Law of Attraction not working for Joe Vitale

Yesterday I posted The “Law” of Attraction (Not) – a response to Joe Vitale’s blog post, Is Attraction a Law?  Short version – The Law of Attraction (LOA) is not a law like the Law of Gravitation that has predictable, repeatable (no exceptions) results. I posted a brief comment on Joe’s blog, linking back to my post.

Now, Joe is one of the luminaries who appears in “The Secret”, and he has clearly stated the “LOA does work every time - no exceptions”. If this is true, Joe must have attracted my attentions, and my skeptical responses and questions. Strangely though, Joe doesn’t practice what he preaches with regard to the LOA. Specifically, he resorts to the decidedly non-LOA method of holding all comments on his blog until he can read them and decide which ones he will allow to be published. Why does he need to do this? Surely if you can use the LOA to make checks appear in your mailbox instead of bills (one of the specific claims made for the LOA), you can use the LOA to make only complimentary comments appear in your blog? Or doesn’t Joe really believe in the LOA?

Check out the actual exchange of comments (reproduced below), and remember that Joe is not just some random LOA believer – he is one of the main proponents of The Secret and the LOA, and he actually appears in the film:

Skeptico: Joe, I don’t think you understand what a Law is and what it isn’t. I just posted a reply: The “Law” of Attraction (Not).

Joe Vitale: Ah, you might want to re-read my post. :)

While people are arguing if LOA is a law or not, others are using the principle/law/insight/method (choose what makes you feel ok) to create lives of happiness and abundance.

The choice is yours.

Note the avoidance of the issue. I point out the LOA is not a Law. Joe ignores this, and equivocates by saying many people are benefiting from it. Remember, his claim was that the LOA is a Law like gravity. I try to pull him back to what was, remember, the subject of this post on his blog:

Skeptico: Maybe they are. And I re-read your post. The Law of Attraction is still not a law, for the reasons I gave in my post.

Joe Vitale: The next time a cop pulls you over for speeding, be sure to tell him you don't have to obey that "law," either.

Joe avoids the issue again – this time equivocating to a different (lesser) kind of law – speeding. But a speeding law (made up by man) is not the same as a scientific Law: you can break a speeding law; you can’t break the laws of the universe. Remember, Joe is the one who, in his own post, compares the LOA to gravity. He can’t justify that and so he has to try to pretend this is now the same as a traffic law.

Skeptico:  A Scientific Law is a precise description of how the universe works. A speeding law is a rule written by lawyers – it says if you break the law you get a fine. The universe can’t “break” the law of gravitation – that’s the difference.

The math for Newton’s laws works every time. That’s why it’s a law. The Law of attraction does not work every time, if at all – that’s why it is not a law.

Joe Vitale: Again, LOA does work every time - no exceptions.

Again, re-read my post.

Note – Joe again ignores my arguments for why the LOA is not a law like the Law of Gravitation that he compared it to. He just asserts he is right, with no evidence, and not one word to refute what I had written. Clearly the LOA is not working to Joe’s benefit, as I am still responding to his original post, making points that refute his claims - points he can’t refute. Here’s where Joe gives up on the LOA that he has just said, “does work every time - no exceptions”, because clearly it’s not working for him now. What is this non-LOA method for getting rid of me? Easy - he doesn’t allow my next comment to be published. This is the comment Joe didn’t want anyone to see:

Skeptico: No it doesn't. It's not a Law. And read my post.

That’s it. Those were the eleven words Joe was frightened you would read. The eleven measly words that the oh-so-powerful LOA couldn’t make disappear. This is the best that one of the main proponents of The Secret can come up with. Remember that when anyone tells you how profound The Secret and the LOA are.

