Intention Manifestation or Just Wishful Thinking

[Radical]

Originally Posted by trekr5

Radical

Believe what you want to believe and leave everyone else to do so as well

I for one read Steve's blog because I find it very useful and extremely informative. Now if people want to quote his articles when debating a point, then good for them. As you are a self proclaimed skeptic, then that's your business too. Just don't throw your toys out of the pram because no one gives you audience. You have to convince people of your point of view and not insinuate that people are bring drawn into cult-like thinking because they don't agree with you.

If that's the way you feel, find another forum

You seem to think I come here to gain approval, you are mistaken.

I am simply expressing my views on the subject, take them or leave them, it is up to you.

Don't get offended however and go crying to Steve or someone, since I have been notified by him of several complaints about my posts.

Engage in the discussion and try and explain why intention manifestation isn't just plain wishful thinking, since all common sense would indicate that it is nothing more than just that.

[Erki]

Intention-Manifestation = Law of Attraction = wishful thinking = uncommon sense = whatever.

Call it whatever you want to call it, I see it has worked for some people, at least for those who have taken it seriously, so why shouldn't I try it? Maybe it would even work, what do I have to lose? If I go insane and delude myself...well, good, people always keep saying that I'm a bit insane anyway so I have nothing to lose.

Should I sit here, ponder if I-M is real or not, or go and try to use it and see what happens? I can analyze it later if I want. I don't think for long hours about how computer's motherboard works, I just use the damn computer.


PS: I see you're getting a bit uncomfortable here, most of your posts are pretty much soaked of arrogance. Lighten up, (wo)man!

[Radical]

Originally Posted by Erki

PS: I see you're getting a bit uncomfortable here, most of your posts are pretty much soaked of arrogance. Lighten up, (wo)man!

Uncomfortable no, confused maybe.

I am confused why people would get so offended just because I disagree with a concept.

We all need to "lighten up" as you say. Maybe I should try this concept for myself, but how would I know whether it was a coincidence or an intention manifested?

[Lil Chris]

Well said Erki,
You see Radical, Some of us have had experiences that go beyond the rehlm of normal... Experiences that arn't easily dismissed. Personally, I've had too many to count, Can I prove this to you... NO.

I appreciate where you're comming from, because i was once there... Does that make me dilusional... Maybe. Evolved... Perhaps. Open to things I can't quite understand yet... Definately.

The whole point is to make known, the unknown (for me). But here's the deal, if you tell me how something is, without me exploring for myself, then there's NO experience in that ( i wouldn't even know if it's true)... Just like i've done since birth, through out school, up until now (i've taken the word of others)... Whose to say what the boundries of mankind are... Who YOU, come on now man, you can't honestly believe that. Furthermore some of your posts come off quite harsh, making you sound like a DI*K...

You can express opinions better than how you're currently doing it... With some respect.

[Radical]

Maybe you should try answering my question instead of critisizing me. How do you know if an intention manifested is not just a coincidence?

Please try not to get wrapped up in the emotion of my messages and try and concentrate on the substance.

[Phil Newton]

Originally Posted by Radical

Maybe you should try answering my question instead of critisizing me. How do you know if an intention manifested is not just a coincidence?

Depends on at what point something stops being a coincidence and starts to become something larger. For example, if one intends to manifest $100,000 and earns $95,000 through a new venture, is that a manifestation or a coincidence, and does it really matter?

I'm guessing the first thing to do would be to manifest something outlandish, like the ability to turn lead into gold or something similar. Although this might seem like a good test, it's akin to learning to drive before learning to crawl. Start small, and see where it goes from there.

I'm only on day 3 of trying intention manifestation properly, so I've no idea if it works or not. I figure the potential to achieve more is worth a go.

[Lil Chris]

I've explained it here:
How has Intention-Manifestation worked for you?

[Sireesha]

Why not try it for a few weeks, even if it is just to rule it out . At the end of it, you can form your own opinion. If something happens, its upto you to decide if it was a coincidence or actual manifestation. If it works for you, then it works for you, if not it doesn't .

[Radical]

Originally Posted by Sireesha

Why not try it for a few weeks, even if it is just to rule it out . At the end of it, you can form your own opinion. If something happens, its upto you to decide if it was a coincidence or actual manifestation. If it works for you, then it works for you, if not it doesn't .

I will try it out and see what happens, however if my results are unsuccessful I'm sure people would just claim that I had doubtful thoughts which prevented it from working.

Although I tried Steve's million dollar intention, and for the next few days I started finding 1p coins on the floor. Who knows?

[ahimel]

Originally Posted by Radical

Good point, this is exactly how cults start. It's good to be open to new ideas, but to blindly accept them without sufficient evidence backing up the claims is just plain foolishness.

