Therefore, by definition, “… no real proof …” does, in fact, eliiminate the man-made “law of Attraction” as a scientific law.

Scientific American, vol. 296, Issue 6, pg. 39 The magnetic fields produced by electrical activity in the barin “… are miniscule and can be measured only by using an extremely sensitive superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) in a room heavily shielded against outside magnetic forces. Plus, remember the inverse square law: the intensity of an energy wave radiating from a source is inversely proportional to the square opf the distance from that source. An object twice as far away from the source of energy as another object of the same size receives only one-fourth the energy”.

The law of gravity wasn’t quantified and defined until Isaac Newton, but there was a common observation from day one of mankind’s existence – whent he support for something is removed, it ALWAYS falls down. The Law of Gravity existed from the first moments after the Big Bang and was repeatedly observed to act in exactly the same manner, repeatedly, regardless of whether one believed in it or not.

People ARE creators of their reality, as I stated in my earlier post, however, they cannot “manifest” physical objects using thought energy.

“”Reality” is what we take to be true. What we take to be true is what we believe. What we believe is based upon our perceptions. What we perceive depends upon what we look for. What we look for depends upon what we think. What we think depends upon what we perceive. What we perceive determines what we believe. What we believe determines what we take to be true. What we take to be true is our reality.”

The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukov

In short, we mentally define our own respective, individual “realities”, manifesting a physical reality is something entirely different.

To conclude, the “Law of Attraction” has not been detected or measured, it is not universal, or consistent and is not repeatable. It is not a scientific law and is, by definition, a man-made artifice.

>>Although your comment is well intentioned, you have >>inadvertently fallen prey to the misinformation >>surrounding the man-made “Law of Attraction”. It is not >>a “Law” as it has not been quantitatively proven, let >>alone even physically detected.

My comment didn’t comment on the existence of conclusive scientific proof of loa. I did talk about the difficulty in proving it. However please note that there is no real scientific proof against it either b/c of the same reasons. There are plenty scientist investigating the influence of intention, Lynne McTaggart, William Tiller to name a few. To say that Law of Attraction is man-made is an assumption you have, not a fact.

Responsibility in it’s most common meaning IS man-made. Responsibility is something we can differ about, as people are continually doing. It can imply guilt and causality. But a better look at the word responsibility in terms of loa is simply the ability to respond to reality. Even on a pure scientific level every single unit of matter is a ‘responder’ to its environment, if the unit changes, so does the environment and vice versa.

>>It is a man-made artifice and is, in no way, a >>recognized “Natural Law”, like the often quoted Law oof >>Gravity.
>>The reason it has drawn so much negative information is >>that, for “believers” of this pseudo-religious >>following, it places responsibility for EVERYTHING in >>one’s life on the believer. That is it’s danger.

This I would classify as many of the cognitive arguments. It’s about interpretation of loa, not loa itself. But responsibility in the loa context doesn’t evaluate the quality or reason of the reality we live in. It doesn’t care about what caused what. But people are in the habit of doing that. The problem is a person’s interpretation.

>>“Oh, I must have somehow visualized the run away gravel >>truck that ran the red light and killed my entire >>family”.

This is just an example of the outside-in counterreasoning people use. Loa doesn’t state it directly causes external events at will – like I said in the previous comment, it’s not the point. People interpret it that way, the problem is not loa, but how people think about it. Many reasons against loa use real world events and actions, they are always looking at external events and trying to force an interpretation on them for others to accept. That’s what we do naturally, but someone with a good grasp of loa knows that is an exercise in futility. Yes it can be seen as convenient insulator to criticism – but what more can me made of it.

>>”The “vibrational energy” of our thoughts does not have >>the measured capability of extending much farther than >>our skull”

And you have measured this yourself? You’re making an assumption about how reality works, simply because you don’t know how it might.

