Hard to reconcile

[sliccy]

The law of attraction is really our mind. So yes you are having to trick it so that you are using your mind as the tool it is intended for (you are in control of your mind)rather than the mind taking control of you.

This is great!

I have heard this before that you are not your mind, and the real "you" is in control of what you think. When I read it this time I was stunned for about 2 minutes just thinking about it's simplicity, it totally put everything into perspective. Thank you!

The collective intelligence I was talking about is not an intelligence that can be understood on a "human intellect" level as I tried to explain in my last post.
Try to think of the intelligence of a tree, growing towards the sun, avoiding the outlines of a road where cars and trucks race by, because the space which the trucks drive within is harmful, and this is remembered by the tree even tho it has no brain.
Take 2 acorns from the same tree, plant them on a distance of a few feet apart, and even tho the basic shape "tree" can be recognised, neither one will grow exactly the same, as the tree adapts to the part of the world it exists in. How ? Does it recognise the difference on an intellectual level ? On an emotional level ? Or on the level of Presence ? It seems intelligent design, it is even, but no mind has been used to design it. If you feel a hint of what I mean, but can't rationalise it, you are starting to "see" with both sides of the brain, as feeble as the connection still is at this moment.

I think I know what you mean, "seeing" with both sides. I think, but I am not certain this has happened to me occassionally ever since I started reading New Age material.

But regarding the tree, are you saying even though there might be no brain, mind, or whatever it is simply some sort of different intelligence...something alternative? Or perhaps it's even all three, intellectual, emotional, and presence? I am not sure I fully understand.

[Edwin]

Originally Posted by sliccy

But regarding the tree, are you saying even though there might be no brain, mind, or whatever it is simply some sort of different intelligence...something alternative? Or perhaps it's even all three, intellectual, emotional, and presence?

Exactly !

I am not sure I fully understand.

Or do you ?

( Oh you are going to hate me for this answer )

[GilesC]

Originally Posted by sliccy

This is great!

I have heard this before that you are not your mind, and the real "you" is in control of what you think. When I read it this time I was stunned for about 2 minutes just thinking about it's simplicity, it totally put everything into perspective. Thank you!

*nod*
Sometimes it's so simple it's difficult to understand.

I like to look at it simply as follows:

Who am "I"?

• The cells in my body have died and been replaced many times since I was born, but "I" have always existed and observed this happening.
• My emotions come and go, but "I" observe this happening and "I" am still the same "I" that existed before the emotion arose as "I" am after.
• My memories are simply experiences from the past and "I" can observe any memory "I" choose.
• "I" can observe my thoughts coming and going, yet "I" am still the same "I" that existed before the thought as "I" am after.

Therefore "I" cannot be the physical body, "I" cannot be the emotions, "I" cannot be the memories and "I" cannot be the thoughts. "I" am simply the observer of all these things and "I" never changes. This is my True Self... the unchanging observer.

Once this is recognised we can choose to let the negative emotions go, let the negative memories go, let the thoughts go, and come to understand who we truly are.

The mind (our unconscious and conscious thoughts) cannot be our True Self, but ego makes us believe that we are the thoughts (and the emotions and the physical body) and masks the True Self from recognition.

The ego is our attachment to things in the universe. In vedic teachings, the ego is called Ahankara (or Ahamkara) where Aham is the True Self and Kara is anything in the world. Freeing ourselves of these attachments (there's a buddhist concept for you!) allows us to connect with our True Self. Hence, meditation is a good practice for being free of the thoughts and the control of the mind and that occasional glimpse we get (sometimes scary at first) of being out of our body and a part of the whole universe, completely at peace, completely blissful, or however you want to describe it, is the recognition of BEing our True Self.

But regarding the tree, are you saying even though there might be no brain, mind, or whatever it is simply some sort of different intelligence...something alternative? Or perhaps it's even all three, intellectual, emotional, and presence? I am not sure I fully understand

E=mc^2 (Einstein's equation for energy and mass)

What that basically tells us is that Mass and Energy are directly related, or in simple terms, all mass is energy.

We know that the energy binds together to form the physical universe we see, and quantum physics has shown that sub-atomic particles have something called quantum entanglement, where a particle in one place of the universe is connected to another particle in another place of the universe (local experiments have proven this over a distance of several miles). This clearly shows that all energy is connected and we are not just bound into single entities.

As such, the energy of our physical bodies, our memories, our thoughts (for they are all energy)... everything is connected with the energy of everything else in the Universe.

This can be labelled how we like... "At One", "One Consciousness", "One Intelligence"... even "God" if you like. We are all part of the other... We are all One.

So is it something "alternative"? How can you have an alternative to something that is everything; something that is All.