Where did you find someone suggesting that the claims should be blindly accepted?

And what would you consider "sufficient evidence"? I would argue that the only way to gather evidence on IM claims is to try it. If it works, then that's sufficient evidence to accept it. If it doesn't, that's sufficient evidence to reject it. So the only possible way to decide what to believe is to try it yourself.

Which, IIRC, is exactly what Steve has proposed in every article he's written on IM: try it yourself, and see what you think.

[Lil Chris]

Originally Posted by Radical

I will try it out and see what happens, however if my results are unsuccessful I'm sure people would just claim that I had doubtful thoughts which prevented it from working.

Although I tried Steve's million dollar intention, and for the next few days I started finding 1p coins on the floor. Who knows?

Part of I-M, is acknowledging your current thought patterns, In this post you say: "however if my results are unsuccessful I'm sure people would just claim that I had doubtful thoughts which prevented it from working."

UNDERSTAND THIS:
I am in no way trying to critisize you, but to mearly point out that statments like this have an effect on your outcome as well... Meaning that, when or if you do try this, try to be as open as possible, I know this can be quite difficult. Believe me when I tell you, I know...

It's interesting that when you tried the million dollar experiment, you started seeing pennies, Did you acknowledge them...? If you did, chances are that those occurrances would increase as well as the ammount...

I know that when I started telling myself that "money comes easily and frequently" I've won the last 7 out of 9 scratch off lotto tickets, (what can I say, I like the scratchers). But this is a significant noticable increase for me. Have they been big winners, Not yet, but eveytime I do acknowledge the winner and say thanks. Who am I thanking, Myself, God, I don't know... But i'm appreciative... You see this is new territory for me, and for alot of folks, this concept may or may not be fact, but until I came here I didn't know anybody who would openly talk about this kind of stuff (wether right or wrong), I still had questions...

So, I hope you can find your truth in this matter... Peace out brother.

[thadroe]

I was skeptical at first as I am about a lot of things. However, with so many successful and happy people saying it's true, I figured if it's a law that is working whether I like it or not, I should at least try it.

This took a lot of faith on my part which I don't normally have.

What I have found is things really are starting to align based on my thoughts and intentions.

I have no idea how it works...maybe my thoughts and intentions are making me take actions I normally wouldn't have taken, or maybe it really is a force in the universe pushing things my way.

I don't know but I like it and will keep doing it.

Thad

[trekr5]

Originally Posted by Radical

You seem to think I come here to gain approval, you are mistaken.

I am simply expressing my views on the subject, take them or leave them, it is up to you.

Don't get offended however and go crying to Steve or someone, since I have been notified by him of several complaints about my posts.

Engage in the discussion and try and explain why intention manifestation isn't just plain wishful thinking, since all common sense would indicate that it is nothing more than just that.

Look Radical

We're all intelligent adults here.

The taste of the pudding(desert) is in the eating. Try the IM model and see. If it doesn't work for you then so be it...if it does then fantastic. I also recommend you get a film called "The Secret" and watch it..preferably more than once and then apply some of the concepts over a 30 day test period and see what happens.

Of course there is no harm in questioning but what annoyed me was your insinuation about the rest of us being drawn into cult-like thinking. If you aren't prepared to be open minded and at least entertain the thought that IM might work then even if you did see evidence you would probably dismiss it because it doesn't conform to your version of reality.

Let go of the mental baggage and open up your mind. You'll be a lot happier than you are now

[Alvin]

Hi Radical,

I think it's good to have open discussions. Your question is an interesting one: how can you prove it's your intentions manifesting or just plain coincidence?

If we turn the question around; how can we prove it's just coincidence instead of your intentions manifesting, I think we realize we can't.

A conundrum!

Even Jung speculated on the nature of synchronicity.

How about when groups of people come together to meditate and crime rates drop? Doubtful? Maybe. Anyway to really prove it? Doubt it.

How about random number generators that spike bizzarely before significant events occur? Interesting...but what does it really mean?

The only explaination I know from science that could have anything to do with the I-M model is the probable explaination for the double-slit experiment: nothing is real until it is observed, or that the act of observing something changes it.

So we can say that at the smallest unit of the universe, our thoughts do seem to affect our reality. The problem (as I understand it, not being a physicist) is that quantum theory only works at the level of the small, it breaks down for big objects in which Newtonian physics still rules.

Comes down to it, it's a matter of belief systems. The Catch-22 about a subjective belief system is that it's subjective.

[justin]

I'm as skeptical as they come. Even so, I decided to try the whole IM thing--I mean, why not? Being skeptical and being close-minded aren't the same thing.