>>The energy required to “manifest” our desire from the >>raw energy of the Universe is stupifying. In my post >>at http://www.squidoo.com/Law-of-Attraction-Fails, I >>calculated that the energy required to “manifest” a 26 >>lb briefcase containing $980,000 is equivalent to that >>required to send the Empire State Building almost to the >>Moon. The calculation is not wrong, the belief that you >>can “manifest” physical objects from a pool of energy is >>wrong. There is a phenomenal amount of energy tied up in >>matter, hence the power of atomic bombs (which, >>incidentally, do not entirely consume the matter >>contained).

Your scientific reasoning is just as confusing and missconstruing as some of the examples in what-the-bleep.

>>The “Law of Attraction” is not a Natural Law, it has not >>been proven (and so there is no body of “Research” >>surrounding it as you reference), it hasn’t been >>detected and cannot be verified. As such, it remains a >>pseudo-science (in this context).

You assume it needs to be proven by our scientific methods in order to be valid. So there wasn’t a law of gravity when people were carving out pyramids?

>>You are correct, however, in the latter half of your >>post in which you state we create our reality. Our >>beliefs our based on our perceptions, which we receive >>through our five senses.

Actually, if you are approaching this from a scientific/materialistic position, you’re wrong. You might have 5 senses, but the typical human uses a great deal more (proprioception, nociception, thermoception etc). I’m just making a point about how easy it is to use scientific language to influence people about the validity of an interpretation. You’re no different than any other proponent or opponent of loa or any other interpretation.

>> However, in order to “Manifest” the desired goal, one >>must implement a plan directed toward achieving that >>goal and this is the critical point at which reality >>diverges from the “Law of Attraction”.

Loa is just a law (existing or not), movies like the secret make people think it’s a recipe for causing manifestations out of the blue. It’s a human’s tendency to look and interpret things in terms of causality. What loa states is simply that we’re always in harmony with out environment, and scientifically even with our ways of measuring you will never find a situation where there is disharmony. On an energy level, everything is always in harmony. When things happen we can’t explain, it doesn’t mean any of our natural laws aren’t working. It simply means we don’t know how to apply a satisfying cause and effect explanation, which again, is a human tendency.

>> However, in order to “Manifest” the desired goal, one >>must implement a plan directed toward achieving that >>goal and this is the critical point at which reality >>diverges from the “Law of Attraction”.

I think having a plan can help, but it’s certainly not needed. Most of our manifestations, good or bad, happen without plans. Loa, or even just common sense wise, you will reach any goal simply by becoming a match to it. I.e., if you want to become a doctor, figure out what it takes to be a doctor. To get to such a place, you’ll probably want all the training and knowledge typical doctors have, so you can take the studies and the training. You can’t manifest something you’re not a match too, that’s why loa is not magical at all. (good) Loa teachers on the subject of manifesting essentially just say, you can get there much faster when you match up with what you want using your thoughts and feelings. It’s living from the inside out.

When you say ‘active effort’, that is a western philosophy almost, emphasizing that all ‘rewards/manifestations’ must be earned by effort. This is why Loa irritates some, because we don’t like the idea of people getting stuff without earning it. We’re littered in real world life experiences that prove reality and natural laws doesn’t care about effort. You get what you’re a match to. Most of us work incredibly hard all our life, yet some have crappy lives and some have pretty good lives and only a minority have exceptionally abundant lives. Is that a limitation of what can be supplied to us? No, it’s actually in large part in our own hands and the answer is not more effort or more plans.

Lastly, consider the opposite. If people are not creators of their reality, then we’re victims. That premise is a far more dangerous type of idea than the few people that interpret loa in ways that cause suffering. And mind you, even without their own interpretation of loa, they will have something to be foolish about and cause suffering about other interpretations (case in point, wars in the name of religion or power or money).

If everybody would buy into materialist interpretationso f the world we would be in far more danger. It would mean we don’t have free will and thus aren’t responsible for our influence in society. All acts of violence would be purely natural thus not our fault. It would mean we’d limit our thinking in terms of science.

Consider someone who takes loa to heart. They are conscious of how they feel and what they think, affirm seeing abundance and take responsibility instead of resulting to blame. They become good at feeling good – regardless of circumstance.

A large bulk of human suffering is caused because people don’t feel good and thus do themselves harm or others. People that feel good don’t typically commit acts of violence.