I’m not going to comment any more on Joe’s blog – I’m not going to waste time on someone who holds comments for review and then won't publish those he doesn’t like. (You can see some other critical comments now after mine.  Did Joe attract those, I wonder?  Remember, some of those people might have replied to Joe with comments he didn’t allow.) But I’m going to ask him two open questions about this LOA that “does work every time - no exceptions”:

1. Suppose there is a traffic jam. Some of the people caught in that jam had been worried about being late, and so possibly attracted the jam. What about the other people caught in the jam who had been positive, and had been thinking about being on time? How is the LOA working for them?
2. Imagine two people with identical bicycles. One locks up his bike because he is worried about theft. The other one is not worried about theft, and leaves his bike at the same place, unlocked. If the bike thief steals the unlocked bike, how is the LOA working for these two people? Or are you saying the bike thief will only steal the locked bike and ignore the unlocked one? If you are saying this, what studies have been done to show that this actually happens?

You can reply in the comments, Joe. I don’t hold replies for moderation.

Comments

[Tom Foss]

Joe Vitale and the Secret folks say that like attracts like, and that this is a law. I have it on good authority, however, that "opposites attract." Furthermore, I am told that not only is this not fiction, but it is a "natural fact."

Clearly, this disproves "The Secret," and I would advise Mr. Vitale and his colleagues to examine the work of P. Abdul and S. Kat, M.C., and to do a little research before they make any more ridiculous claims.

[Boris Yankov]

I must admit that the Law of Attraction makes sense... if you live in a fairy tale.

[Tom Foss]

I wrote a comment to Joe about my own problems with the LoA, which resulted in my receipt of 200,000 male deer and a large pianist. So far, it hasn't made it through the filter. I really hope it does, because I think my god/universe/genie is broken.

[Paul]

A large pianist? I'm envious!

[JG]

Mr. Vitale's comments suggest they he engages in the same kind of post post hoc reasoning common to many ardent believers in various religions: If he is "thinking positive", and there is still a traffic jam, he obviously wasn't positive enough. If there is no traffic jam, then... "See?! It works!"

[Bourgeois_Rage]

Skeptico, you may want to re-examine the law of attraction. After Dover and the Shawn Hornbeck case I was worried that creationists and Sylvia Browne were going to lay low for a while thus depriving me of daily doses of wooish humor. I began to attract a new form of woo to keep things fresh, thus "The Secret." Yes everyone, you may thank me.

[Tom Foss]

I say we all start wishing that Joe Vitale will win the Randi Challenge with "The Secret." I think there's an easy way to test that.

[Skeptico]

I’ve been trying to attract Joe Vitale to answer my questions above by leaving a comment on this blog. Hasn’t worked so far. Funny – according to Joe the "LOA does work every time - no exceptions".

[Bourgeois_Rage]

Tom, your deer problem got through on his blog. Funny, I've been trying to attract some venison. Hook me up!

[Tom Foss]

Not only did it get through, but someone apparently took it seriously. My irony meter may bust easily, but at least I have one.

[Skeptico]

I saw that Tom. I initially thought the guy was making a joke, but perhaps he was serious. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference with bleevers.

Take a look at Joe’s response to Steve Salerno. Steve makes some valid points, but Joe just replies with:

And if you re-read my post, you'll see how I explained the LOA, but for some reason the skeptics are mentally blocking out the facts.

Talk about mentally blocking out the facts – that’s Joe’s entire method. Just as he did with me, he ignores Steve Salerno’s objections and claims they were all covered in the original post. Except they weren’t.

I guess Joe isn’t going to answer my questions. Big surprise.

[Eric]

Wow, these guys are the king of unfounded claims, huh? Ask them how it's supposed to work and they come back with "It's a law, so I win the argument."

I thought about asking one of the commentors exactly what the "vibrational signals" were that everybody was sending out, but I've already reached my daily limit of woo.

[John C Vincent]

Skepticism is healthy but the Science behind The Law Of Attraction is Quantum Physics, see "What The Bleep Do We Know":

http://www.thevideosense.com/user/jcv1011/

scroll down the page for the title.

Unless you have a basic understanding of Quantum Mechanics, one will get the reactions that have been expressed within this blog.

This Law as some call it NOW is not new, in fact, it is an ancient practice. I just discovered it 20 years ago and it was at that time called Visualized Meditation.