What I found was quite shocking, really--almost scary! All of the things I've attempted to manifest were small in essence--insignificant things, just to test the waters and "have some fun." Without getting into details, I'm now of the opinion that, with a little bit of refinement and practice, IM can be a viable way of handling various things in my life. Not only does it seem to help me get what I want, but it helps me refocus my energy (which is typically very unfocused) to whatever it is I tend to manifest.

If I want to manifest money, for instance, I don't expect it to just fall from the sky and into my wallet. I expect money-making situations to present themselves to me, and since I've set the intention out there, I will notice them and take advantage of them--whether subconsciously or not. If I hadn't of set the intention in the first place, chances are I wouldn't have noticed (or perhaps acted upon) that opportunity when it presented itself.

That's how I explain the magic.

[zippygoblet]

i think also something has to be said about 'cop out's. yes it is very convenient to have someone say, "well, you thought negatively anyway, of course it's not going to work". it does sound like a cop out as whatever happens, (IM successful = it worked, IM not successful = not doing IM properly), there's no way to prove it. but conversely, just because it's not prove-able doesn't automatically qualify it as a cop-out, i feel. it's just the way it is. it may be true that the IM was not done properly but it may also be true that the IM was not succesful. There's no way to prove it, that's the main gripe! so, in the end, we just have to try it, and if it works, great! if not, oh well, it made you positive anyway right? haha not a very intellectual assessment but it sure is fun discussing the possibilities!

[Radical]

Some excellent comments.

This discussion has really developed into something valuable, as I'm sure there is always that niggling doubt in the back of people's minds, even if they have been successful with their intentions.

Anyway, my problem with intention manifestation is why should it only work for simple intentions, which could easily be put down to coincidence?

I mean if you hold the intention to sprout wings for long enough, will you eventually sprout wings and be able to fly? Are there any boundaries? And if there are then why?

Surely if the concept is true, then the same principle will apply to simple intentions as it does to the more fanciful intentions?

[justin]

I don't think the IM model of thinking makes any distinction between "simple intentions" and "complex intentions." After all, IM isn't a "thing" that can distinguish another "thing," like our own minds can.

I see it as a reflection of your own mind, and nothing but that. You won't sprout wings because you know you can't. But you will get that promotion, or you will make that first million because you know you can. It has limitations, but those limitations exist in your mind--whether you've set those limitations yourself, or have accepted them from external sources as "Laws of the Universe" or what have you. I know that I won't sprout wings because I recognize these Laws as my own reality. I can't tell you whether it would be possible in someone else's reality--but I know if I were witness to someone trying to sprout wings in my reality, it wouldn't happen. And even if I did, I probably wouldn't believe it. That's the skeptic in me.

Here's a thought: what about those times when you're "pleasantly surprised" at the outcome of something? For instance, you weren't planning on having a good time at your company Christmas party, but you did. I think of those times as flaws in the IM system. I doubt anyone here thinks that intending something to happen is a surefire way to make it happen every single time without doubt. But in the case of the party, you intended--before ever going to the party--to have a bad time, yet you showed up and had a good time.

Were you subconsciously intending to have a good time? Doubtful. Was it a flaw in the IM system? Perhaps.

[Radical]

Originally Posted by justin

Here's a thought: what about those times when you're "pleasantly surprised" at the outcome of something? For instance, you weren't planning on having a good time at your company Christmas party, but you did. I think of those times as flaws in the IM system. I doubt anyone here thinks that intending something to happen is a surefire way to make it happen every single time without doubt. But in the case of the party, you intended--before ever going to the party--to have a bad time, yet you showed up and had a good time.

Were you subconsciously intending to have a good time? Doubtful. Was it a flaw in the IM system? Perhaps.

Good point. What about when people are intending excellent relationships, then find out their partner is cheating?

Also, what about when people get cancer or are invovled in serious accidents. Surely they weren't intending that?

Another problem with subjective reality is that it is impossible to comprehend something that you have never experienced before (note experience means first hand as well as second hand, i.e. hearing about the experiences of others). It is only by experience that we learn about things. For example, we needed our parents to teach us how to talk. If reality was subjective then you are saying we intended our parents to teach us speech, yet we didn't even know speech existed. Reality has to be objective, since thoughts beyond our experiences are incomprehensible.

[justin]

Also, what about when people get cancer or are invovled in serious accidents. Surely they weren't intending that?

Some people argue that they were infact intending it to happen. I don't know whether I agree with that or not, however.