A large bulk of human suffering is caused because people blame others and don’t believe in their own ability to create a life worth living. People that believe in their own abilities don’t need to result to blame and are more likely to change their situation.

A large bulk of human suffering is caused because they believe in scarcity and limitation which doesn’t exactly improve world conditions. People that believe in abundance are more generous, feel less anxiety and have less reason to control others.

A large bulk of human suffering is caused because people live from the outside-in and allow their environment to reflect their self-worth and self-esteem. People that live from the inside-out see their value and love-worthiness as a given and are not dictated by outside circumstance. They are empowered and those that feel empowered have a greater positive influence for all of us.

Loa-interpration-caused- suffering is what happens when people evaluate their external results and judge them. Just because we have shitty days, experience crappy events, experience crappy feelings and thoughts, doesn’t mean we failed or are lesser of a person. Just because one knows about gravity doesn’t make you any less prone to experiencing the pain of falling down nor does it care if you do or don’t. It’s just gravity, it’s just loa. Humans can fall, humans can elevate. That’s the human experience.

If one calls LOA a con, what are we then affirming exactly?

Although your comment is well intentioned, you have inadvertently fallen prey to the misinformation surrounding the man-made “Law of Attraction”. It is not a “Law” as it has not been quantitatively proven, let alone even physically detected. It is a man-made artifice and is, in no way, a recognized “Natural Law”, like the often quoted Law oof Gravity.

The reason it has drawn so much negative information is that, for “believers” of this pseudo-religious following, it places responsibility for EVERYTHING in one’s life on the believer. That is it’s danger.

“Oh, I must have somehow visualized the run away gravel truck that ran the red light and killed my entire family”.
An extreme example, but it demonstrates the fallacy.

The “vibrational energy” of our thoughts does not have the measured capability of extending much farther than our skull and yet the proponents of the LoA would have us believe it extends out into the Intelligent Universe, which awaits our every wish.

The energy required to “manifest” our desire from the raw energy of the Universe is stupifying. In my post at http://www.squidoo.com/Law-of-Attraction-Fails, I calculated that the energy required to “manifest” a 26 lb briefcase containing $980,000 is equivalent to that required to send the Empire State Building almost to the Moon. The calculation is not wrong, the belief that you can “manifest” physical objects from a pool of energy is wrong. There is a phenomenal amount of energy tied up in matter, hence the power of atomic bombs (which, incidentally, do not entirely consume the matter contained).

The “Law of Attraction” is not a Natural Law, it has not been proven (and so there is no body of “Research” surrounding it as you reference), it hasn’t been detected and cannot be verified. As such, it remains a pseudo-science (in this context).

You are correct, however, in the latter half of your post in which you state we create our reality. Our beliefs our based on our perceptions, which we receive through our five senses. Our beliefs are culturally biased and can be changed (through active effort, chemical means (i.e. hallucinogens), physical trauma to the head (and, subsequently, brain) and mental illness. Perhaps others means as well.

We can change our reality, how we perceive our physical surroundings and the manner in which we respond to our reality in order to “manifest” into our reality. We can change our behaviour, appearance, attitude, etc. in order to attract a mate, but we cannot “manifest” our ideal mate from raw energy.

The power of metal visualization, essentially the core of the “Law of Attraction”, is very powerful indeed. However, in order to “Manifest” the desired goal, one must implement a plan directed toward achieving that goal and this is the critical point at which reality diverges from the “Law of Attraction”.

This article is a list of arguments against the common perception of loa. One perception is that loa seems to give people the impression that there is a thing out there called the universe which has a personality, that will hand you stuff you want to attract if you ‘use’ the law correctly.

I’m familiar with all the cognitive arguments and many of the psychological theories (I studied psych) that help explain why people believe in the loa. It’s easy to point out why people tend to think of loa from a belief point of view much like any other religion or dogma. From that basis you can cast doubt on anything. The thing is, the cognitive arguments say nothing about loa, just about how people tend to think about it.