I wouldn't call this a religion by any stretch (Give me a Break lol), it is what it is, something we all possess. Nothing Twi-Light-Zonian, no Hocus Pocus. Nothing to shake the belief system of those who may have a weak belief system.

It amazes me that some find this hard to understand. One needs not to be "bleevers" to comprehend. I was skeptical until I did this "thing" and discovered it worked.

It is what it is and nothing more and not all that earth shaking.

John V

[Skeptico]

John:

I note you can’t answer either of my two questions in the post above.

In my review of The Secret I wrote:

I’m sure that before the end, quantum mechanics would have been evoked to justify all the mystical conclusions. Unfortunately, Quantum Mechanics, and even the Copenhagen Interpretation, does not say this is the way the universe works.

John, I explained why QM does not support this nonsense in my review of What The Bleep.

[Bronze Dog]

Doggerel #17: "Quantum"

[Tom Foss]

Unless you have a basic understanding of Quantum Mechanics, one will get the reactions that have been expressed within this blog.

Tell me, John, have you ever normalized a wavefunction? Can you give me the three-dimensional Time-Dependent Schrödinger Equation? Perhaps you could give me the basic expression for momentum, using the complex conjugate of the wavefunction. Do you know what an eigenstate is? Do you have any idea what value is represented by < a | a >?

I'm going to guess that you don't, because if you did, you'd see "The Secret" for the new age garbage it is. Just because you think "quantum physics" means "magic" doesn't mean that it actually does, and just because no one in the Secret fanclub knows anything about QM doesn't mean that no one does. I have significantly more than a basic understanding of Quantum Physics, and I'm calling you on your bullshit. QM doesn't explain "The Secret," except to explain that it's nothing but wishful thinking and new age pseudoscience.

In other words, you are wrong, and you're a fucker for thinking that no one would call you on it.

Sorry, when people tell me that I need to learn something about Quantum Physics in order to understand their particular woo, I get a little indignant. Although if John wants to show me how the Secret fits into an infinite square well, he's welcome to do so.

[Skeptico]

Well said Tom. Or to put it another way - unless you have a basic understanding of Quantum Mechanics, one will get the reactions that have been expressed by people like John C Vincent.

[John Vincent]

Tom since you took my comments personally:
For the Comedians in this group, there's is a skill called Reading, you should attempt it. There are a Ton of sites on the internet that will satisfy your skepticism.

But it doesn't matter if you believe or not, this skill exists and no egging on by the peanut gallery will change this.

New Age Garbage??? As I stated, this is a technique practiced thousands of years ago,if you could read, you would have known this. There's nothing New about this. But I waste time here. READ if you dare and then rip holes in it, if you can.

And since you choose to use expletives when referring to me (I'm above this childishness), I can only state, this shows your level of understanding as well as your embarrassingly low IQ.

And Tom if you comprehend wavefunctions, Schrödinger Equation (Cat), why would you have a problem with this ancient technique?

Oh and btw,an eigenstate is one of the many possible states which may exist prior to quantum decoherence. And in case you don't know the meaning of the theory of decoherence:

The theory of decoherence is the study of (spontaneous) interactions between a system and it's environment that lead to such suppression of interference.

Look it up.

And the Scientists involved in Quantum Physics would laugh at your retort, you must be a believer in the Flat Earth Theory.

If you were born 300 years ago, you'd problably believe that electricity was the sign of the devil. Or maybe sound waves don't exist, I mean, you can't see them nor can you see radio waves. How can Tons of metal fly... it's an airplane. How can you put words and pictures on a piece of tape or on a disk...IT'S THE DEVIL'S WORK I TELL YAH.

And yes I do question your knowledge concerning Quantum Physics. No one with an understanding would refute this "New AGE"???? (Give me a break)Science with a straight face.