At least that's the way I look at it.



Hugs

Giles

p.s. Sorry if all that was a bit heavy.

[Edwin]

That is a very excellent explanation Giles !

What struck me after about a year of "easing into" this concept, is that all religions talk about this same thing, about what Giles explained, and that this has been a knowledge after reaching a certain degree of enlightenment for thousands of years...

And only now is science starting to prove it.
Mind you, we would not have gotten here if it weren't for the enlightenment of a person with a talent for mathematics, Albert Einstein. He was able to show his knowledge of enlightenment with a mathematical equasion.
Based on his work came the experiments that made quantum physics what it is today.

It takes a lot of getting into this concept, because the mind will try to tell you that this is all impossible. All I can say is, try to feel it rather than rationalise it. Albert Einstein could, why not you ?

[sliccy]

Giles, thank you once again for your insightful explainations.

Now that this question is answered for me, I think I have another one.

It's regarding the Law of Attraction and Science. Now, I have heard many of the gurus saying that LOA is scientifcally proven, Bob Proctor being one of the main ones. But I have stumbled across criticism on varies occasions. The most recent one, I was just Googleing some LOA material and I wanted to see what wiki had on it. There was a section specifically on the criticism LOA has received. Most of it directed towards The Secret.

Law of Attraction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is the link to the Wikipedia.

I do realize that this is always been around, some people agree with a certain concept and other don't.

My question is what do you do when you read something like this that trys to disprove what you on one level or another know to be true. How do you stay "positive". That was a great thing you said Edwin, to try and not rationalize this but try to comprehend it on an emotional level (feel it).

But what do you guys do when something like this comes up? Do you just ignore it? Or do you try to find another scientific research to disprove theres? I mean, what do you do?

[Ta-tsu-wa]

Originally Posted by sliccy

I have heard many of the gurus saying that LOA is scientifcally proven, Bob Proctor being one of the main ones. But I have stumbled across criticism on varies occasions. The most recent one, I was just Googleing some LOA material and I wanted to see what wiki had on it. There was a section specifically on the criticism LOA has received. Most of it directed towards The Secret...

My question is what do you do when you read something like this that trys to disprove what you on one level or another know to be true. How do you stay "positive".

The problem is that people often use that term "scientifically proven" in a very loose, inaccurate way. When they do, and when those familiar with the process of science call them on it, things can look negative for those who made that claim.

Science is a process, and it isn't just a vague process it is a very specific, exact process.

Greatly simplified it would look something like this:

Observation [leads to] Hypothesis [leads to] Testing of Hypothesis [leads to] Successful or Unsuccessful Predictability [leads to] Replication of Hypothesis Testing By Others] = Valid Theory OR Invalid Theory.

And if the theory is found to be valid and enough successful testing is performed by others, both duplicating the original testing methodology as well as testing in new and different ways to insure the outcomes are consistently the same, then a Theory gets elevated to the level of a "Law", as in the "Law of Gravity."

This whole process, followed exactly, step, by step, by step, is called "the scientific method." Any time someone claims a thing has been "scientifically proven" or words to that effect, in order for that to be a true statement this thing they're referring to must have been put through these steps in a very precise way. If it has not been tested using this methodology then it is not "scientifically proven," end of story.

Any researcher will tell you that the most difficult part of applying this scientific method is in devising ways to test the validity of a hypothesis. Tests must be designed precisely so as to validate what is being tested for and eliminate or exclude all other possible causes.

For example, remember a year or so ago there was a salmonella outbreak that was blamed on tomatoes? People began contracting salmonella so health officials started looking for patterns of commonality between these people. They noticed something or other about these people having all recently eaten hamburgers or some such thing, which contained tomatoes. I don't recall the exact details but it was something along those lines.

So they made an observation about salmonella and tomatoes and immediately put a ban on tomatoes and tomato products. As things turned out this was a bad call because it wasn't the tomatoes at all that ended up being the cause of the salmonella. It was something else that was often associated with tomatoes. The health officials were responsible for imposing severe financial consequences on tomato growers because they did not adequately test their hypothesis. They made a quick association with tomatoes and jumped on that as the cause because there were virtually no well designed tests to investigate this tomato hypothesis.

Most scientific research that is submitted for publication in trade journals gets tossed out without printing because the methodology of hypothesis testing is disputed and therefore any conclusions drawn from that testing are also in dispute.

So when Bob Proctor says that LOA is "scientifically proven", or words to that effect, the first thing anyone wanting to verify that statement should say is, "OK, show me the studies and testing that have been carried out using the scientific method." If there aren't any, or if the studies have not been well designed, then the claim for "scientific proof" is worthless. Many times what you have is just a marketing claim. Marketers have lists of words they use that are shown to induce people to make purchases more readily, and that term, "scientifically proven" is at the top of their list.

