next »

[Seth]

I did finish my response. Stolide suggested that the law of attraction was based apon what a person wishes to happen.

Shows how much you understand the law of attraction. Of course they didnt want to die, what a horrible thing to think.

However, you dont create what you want, you create what you know. And if all they've known is poverty and disease.

That last sentence was made in a manner that suggested you were going to elaborate on "And if all they've known is poverty and disease"...Yeah? The part that was confusing was the "And" part. I was pointing that detail out.

In my understanding of the process (which im not saying i completely believe in) the law of attraction works based off of memories, expectations and emotional state. You create that which you know, not what you wish.

Well, here's another counter-example. Hobos definitely know what money looks like. They must have possessed it at least once in their life. They expect to get money if they try hard, which some actually do. Therefore they should then get money, since Law of Attraction works in their favor? I'm sorry, but it's ludicrous to state whoever has knowledge on what they want can get it. Everyone knows what money is, what it feels like to have it, and what their expectations are of money. Yet there are still people who have no money. If everyone got what they wanted then the value of currency would decrease, production of material would decrease since the producers have less money than what they need, while people with specialized skills that can benefit science would diminish, since all jobs would offer equal amount of money. In other words, a lot of cranky people are going to come out in the end, while what they need as daily necessities would no longer be produced since nobody would want to produce them in the first place.
Here's a MAJOR counter-example to your definition of the Law of Attraction as well. If somebody really wants someone dead, knows how it feels like to have someone dead, while visualize the person being dead to the point it becomes a memory (it's possible, look it up), will the person then become dead? Now let's compare this to the individual that wants to live. They love the prospect of being alive; it's the only feeling they have ever grown to experience 24/7. They know what it feels like to live, they have memories of them living, while they are deeply enthusiastic and joyful about the idea of getting to live for another day. Now both individuals can supposedly use the Law of Attraction. Yet a contradiction arises; you can't be dead and alive at the same time! Or rather, what happens when both individuals' thoughts collide?

You're very correct. Assuming we live in an objective reality of course.

That's true; it is an assumption. However please don't play epistemology games. It ruins a good argument and nobody prospers from the result. It only muddles up things even further. Let's just consider that what we experience, if we have no brain problems, is a clear reflection of objective reality. Let's make that into an axiom and avoid the topic all-together. We can only prove that as individuals we exist; "I think, therefore I am[alive]" (Rene Descartes). The explanation is long, so make another thread in the debate arena. We can't prove things outside of us exist, so let's not go into that area either; make another thread.

Let's try to steer this thread's direction back to the OP's intent; I realized I am not helping the situation...

The response to stolide, had a very strong implied meaning. He suggested that the law of attraction was false because children died slow painful deaths. I simply suggested that the law of attraction didnt work like that by its definition.

Im not playing any game, that i know of. Your last paragraph seems to counter itself. You say we cant prove things outside of us exist, but you suggest that we should accept an objective reality. OR atleast what we experience to be an reflection of objective reality. Its not possible to construct an objective reality by that definition, because at some point we will encounter things that will oppose each others view of reality. But yes, this argument is rather pointless and im very sorry for stirring it up.

To the OP. No its not. It just takes practise.

[issacweirdo]

I am not contradicting myself. I state that objective reality is a fact because we can't prove otherwise. It's pointless if we go around saying, "Maybe what we experience isn't real!". It just leads to nowhere. So I am assuming objective reality is a fact. A lot of people assume that it's true. For the benefit of the discussion it's better if we just say everything outside of us does indeed exist.

Its not possible to construct an objective reality by that definition, because at some point we will encounter things that will oppose each others view of reality.

That's assuming everyone's interpretation of reality is correct. Which is why I stated only healthy brains, which is to say is the almost exactly the same as others' brains. That way we avoid the issue of schizophrenics, mental retardation, or synesthesia. Beliefs and the way we see, touch, hear, and feel are different. Beliefs is rather something abstract, while our views of reality is recorded by our senses, sent to the brain as electrical signals, where as the brain breaks them down, then compiles, the information we received to create a picture of what our reality is. While what we experience is subjective, what influences the constant grow of experiences is objective. This is what I am referring to. I realize that it was somewhat my fault for not explaining clearly what I meant in which way our experiences are objective.

I was not insulting you by saying you are playing a game. I said

That's true; it is an assumption. However please don't play epistemology games.

I was referring to the future, since the statement you posed to me suggested there was a possibility you were going to argue on what is objective and if there is such a thing as an objective reality. Thus the rest of my post after those first sentences follow.

[Chaotic Seraph]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought this was the psychokinesis section not the debate section lol.

Now my opinion towards the OP, when I first practiced levitation I found that it is harder to levitate, because you are lifting the full weight of the object. However, if you draw out an ideal full body diagram of the object and the forces applied to it you will find that it should actually be harder to push and pull than to lift since if you push or pull across a surface there will be the additional force of friction resisting the original force. Of course if you dont understand physics and forces very well you might think that levitating would be harder to achieve, but really pushing and pulling would be harder (assuming that you are pushing or pulling on the object's center of gravity). Once I realized this I actually found that the difference in difficulty between pushing and pulling and levitating swapped places. i actually found it harder to push and pull for awhile and found it much easier to levitate.