I'm outta here. (yeah I know...good riddance LOL)

To Skeptico
And as far as the 2 questions, this has nothing to do with, the thing called the Law Of Attraction. It's like saying, one can change the weather or an ocean's tide or turn silver into gold. The question does not make sense as it relates to what is now called the Law Of Attraction. And whoever gave you that impression is in error. As for the traffic Jam...that's easy...you just would not take that route on that day. Call it a hunch, call it luck...but that's how it works ... as a Coincidence.

There's nothing magical or religious here.

But let me ask you Skeptico, do you have any beliefs that cannot be proven? Do you have faith in a belief NOT a proven fact. Belief is conjecture, opinion and nothing more. Even an Atheist has a belief, he/she has a belief in NO God. Can the Atheist prove that there is no God, can you prove that there is? Conjecture!

I merely ask because this site and we pea brain humans as a whole, think of the infinite with our lowly finite minds. We use 5 to 8% of our brain power, 95 to 93% of our brain capibility is left unused, dormant. We're still cavemen when it comes to intellectual esoteric pursuits lol and you wish to discuss the so-called unknown with our very small percentage of grey matter power???? LOL

So the arguments discussed here are futile. Which is no reflection on you, the good host (ignoring your comment to Tom). You're stimulating thought and we tiny brain humans can only respond with limited ability.

OK I left a door open for the children among the adults within this group to "Rag" on me (GRIN).

The problem with The Law and how it's now being promoted is in the cost, the fee these marketers charge to become educated in it. There should be no cost/fee/payment. The info is to be given freely, if not, the Law will not function. This is the Law Of Attraction in its purest sense. If one is to gain, one must be willing to give...Freely.

But this is beyond the scope of this Blog and I can hear you chuckling. :-)

I bid you all a fond farewell and let you bask in your futility. Be sure to talk about me Real bad when I'm gone ...sheeesh!

Actually, I'll be mentioning this blog on one of my blogs...I'm giving it a positive review, you have a page rank of 5, which means, you're very effective in SEO and your point of view.

Take Care :-)

John V

[HCN]

It seems that Mr. Vincent is the one with the reading comprehension problem.

He also does not understand basic neurology. He wrote "We use 5 to 8% of our brain power, 95 to 93% of our brain capibility is left unused, dormant.", which is a myth. It is explained here in a format he should be able to understand:
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html

[John Vincent]

Gee HNC

Don't you know the difference between the brain and the mind. Excuse me for not elaborating.

I obviously didn't mean the physical brain.

And if you state that the brain and the mind are the same... Science is still questioning this. Yes we use 100% of our physical brain but the mind is another matter.

The mind is thought to be the seat of perception, self-consciousness, thinking, believing, remembering, hoping, desiring, willing, judging, analyzing, evaluating, reasoning, etc.

This is all true But what is the true nature of "The Mind"?

Well philosophers and the clergy have had many questionable answers.

What about the discipline of Neuroscience?

Well they can only tell us so much and they admit this. So in the end,it goes to my comment on faith.

Your reference stated 10% of the physical brain and I state 5 to 8% of the emotional mind. It is my "Belief" that They are 2 distinct things.

This is one reason why prodigies cannot be explained and wars can.

If mankind used more of his mind and less of his reptile brain LOL the world would be in much better shape.

This site is becoming addictive, I guess because I've made myself a target. lol

[cyrusgeo]

Mr. Vincent's response is so typical of New Age believers -- it's almost frightening...

[Akusai]

And if you state that the brain and the mind are the same... Science is still questioning this.

No, not really, sorry. "The Mind," like "The Spirit" and "The Soul" are irrelevant, redundant hypotheses with no use for science. Assuming a mind explains nothing and is fundamentally useless, especially when there is no evidence for anything other than the physical brain. A great summary of the real evidence is Ebon Musings: A Ghost in the Machine. You're violating Occam's Razor by positing the existence of a superfluity like "The Mind."

Well philosophers and the clergy have had many questionable answers.

I'm sure you didn't mean to, but you said something true here: the "answers" given by philosophers and the clergy are most questionable. Most philosophers know jack about science and just muse on and on endlessly about what essentially amounts to nothing. And what the hell do the clergy have to do with anything? They're about as far from scientists as you can get.