But if the strict method of science was not used, and used properly, the claim of scientific proof is a mistake at best and a deliberate attempt at deception at worst.

Having said that, we should all keep in mind that not everything that is true is necessarily provable by science, at least science at our present level of understanding.

I love my wife. I love her more than any other person on the face of this planet. I know that is true. It is one of the few things about which I can say without reservation, this is an absolute truth without room for dispute or interpretation. But despite my absolute knowledge of this truth, I cannot prove it to anyone scientifically. There is no way the scientific method can be applied to this statement in such a way that it would satisfy everyone that I have accounted for all the facts and eliminated all contrary possibilities. At our present level of development the love I feel for my wife is not scientifically provable. And yet, it is one of the single greatest truths I possess.

There are many things that might fall into this category. Perhaps LOA is one of them. Perhaps someone knows of such tests that I'm unaware of, but to my knowledge there has been no serious scientific testing of LOA. Certainly nothing that has been reported in a related trade journal. Again, I might be uninformed, but as far as I am aware, Bob Proctor and those who claim LOA has been scienficially proven have no scientific method to back up that claim.

But lack of scientific testing doesn't make LOA untrue. For thousands of years humans had no concept of gravity or the Law of Gravity and were in no position to test for its existence scientifically. Despite this, gravity was always in effect. It didn't care that no scientific validation supported its existence.

It has never been "scientifically proved" to me that my mother is my mother and yet I know exactly who she is because I've experienced her. I could take you to a stadium filled with 100,000 people and pick her out of that crowd and introduce her to you. If you have never met my mother and I took you to that stadium it would be difficult for me to help you know her as certainly as I know her without introducing you in person. I could describe her. I could tell you to look for a woman who was 5'2" tall, medium short, sandy brown hair, 105 lbs., blue eyes, and you would tell me that there were a thousand or more women in the stadium who matched that description. I suppose I could submit the results of DNA testing to you (if such a thing were carried out,) and that would constitute scientific proof she was my mother, but even then you wouldn't be able to pick her out of the crowd. But after I introduced you to her and you experienced meeting her for yourself you would always know exactly who she was, with greater precision than any scientific test or description could ever convey to you. I'd look at LOA in a similar way if I were you and see what grows in your own garden.

In my opinion, the greatest test of all is the test of our own experience. If something works for me I'll keep using it. It doesn't matter that it doesn't work for someone else. It doesn't matter that someone else might be able to assemble facts or arguments that logically demonstrate why a thing can't possibly work. If something works for me, it works for me and I'll use it unless/until it no longer works for me. I'll let the philosophers worry about those questions of "how" and "why". My focus will remain on the successful results.

[Inedible]

Originally Posted by enlighteneduk

Was reading a story in the paper yesterday. A 16 year old boy was desperate to learn to drive. He plagued his Mum to have a go in the car ( presumably off road as he isnt old enough to drive here in the UK). He got in the car when he was waiting for his Mum to come out to drive him somewhere, and got in the drivers seat. I cant remember the exact ins and outs, but he started to move the car, and saw his Mum behind him. He mistook the clutch for the footbrake and crushed his Mother against a tree with the car, killing her. The inquest was yesterday.

Yes, he attracted this terrible tragedy by his actions in driving the car, but how on earth is he going to face the consequences for the rest of his young life? Can you imagine going to sleep every night, in his minds eye, the look of pain and terror on his dying Mother's face, knowing that he had caused it? He wasnt a teenage thug who killed his Mum deliberately,-not the first time this has happened- he loved her, and just wanted her to teach him to drive. I just cannot imagine how the Universe will ever be able to repair his life? Any thoughts on this, folks?


Heather

Heather

There is a saying that comes to mind: Don't go borrowing trouble. It won't help them any and it won't help you either. If you are looking for a good distraction from your own process, that's another matter.

[Still Waters]

Great explaination ta-tsu-wa.

The point about the law of attraction is that applying it is an exciting personal adventure. If it was proven scientifically and formulae were introduced to apply them, the next inevitable stage would be that procedures would be put in place to enforce them. If you were not performing in school you would probably be made to stay behind in detntion, because you had not been applying LOA correctly

Also imagine been disciplined at work because you were not achieving results for the company, and your boss said this is because you had not been applying LOA formulae as laid down in the guidlines issued by human resources!

Just a silly thought but I can see reasons why it would be better not to have scientic proof but allow it to continue to be a matter of personal faith and exploration.

[GilesC]

Originally Posted by sliccy

Now that this question is answered for me, I think I have another one.