With subjective reality, I don't think it's possible to prove one way or the other. How can I say absolutely that what I see and who I meet is "real" and valid? It comes down to Descartes, and cogito ergo sum: "I think, therefor I am." The only true thing you can know is yourself. His argument was even though everything around me appears to be real, how can I be absolutely sure? The only thing to be sure of, he says, is that you yourself (not me--or anyone else) exists at least as a thought.

On subjective reality, Steve says:

Everything you experience is occurring inside your consciousness, and that includes your head too. So your head is inside your consciousness, not the other way around.

How can you even begin to prove that anything happens outside of what you see and know? It's logically impossible, because as soon as you try to prove that something outside of your own knowledge exists, it's within your knowledge and thus in your conciousness.

[write2win]

Originally Posted by Radical

I will try it out and see what happens, however if my results are unsuccessful I'm sure people would just claim that I had doubtful thoughts which prevented it from working.

Radical:
Here is a challenge for ya!
INTEND TO ATTRACT in your life a simple thing, for 3 weeks...
* It should NOT be just wishful thinking.
* This will work only if "you think that you DESERVE to get that thing".
* This will work only if "you think that getting/attracting that thing in that timeFrame is 'achievable'"
* While saying that intention to Universe, put your mind (rational thinking), and heart (feelings, emotions) behind it.
* Don't sabotage this experiment. While

While the experiment goes on, you STILL could be doubtful/skeptical about the IM, in general. However, YOU SHOULD NOT DOUBT THAT WHAT YOU ARE INTENDING WOULD MANIFEST OR NOT as it would mean!

See if works! And let us all know!!
Hope you appreciate taking this challenge!

[Radical]

I would be willing to try this out for myself.

Any thoughts on my previous post? - Reality has to be objective, since thoughts beyond our experiences are incomprehensible.

[Adam]

Since this is my first forray into this topic, I'll be explaining quite a bit...

Radical, I love your style. You remind me of how I was a few years ago, and you're making me realize some of the things that I had loved about those times. So, here comes the old Adam, back for more debate. (Back then, I was known as illuminatus.) One thing to note: My sources aren't scientific icons, and I very rarely quote philosiphers who's bones have turned to dust. Most of my sources are mainly from science fiction authors, who have the distinction of being the best prophetic sources of all time.

First, though, I would like to respond to Radical's post that he's asking of now...

Originally Posted by Radical

Reality has to be objective, since thoughts beyond our experiences are incomprehensible.

In the subjective reality model that Steve expresses, the consciousness is seperate from the ego. I've taken this a bit further down a chain of logic than Steve has expressed, which has led me to the conclusion that, if we do in fact life in a subjective reality, then the ego contains memories and emotions specific to the individual. Reality would be ruled by the sum of the beliefs shared by individual egos, which allows experiences outside of an individual's perspective to still be contained within consciousness.

Now, I would like to go to the beginning. Not the singularity which spawned time, nor the beginning of Steve's realization of the hypothesis of subjective reality, but to the only truth which can be proven logically.

"I think, therefor I am."

Douglas Adams hit on this when he created his character for the ruler of the galaxy; an elderly gentleman who's perspective was so subjective that he could not function in normal society, yet who's insight was so profound that he orchestrated the events of an entire galaxy. Of course, this character was a comedic implant, but it brought to light some of the flaws in modern thinking, the largest of which being that we can trust our senses.

I have many memories that I use to form my opinions on what is true and false. Generally, if I can remember something, then I tend to accept it. Many studies have shown, however, that first-hand accounts are often the least trustworthy. I myself remember two different versions of the same event. I have a current memory of it, and a memory of a memory. While I was in Korea, I learned enough of the language to get by. I held a few conversations in Korean, but right now, I remember holding the conversation in English. Obviously both can't be true, so I can't trust my memory.

Every sense is processed by our sub-conscious mind before we become aware of it. There are many examples of optical illusions out there that play on this sub-conscious processing... Obviously our sight can't be trusted. Touch can be fooled as well, as amputees report when they speak of 'ghost limbs.' There are some lesser known ways to fool the sense of touch as well, which can be extremely disconcerting. Hearing and taste/smell can be similiarly fooled... None of our senses are imune.

The only thing that we can trust is that, right now, we have consciousness. We can't trust that we had it before, and we can't trust that we will have it. We can't trust our observations or our memories either. The only thing that we have that we know absolutely is here and now.

Building off of that, how do we know that anything that we observe will behave in an objective manner? It could be our minds tricking ourselves into thinking that things are objective, and depending on what we expect, we experience it. If we expect the unexpected to happen, then something unexpected happens... If we believe that a radio station sometimes plays new songs, we will hear a new song. At the very least, we remember that a new song played, which may or may not have been what actually happened. If we believe that there is a way to communicate with people, then we use that method of communication.