The theory of decoherence is the study of (spontaneous) interactions between a system and it's environment that lead to such suppression of interference.

Look it up.

I'm sure you did, and that's why you graced us with a piece of technical-sounding trivia: "Look, I'm smart! I'm not stupid! I can use big words!"

And since you choose to use expletives when referring to me (I'm above this childishness), I can only state, this shows your level of understanding as well as your embarrassingly low IQ.

For the foolishness of that statement, I direct you here and here.

To sum up, because I'm sure you won't bother to click the links, use of profanity has nothing to do with the truth value of an argument and likewise has nothing to do with the intelligence of the arguer. To say anything else is a dodge. "Oh, you cussed, therefore I don't have to answer you." Bullshit.

Basic lack of English grammar and punctuation rules, however, could possibly denote one who is either undereducated or just plain stupid.

Shit, JV, I get the feeling you're not quite sure just how much it takes to get Tom Foss to become that vehement. I almost never see him be anything other than civil, if occasionally gruff. You ignorance really speaks for itself, but by getting Tom to bust out the F-bomb like that...Well, that speaks volumes more. I think I second him. You're a fucker. An ignorant, dumbass fucker. And no, saying so does not render my argument false.

[Tom Foss]

Reading, you should attempt it. There are a Ton of sites on the internet that will satisfy your skepticism.

You know, I'd settle for one successful double-blind test.

New Age Garbage??? As I stated, this is a technique practiced thousands of years ago,if you could read, you would have known this. There's nothing New about this. But I waste time here. READ if you dare and then rip holes in it, if you can.

And as we all know, everything practiced "thousands of years ago" is applicable science today! Why, just look at all the alchemists and astrologers and sheeps' entrail readers in the hallowed halls of academia these days.

Is it a scientific law, or an ancient mystic art, John? Is it Quantum Physics or ancient wisdom? And for someone who can't bother to read anything about Quantum Physics before admonishing others to find out about it, you sure are arrogant about this reading thing.

And since you choose to use expletives when referring to me (I'm above this childishness),

My use of expletives has no bearing on the factual nature of my argument. ħ=h/2π whether or not I decide to pepper my speech with four-letter words. Also, since you want others to read so much, I suggest that you do the same.

I can only state, this shows your level of understanding as well as your embarrassingly low IQ.

Really? I like your assumption that, because I call you a fucker for misrepresenting your woo as science, and furthermore cast false assumptions on us, that no one here will be able to call your bluff, that I have a low IQ. I'm still waiting for you to normalize a wavefunction, John. This is the most basic Quantum Physics, John, why can't you give a straight answer?

What's more childish: being unafraid to use all the words in the English language (even the bad ones), or believing that if you wish for a new bike, it'll be magically delivered to your doorstep?

And Tom if you comprehend wavefunctions, Schrödinger Equation (Cat), why would you have a problem with this ancient technique?

I like how you think that the Schrödinger Equation has to do with Schrödinger's cat. I mean, I suppose they're related, but it's not like kitty is the be-all, end-all of quantum physics.

The reason I have a problem with your "ancient technique" is because I actually understand the principles that you name-drop to explain why the universe is a wish-granting fairy tale genie.

Oh and btw,an eigenstate is one of the many possible states which may exist prior to quantum decoherence.

I was looking for something a little more like "when the wavefunction is an eigenfunction of some observable operator, the system is considered to be in an eigenstate of that observable," but we'll go with that. Gee, I wonder why you and your woo latched onto decoherence...

And in case you don't know the meaning of the theory of decoherence:

The theory of decoherence is the study of (spontaneous) interactions between a system and it's environment that lead to such suppression of interference.

1. A "theory" is not a "study."
2. How does decoherence explain The Secret? What are you measuring to create the appearance of a collapsed wavefunction? What states are in superposition? Are you aware that the properties of decoherence only apply on a microscopic level on a very small timescale, which is part of why we don't see quantum effects on a macroscopic level? So, please, enlighten the rest of us on how my macroscopic brain and the macroscopic universe can interact in such a way as to apparently (but not actually) collapse a wavefunction and cause a quantum superposition to behave as a classical ensemble, thereby producing a new bike or a traffic jam.