What I see is lots of statements that are irrelevant to the idea of loa as an underlying law governing our reality. Yes if LOA is a legit as gravity in terms of laws (my case is not to prove loa here), it’s problem is that is impossible to prove with our current way of proving and verifying (although if you do some ‘real’ research you will find a lot of studies and people that are making some real headway with this). To scientists it is unacceptable and well, that’s for good reasons, but at the end of the day it doesn’t prove or disprove loa as a law.

The problem is much like the cognitive counterarguments that have been put forth (‘if you use this law, then shouldn’t you be able to win every lottery’, ‘did we attract this disaster’, ‘x and z study have been proven to be false’. And the other arguments try to disprove the sources expounding loa and thus imply if the source isn’t seen as credible than the loa isn’t true either), the arguments for loa are just as filtered by how we think, i.e. looking for evidence to support it (confirmation bias). The end result is just a ping-pong match between beliefs.

But the loa claims to be a law, like other natural laws. If you understand what the law of attraction is stating it isn’t that outrageous and it also becomes clear why proving it to others is a futile exercise. Especially with the arguments that are cognitive in nature and thus are prone to how humans think, filter and process information. So yes it’s kind of convenient to some that it can’t be proven in ways we’d like to prove it.

My nuance to the law of attraction is simply this:
We are always a match to our reality, by law there’s no disharmony possible. On a macrolevel, or on an energy level. The takeaway with that is that we can change our own version of reality by changing our selves. To change our attitudes, how we feel, our thoughts, actions and beliefs, is to change our reality.

It encourages full responsibility for what we have control over – not what we don’t have control over.

Most people take offense to loa because the common perception of loa is that it provides some recipe to manifesting things. It’s as if we have direct control over what we manifest and that’s why we should ‘apply’ loa – to get stuff. But loa simply clarifies that you need only influence the one thing you can control: thoughts & feelings.

Controlling outside circumstances is exactly what someone with a good grasp of loa knows is ‘not the point’. It’s about controlling your inner reality, regardless of circumstance. Just about every criticism toward LOA I’ve seen always talks about the falseness of having some magical influence over the world (that’s how one get’s comments like ‘why don’t you just loa a whole hospital to health?).

What I find slightly ironic is that both proponents and opponents string together a bunch of reasons that aim to persuade an audience and then that audience will say yeah, that’s what I thought to etc and pat each other on the back. We get some satisfaction out of collectively agreeing about some interpretation – yet we feel that interpretation is factual – it’s just an opinion.

What I feel strongly about is having an open mind. The real takeaways from loa teachings for me personally are that it encourages taking agency over how we feel and think. To stop living from the outside in, but living from the inside out. My ‘issue’ with critics are that in their criticism they often have the effect of closing a persons mind and embracing ways of operating in this world that are far more dangerous than being a little loa nutty. You see, living as most people do, dictated by outside circumstances and our subsequence urge to control it by force, is a pervasive cause of human (unnecessary) suffering.

Take care,

Guy

The “idea” of the Law of Attraction “exists” (and is being actively marketed), but that the “Law of Attraction” does not exist.

It is not a “Natural Law”, as it has not been proven and, in all likelihood, cannot be proven and, therefore, does not exist.

The “Law of Attraction” is a man-made law is inconsistent in its results. Everyone conceptualizes a goal and works toward it, however, I would argue the goal will not “manifest” without some work toward it, unlike the Natural Law of Gravity which applies everywhere, is predictable and consistent, whether I believe in it or not.

Despite using the “Law of Attraction”, I cannot make $1 million in cash appear in a suitcase on my desk no matter how hard I visualize it.

Consider: nobody doubts that the *idea* that “2+2=5″ *exists*. Of course it exists. I’m thinking it right now. That doesn’t mean it’s *true*.

It’s certainly *more difficult* to prove that some *thing* (like a unicorn) doesn’t *exist*. It’s not nearly as difficult to prove that some *idea* (like 2+2=5) isn’t *true*.

(Think about this: “You can’t prove a negative” is a negative. So, if it were true… no one would ever know it. But it’s not true. We do it all the time. “There is no highest prime number” is a negative, and that’s a pretty easy thing to prove.)