Alternative View of "The Secret"

[Mark Lapierre]

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.

I'm glad Megan isn't upset, and I hope I haven't upset anyone else either. If so I apologise, this is just a conversation about alternate views, but isn't intended to say anything about the people who hold the views. That last point is very important and it makes what you, ALG, think I'd think of Louis Pasteur irrelevant, not to mention incorrect.

Though I'm glad you did mention Pasteur because he's actually a good example of what I'm trying to say. He didn't just say there were "little invisible things" in milk. He defined what they were, and proved their existence through experimentation. He didn't just leave it at speculation.

I agree 100% that you shouldn't just dismiss something non-scientific as false. Science, logic and faith are not incompatible. See Michael's post for more.

It seems I've given the wrong impression. I'm not saying that the LoA is false. Nor that what gets labeled as Mysticism is false. At the core I'm trying to get across one key point in this thread, which is that explanations based on concepts which are highly doubtful, or unprovable, or currently unproven (where their likelihood is unknown), don't serve as explanations. They serve well as opportunities for discussion, analysis, further research, or pure faith. But they do not serve as explanations. See Jason's mention of false positives.

I challenged the suggestion that thoughts directly influence matter using quantum theory as an explanation. I didn't deny that thoughts directly influence matter, and won't deny that because it's impossible to disprove, in a general sense (but as shown in my previous post, falsifiable in specific cases).

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?

Sure. Neither is a testable hypothesis (to use scientific terms). But even more than being unscientific, the first statement is nonsensical. As I tried to explain here to Dharma, the LoA, like any law, is a description of a process (or group of processes). Of course it exists, conceptually.

You could make them scientific statements if you stated whether or not the LoA is a valid description. Though you'd have to get far more specific than just "the LoA is a valid description", such as "Thinking about getting a raise will result in getting a raise."

Originally Posted by Megan

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

I love you too, Megan.

Originally Posted by Megan

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

I disagree. Depending on your definition of God, and of existence, "God exists" could be a testable hypothesis. Of course if God is a transcendent entity who exists separate from, and has no further influence over, our universe, then no, that statement can't be tested.

[Acting Like Godot]

Well, it's good that we all understand each other, Mark.

Personally, for me, in seeking to understand LOA in a theoretical way, I turn to diverse sources. As mentioned before, I would read, for example, about quantum physics, Buddhism, Abraham-Hicks, neuroscience, psychology, Carl Jung, Indian spiritual practices, hypnosis etc.

I would not say that LOA is false, because a part of it is not in accordance with a certain chapter in Buddhist scripture. Similarly I would not say that LOA is false, because a part of it is not in line with one of Carl Jung's treatises.

And I would not say that LOA is false, because scientists haven't proven a certain A, B or C in quantum physics.

But it is always interesting for me, to put all these different fields, disciplines etc side by side, and see how they actually manage to add up to a grand, and surprisingly coherent and consistent description of reality and consciousness.

For instance, if you refuse to accept the "consciousness causes collapse" theory in quantum physics, one of the major alternatives would be physicist Hugh Everitt's "Many Worlds" theory - and gasp! When you read about that theory, it's practically like a chapter from Jane Roberts' "The Seth Material", where Seth, a purportedly channeled being, explains what he calls "multidimensional reality".

Anyway, all that, as I said, relates to the theoretical aspect of LOA for me.

In practice, I just go around manifesting more and more good things for myself and my family. It's fun and exciting, and sometimes it does make the theory part seem rather silly and irrelevant. Who cares exactly how it works, as long as it DOES work?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

I disagree. Depending on your definition of God, and of existence, "God exists" could be a testable hypothesis.

Then go and test it. Good luck trying to get research funding from the dean of your science faculty too.

[Lil Chris]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

In practice, I just go around manifesting more and more good things for myself and my family. It's fun and exciting, and sometimes it does make the theory part seem rather silly and irrelevant. Who cares exactly how it works, as long as it DOES work?

And at the end of the day... This is what matters!

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I would not say that LOA is false, because a part of it is not in accordance with a certain chapter in Buddhist scripture. Similarly I would not say that LOA is false, because a part of it is not in line with one of Carl Jung's treatises. And I would not say that LOA is false, because scientists haven't proven a certain A, B or C in quantum physics.

But it is always interesting for me, to put all these different fields, disciplines etc side by side, and see how they actually manage to add up to a grand, and surprisingly coherent and consistent description of reality and consciousness.

Yup, I can see that, and I know I do the same, just picking and choosing different aspects of all those same concepts (and quite possibly many of the same as you) to accept and integrate into something that works for me.

It's what we humans have done for a long time. Some Christians have chosen some parts of the bible to accept and others to reject (or at least label as metaphor), while others make different selections. Steve has said he immerses himself in set of beliefs he's exploring, then decides which beliefs to keep and which to reject, thereby not identifying with any one system.

So why should it be possible that different people can look at the same concepts and combine them in different ways, each equally appropriate (at least to them)? There's probably a number of positive and negative reasons (creativity on the positive side, cognitive bias on the negative side, for example). But I think it does highlight the problem with taking an assumption and running with it. It seems obvious to the one who made it, yet many other people would disagree. We'd do well to stop and think why, otherwise we may end up running off the cliff that everyone else saw but we didn't...

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

For instance, if you refuse to accept the "consciousness causes collapse" theory in quantum physics, one of the major alternatives would be physicist Hugh Everitt's "Many Worlds" theory - and gasp! When you read about that theory, it's practically like a chapter from Jane Roberts' "The Seth Material", where Seth, a purportedly channeled being, explains what he calls "multidimensional reality".

And no doubt if you look further into the past you'll see similar ideas of multidimensional reality. From my point of view, both theories are equally (un)likely. Mainly because I don't know enough and there are dissenting opinions amongst those who know more. I have a nice view from up on the fence here so I think I'll sit for a while.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Anyway, all that, as I said, relates to the theoretical aspect of LOA for me.

A little earlier I read a quote, which I can't remember exactly so I'm paraphrasing, "we all consistently use what we already know to build little stories about what we don't." I'd extend that to say that we're more inclined to associate something new with the strongest of our existing pieces of knowledge. Therefore if your primary belief is in the LoA, it's no surprise that you readily associate everything with it, particularly if you define the LoA as something with a very large scope. The same with me and generally scientific beliefs. (and there's neuroscientific support for this process which you may have come across).

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

In practice, I just go around manifesting more and more good things for myself and my family. It's fun and exciting, and sometimes it does make the theory part seem rather silly and irrelevant. Who cares exactly how it works, as long as it DOES work?

It all depends on what you want to do with it. If you want to use if for yourself and your family, sure, how doesn't matter much, as long as you know enough of how to make sure that it does work. If you want to pass it on to your kids, how matters a little more, but not too much.

But if you want to teach it to everyone, well, then how matters a lot, particularly when curious (and possibly annoying) students ask difficult questions. I've taken yoga classes with a few different teachers. Two of the best knew a lot of the history of yoga, had trained with revered yogis, and were highly knowledgeable and obviously very good at what they did. Both incorporated traditional, non-scientific concepts and theory into their training. Yet one had also studied human physiology. Guess who was the better instructor? (though 'better' in this case is really a distinction between really really really good and really really good )

And if you want to improve the process, how matters. If you want to use it to improve other process, how matters. If you want to use it to understand (or explain) how the universe works, how matters.

As for testing the God hypothesis, ha, no thanks. Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's not a waste of time

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

So why should it be possible that different people can look at the same concepts and combine them in different ways, each equally appropriate (at least to them)?

LOL. But of course. This is the effect predicted by LOA. Your own thoughts create your own reality.