And the Scientists involved in Quantum Physics would laugh at your retort,

Really? Because I could call over to FermiLab, and ask what's more laughable: the TDSE, or believing that anything you wish for will come true.

you must be a believer in the Flat Earth Theory.

No, I "believe" in what the evidence shows. And while the evidence shows that laser light will interfere with itself in a two-slit experiment, it doesn't show that wishing for things makes them happen. I wished for a lot of crazy shit as a kid, but eventually you learn that not every wish will be heard and answered when wished on a morning star (sorry, Kermit). See, it's scientists who figured out that the Earth was round (or the closest thing they had to scientists back in the classical age), not New Age mystics. It didn't become round because people wished for it to be, and if I spent the next thousand years wishing for the Earth to be flat, it would still be round.

If you were born 300 years ago, you'd problably believe that electricity was the sign of the devil. Or maybe sound waves don't exist, I mean, you can't see them nor can you see radio waves. How can Tons of metal fly... it's an airplane. How can you put words and pictures on a piece of tape or on a disk...IT'S THE DEVIL'S WORK I TELL YAH.

No, dude, it's "The Secret." Why, the only reason I hear the Beatles when I pop a Beatles disc into a CD player is because I'm wishing to hear the Beatles, and the universe is granting my wishes, because it's my own personal genie.

Give me a break. Here's a hint, boyo: all those things you're talking about, all those concepts, were discovered by scientists. Orville and Wilbur didn't get to fly by wishing they had wings. Thomas Edison didn't make his lightbulb glow by wishing really hard at it. Marconi didn't pick radio waves out of the great cosmic catalog. And if I lived 300 years ago, and I wished for an electric toaster, I still wouldn't get it.

Prove me wrong. Spend the next several days wishing for a perpetual motion machine, or a time machine, or a perfect fuel source, or the cure for cancer. When it shows up on your doorstep due to the interference of the universal decoherence genie, then I'll start believing in The Secret.

And yes I do question your knowledge concerning Quantum Physics. No one with an understanding would refute this "New AGE"???? (Give me a break)Science with a straight face.

Is that a No True Scotsman fallacy? I do believe it is. You can question my knowledge of Quantum Physics all you want, but you have yet to answer any of my questions (I might give you half a point for eigenstate, but I sure was wishing for a more technical answer). Show me you can normalize a wavefunction, John. What do you get from < a | a >? What's a complex conjugate? Show me the TDSE in three dimensions. Show me an expression for momentum. I've got my Morrison and my Sakurai right here (strangely enough, neither one lists "The Secret" in the index), you can question all you want. But I'm not alone when I say that until you can give an explanation for how The Secret works, which uses Quantum Mechanics correctly, then I'm going to call it precisely the bullshit that it appears to be.

The question does not make sense as it relates to what is now called the Law Of Attraction. And whoever gave you that impression is in error.

I do believe that impression was given by the video promoting The Secret. You'd think the people claiming that it's a law would have a better understanding of it. I mean, any physicist can spit out Gm1m2/d^2.

As for the traffic Jam...that's easy...you just would not take that route on that day. Call it a hunch, call it luck...but that's how it works ... as a Coincidence.

So everyone caught in a traffic jam was either wishing for it or worrying about being late? All the hundreds of cars in the jam, and not a one of them was thinking "I'll just make a little trip to the store"?

There's nothing magical or religious here.

Just genies and wishes coming true. Not the stuff of fairy tales or anything.

But let me ask you Skeptico, do you have any beliefs that cannot be proven? Do you have faith in a belief NOT a proven fact. Belief is conjecture, opinion and nothing more. Even an Atheist has a belief, he/she has a belief in NO God. Can the Atheist prove that there is no God, can you prove that there is? Conjecture!

If the Law of Attraction is a Law like gravitation, then it has to have been proven. What you're talking about now suggests that it hasn't.

