encompasses all of reality, which is why we can consider it from so many different angles - personal development, religion, psychology, physics, neuroscience etc. Each of these perspectives can potentially shed some light on LOA; none can describe it completely,

If you think about it for a moment and consider how the scientific method works, you'll see that the statement:

"The law of attraction does not exist"

Is as unscientific as the statement:

"The law of attraction exists".

Yes, mark?

[Megan]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Lol, do not be upset from mark, he comes from a different angle, that is all. If he had been born in a diferent time, he would have called Louis Pasteur superstitious for saying that milk has little invisible living things in it that can make it go bad.

Oh, not upset--just had to tease him about about the FSM.

Pseudoscience is not defendable, it is self-evident.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I will explain later what science has uncovered so far, but the key point to note is that what's unprovable or currently unproven in science is not necessarily false, but merely unprovable or currently unproven in science

That's what makes pseudoscience so annoying.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

And the reasons could be manifold - eg the sheer backwardness of science in a particular area; \u{the inherent non-replicability of a particular phenomenon} (eg no one else on the planet being able to think exactly like esther hicks. Or ALG. Or mark); the lack of scientists researching the matter or the difficulty of obtaining research funding.

Yeah, like do we really know all the variables? Not.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Key point to note is not to make the mistake of dismissing the non-scientific as false. Theories and concepts in economics, philosophy, law, business, architecture, art, religion, pedagogy, literature, design, psychology etc etc are all largely non-scientific.

This is true. Lots of them are crocks, too.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

As for LOA, well, it encompasses all of reality, which is why we can consider it from so many different angles - personal development, religion, psychology, physics, neuroscience etc. Each of these perspectives can potentially shed some light on LOA; none can describe it completely.

Quite so, my good Godot.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

If you think about it for a moment and consider how the scientific method works, you'll see that the statement:

"The law of attraction does not exist"

Is as unscientific as the statement:

"The law of attraction exists".

Yes, mark?

I agree. And just as unscientific as either of these:

"God does not exist"

Is as unscientific as the statement:

"God exists".

Gotta go, Godot, see you later.

Megan