It's regarding the Law of Attraction and Science. Now, I have heard many of the gurus saying that LOA is scientifcally proven, Bob Proctor being one of the main ones. But I have stumbled across criticism on varies occasions. The most recent one, I was just Googleing some LOA material and I wanted to see what wiki had on it.

What is scientific proof?

(Ta-tsu-wa gives a very good answer in that respect.)

I find that many people claiming to be followers of science are nothing more than skeptics out for a fight. True science is not about saying, there's no formula for it; there's no proof for it, therefore it can't be valid or true. True science looks at cases of known conditions giving known results.

In the case of things like the LOA, it is not really a case of known conditions giving indeterminate results, but more a case of indeterminate conditions giving indeterminate results. What I mean is that, whilst people seem to be saying "If I think in this way, I should get these results" and it's showing that they sometimes do get those results and sometimes don't, the problem is not in the Law of Attraction (the process behind getting from the conditions to the results), but in not being full clear about the "thinking in this way" part. Nobody has measured accurately what the known conditions (the thinking) are at the start to be able to show that the results are consistent. This comes back to what I was saying way back up in this thread, where the conscious mind can be thinking one thing (e.g. "I am rich beyond belief and fully healthy") and the unconscious mind is really believing something else (e.g. "I've got no money, I don't know how I'll make any money, and I'm always ill"). Scienctific proof in this area would be trying to measure the conscious thought rather than taking account of all the other factors of the state of the mind of the person thinking them.

We can only scientifically prove something when we know how to scientifically measure it.

Science knows that thoughts, intelligence etc. exist, but they have no real means of accurately measuring those things at a single point in time for a particular person, nor do they have the means of controlling the experiment to prevent outside influence on those conditions on their way to achieving the result.

We then have what others (non-scientists) are determining as "scientific proof". This comes from observational proof. e.g. If we do this thing, we, more often than not, get a result close to what was desired and, more often than not, clearly different from what would have happened had we not done that thing. So why is there not 100% success rate? Again it comes down to the same as the scientists, not fully being able to measure the staring conditions or control the experiment as it progresses, due to there being too many influencing factors.

Now, the skeptics may say "you have no proof" and "it can't be measured". You could easily retort by pointing out that science has no proof for a lot of it's "theories" yet they still call it science and they still proceed to experiment with it, believing it to be the truth because they have seen "some" evidence to suggest it may be true.

A classic example is that science believes there is something called an electron. Nobody in science has actually seen an electron, it's never had it's dimensions measured. All they can say is that they can carry out certain conditions which generate these theoretical electrons, and they appear to act consistently to give consistent results in most cases.

Then, take a look at the double-slit experiment (Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) which fires sub-atomic particles (which can be electrons) through a thin plate containing two slits. If the particles are left to their own devices, they appear on a screen on the other side of the plate making a defraction pattern (caused due to "wave" like properties a bit like waves in water when you drop a stone in). If, however, the particles are observed to try and determine which of the two slits they are passing through, they change from having "wave" properties, to having "particle" properties. This is called particle-wave duality. The particle "acts" differently depending on whether it is being observed or not.

The power of intention eh!

So, in my mind (and I'm both scientifically minded as well as spiritually minded in case you hadn't noticed ), I know for myself that there is scientific evidence of the power of intention, and thus the law of attraction which follows this intention.

There was a section specifically on the criticism LOA has received. Most of it directed towards The Secret.

They are just picking on it because it's one of the most recent and well known.
I would simply critisize The Secret because it limited itself somewhat and tended to focus on material/financial gain; which is not what the LOA is all about.

My question is what do you do when you read something like this that trys to disprove what you on one level or another know to be true. How do you stay "positive".
.. cut ..
But what do you guys do when something like this comes up? Do you just ignore it? Or do you try to find another scientific research to disprove theres? I mean, what do you do?

I simply let it go. (although you wouldn't have guess from all my post above hehe!)

There will always be people who argue against things.
By experiencing these things for ourselves and understanding them in our own way and knowing for ourselves that they are true and work, that is all that matters.

I sometimes chuckle at those who try to "disprove" what I've put into practice myself and I know works. I am the one who has practical experience of it working and they are not. Their loss.

Hugs

Giles

p.s. Sorry for another long post, although you gotta admit this really is an interesting thread.

[sliccy]

p.s. Sorry for another long post, although you gotta admit this really is an interesting thread.

Exactly my thoughts!


I think I don't have anymore questions....

Thank you Giles (once again), and Ta-tsu-wa for taking your time to type up those answers for me and anyone else who is interested.

It's really comforting to have a place where I can ask all these questions. Really, thank you everyone very much!