Incidentally, most atheists would say that they don't believe "there is no God," they simply don't believe in God. It's not up to the atheist to prove a negative (generally an impossibility), it's up to the theist to show some positive evidence. Science assumes the null hypothesis until positive evidence suggests otherwise.

I merely ask because this site and we pea brain humans as a whole, think of the infinite with our lowly finite minds. We use 5 to 8% of our brain power, 95 to 93% of our brain capibility is left unused, dormant. We're still cavemen when it comes to intellectual esoteric pursuits lol and you wish to discuss the so-called unknown with our very small percentage of grey matter power???? LOL

The only LOLing is every biologist, neuroscientist, and psychologist in the world at your variation on the "10% of our brains" myth.

So, what is the Law of Attraction, John? Is it a proven, 100% accurate law of nature, or is it an unproven belief? Is it Quantum Physics or Ancient Wisdom? Is it proven and known to work every time, or is it mysterious and unknowable?

Maybe the Law of Attraction exists in a superposition of states (magic and science), and every time we try to define it, the wavefunction collapses to show us one or the other.

So the arguments discussed here are futile. Which is no reflection on you, the good host (ignoring your comment to Tom). You're stimulating thought and we tiny brain humans can only respond with limited ability.

Any argument with someone who assumes the stupidity of everyone else is futile, John. But next time you want to have a Quantum Pissing contest, I suggest you make sure you can disentangle yourself from your pants. Otherwise, you come out looking all wet.

OK I left a door open for the children among the adults within this group to "Rag" on me (GRIN).

The only children here are the ones who still believe that Santa Universe will bring them a brand new pony if they wish for it hard enough.

This is the Law Of Attraction in its purest sense. If one is to gain, one must be willing to give...Freely.

I thought the law in its purest sense was "like attracts like." Gosh, you people really ought to come up with some kind of mathematical equation or simple Newton-esque statement, because it sure looks like this law is all over the place. I mean, you ask any physicist what Newton's 3rd Law is, and Bam!--"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." But this Law of Attraction sure seems hard to pin down, almost like it's totally undefined and could be anything to any person. But then, it wouldn't be a law with the same validity as gravitation, and that certainly can't be right.

I bid you all a fond farewell and let you bask in your futility. Be sure to talk about me Real bad when I'm gone ...sheeesh!

See, if you hadn't wished for it, it wouldn't have happened. You really need to get the hang of this Law of Attraction thing.

[Tom Foss]

John:

Well philosophers and the clergy have had many questionable answers.

I thought you said religion had nothing to do with this.

Well they can only tell us so much and they admit this. So in the end,it goes to my comment on faith.

I have 'faith' that if I do damage to the brain, the "mind" is going to suffer. It's funny how I can eliminate consciousness by mucking about with the physical brain, almost as if the two were one and the same.

Your reference stated 10% of the physical brain and I state 5 to 8% of the emotional mind. It is my "Belief" that They are 2 distinct things.

And what do you use to measure the emotional mind so accurately that you can determine what percentage of it we use? I'm sure the scientific community would be very interested in your mind-scanner, since it seems like you not only know that the mind is separate from the physical brain, but you also know how much "power" it uses and how much it can potentially use.

Akusai: I find it awesome that not only did we both link to the same pages, but did so in the same order. Fantastic.

I'm always a little surprised by how surprised people get when I use profanity. I use it so casually in private conversation that I forget how rarely I use it in public and in writing. I spent a year writing opinions columns for a paper that pretty much self-governed on profanity, and four years on a radio show where the rule was "if you can't say it on South Park, you can't say it on the air," so self-censorship comes pretty naturally. Heck, my skill with the "dump" button got so honed (my crowning achievement was playing Tenacious D's "Fuck Her Gently" and Ben Folds' cover of "Bitches Ain't Shit" back to back, without a single curse word slipping through) that my co-host suggested I was named for Thomas Bowdler.

But that's neither here nor there. I do try to be civil in arguments, because the other parties so often aren't, but such arrogant misuse and misrepresentations of my favorite branch of physics presses all of my buttons.