Of course, spending too long in that train of thought could lead you to be as innefective as the ruler of the galaxy, or so I believe. I preffer to see the world as a bit more objective, with some subjective elements.

One thing to note: Personal development can never be a science, because it is impossible to make objective observations on yourself. At best, PD is a pseudo-science largely based off of scientific methods; at worst, it is conjecture with purely subjective results. What works for one person may not work for another. Intention Manifestation may seem to work, or may seem to fail, and how often it works and fails depends *entirely* on the subjective observations of those creating the intentions. The subjectivity or objectivity of reality can not be proven either way, just as intelligent design can not be proven. I greatly preffer subjective reality to intelligent design, however, because the subjectivists don't all come from a think-tank with the purpose of destroying scientific progress. (Yes, that is a direct dig at the Discovery Institute, the corrupt "non-profit" organization that Bush often visits for "campaign" donations)

[Radical]

Originally Posted by Adam

The only thing that we can trust is that, right now, we have consciousness. We can't trust that we had it before, and we can't trust that we will have it. We can't trust our observations or our memories either. The only thing that we have that we know absolutely is here and now.

I guess you're right. The main personal problem I have with this and the concept of subjective reality, is the feeling of alienation and aloneness it creates.

All we can really be sure of is the here and now, everything else is questionable.

Here's a particular quote I like from the film K-PAX.

"I wanna tell you something Mark, something you do not yet know, that we K-PAXians have been around long enough to have discovered. The universe will expand, then it will collapse back on itself, then will expand again. It will repeat this process forever. What you don't know is that when the universe expands again, everything will be as it is now. Whatever mistakes you make this time around, you will live through on your next pass. Every mistake you make, you will live through again, & again, forever. So my advice to you is to get it right this time around. Because this time is all you have."

[Alvin]

Originally Posted by Radical

I would be willing to try this out for myself.

Any thoughts on my previous post? - Reality has to be objective, since thoughts beyond our experiences are incomprehensible.

It seems there's one way Steve's theory might fit. If we're all really just one consciousness, then there's more experiences available than just our own.

Therefore, the mini-consciousness you didn't have to know the language your parents taught you before you knew about it, because the larger-consciousness You already knew it, being the consciousness of you, your parents, and everyone else.

Whew.

That's a big one, and I'm not sure even I believe it. I can entertain it though.

I think Lon Milo Duquette said it best in The Chicken Qabalah of Rabbi Lamed Ben Clifford: 'it's all in your head, you just have no idea how big your head is!'

[write2win]

Originally Posted by Radical

I would be willing to try this out for myself.

It would be interesting to see how it goes. Keep posting about the EXPERIMENT (if it's okay w/ ya) e.g. would like to know what is your intention for this expt. etc.

Originally Posted by Radical

Any thoughts on my previous post? - Reality has to be objective, since thoughts beyond our experiences are incomprehensible.

I completely agree with your view point to "question everything"!

P.S. Btw, I really appreciate you posting your point-of-views here and all the discussions that came on this thread. Let the healthy debate continue! Universe: make it so!!

[Radical]

I just saw the film Memento, and it got me thinking. I think the hardest thing with accepting the possibility that reality is subjective, is summed up in this quote from the film.

"I have to believe in a world outside my own mind. I have to believe that my actions still have meaning, even if I can't remember them. I have to believe that when my eyes are closed, the world's still there. Do I believe the world's still there? Is it still out there? Yeah. We all need mirrors to remind ourselves who we are. I'm no different."

[JJH]

It might be useful to think of an intention like this:

An intention is a "thought action." When you intend to do something, say something as simple as picking up keys off a table, that thought preceeds the action of "picking up keys." In acting for theatre and screen, they actually refer to it as "intention" or "inner action." The point is, having an intention does not exclude action, action is implicit in the thought itself (the thought directly leads to action). Here's where it gets interesting: the thinker may carry out the action, or the action(s) may be carried out by others.

The subjective model of reality is a valuable and practical one because it takes into consideration the interconnectedness of all things. Through one consciousness (call it the universe, god, zero-point field, whatever) our own awareness is a fragment - and both lens on our reality and connector to every other being.

I adopted this subjective model a few months ago and gained such great results that I see no point reverting back to the more traditional "objective" perspective. There is also no point trying to prove a particular model because that's all they are: "models," paradigms through which we personally think about and interact with our reality. It may or may not be "factual," all that counts are the results.

All the best

[Radical]

Originally Posted by JJH

It may or may not be "factual," all that counts are the results.

Science values truth above all else.

[Lil Chris]

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."

A. Einstein