[HCN]

Mr. Vincent wrote "Gee HNC"

I see you do have trouble with reading, especially with that whole letter arrangement thing. To make it more clear in your mind, think of my initials as something quite poisonous... but very natural (it is also a key ingredient of bitter almonds and apricot pits).

And then continues to dig deeper with:
"Don't you know the difference between the brain and the mind. Excuse me for not elaborating."

A suggested reading for you:
_A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness: From Impostor Poodles to Purple Numbers_ by V.S. Ramachandran

And an even deeper hole: "I obviously didn't mean the physical brain."

I'm not quite sure how you separate the physical brain from the body and still have it work. Yes, a mind is a terrible thing to waste, especially when you let it whither away with vacuous beliefs and not a shred of substantial reality.

You do need to do some remedial reading. You should start at the website I listed:
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/introb.html

Then perhaps continue on to the essay type books by Dr. Oliver Sacks, which are entertaining and very educational. Even just reading the book _The Man Who Mistook his Wife for a Hat_ might give you a clue as to why we are laughing at you, not with you.

[Tom Foss]

I see you do have trouble with reading, especially with that whole letter arrangement thing. To make it more clear in your mind, think of my initials as something quite poisonous... but very natural (it is also a key ingredient of bitter almonds and apricot pits).

I wondered if that was the origin of your screen name, HCN.

I'm not afraid, though. Despite the homeopaths and the organic-types and the antivaxers, I recognize that poison is a dosage issue :).

[John Vincent]

Wow you do scare easy, you must be a ... never mind I was going to get political on you lol

I bet you like to play with guns too. YOU my friend, frighten me.

But since you're so skiddish ...

Boo!

[John Vincent]

HCN

Wow one mistake and now you're a critic :-)

[Skeptico]

Skeptico replies to John Vincent

A bit late to this party it seems – I’ll go anyway.

Re: And the Scientists involved in Quantum Physics would laugh at your retort, you must be a believer in the Flat Earth Theory.

If you were born 300 years ago, you'd problably believe that electricity was the sign of the devil. Or maybe sound waves don't exist, I mean, you can't see them nor can you see radio waves. How can Tons of metal fly... it's an airplane. How can you put words and pictures on a piece of tape or on a disk...IT'S THE DEVIL'S WORK I TELL YAH.

LOL - this is the fallacious appeal to “science doesn’t know everything”. Of course, science doesn’t know everything, but you think the corollary is that any idea you like the sound of, that cannot be proven false, is worthy of consideration. Wrong. Something is only worthy of consideration if there is a reason to suppose it is true.

I don’t believe it - you even used the “radio waves” argument I covered in my write up – you really have read and digested the woo handbook John, haven’t you?

And it’s noted that you can’t refute what I wrote about QM not supporting this nonsense.

Re: And as far as the 2 questions, this has nothing to do with, the thing called the Law Of Attraction. It's like saying, one can change the weather or an ocean's tide or turn silver into gold. The question does not make sense as it relates to what is now called the Law Of Attraction.

The question makes perfect sense – you just can’t answer it.

Re: And whoever gave you that impression is in error.

That would have been Joe Vitale – I suggest you go speak to him.

Re: As for the traffic Jam...that's easy...you just would not take that route on that day.

You’re saying ALL the positive people concentrating on being on time would have taken a different route. All of them. And you really think this makes sense? Are you retarded?

Re: But let me ask you Skeptico, do you have any beliefs that cannot be proven? Do you have faith in a belief NOT a proven fact.

Strictly speaking, nothing is proven. But I don’t have “faith” – belief without evidence – in anything. You should look for evidence that something is true before you believe in it. Otherwise, how do you tell what is true and what isn’t?

Seriously - how do you decide what to believe in and what not to believe?

Re: Even an Atheist has a belief, he/she has a belief in NO God. Can the Atheist prove that there is no God, can you prove that there is? Conjecture!

(Yawn.) Wrong. Atheists just have no belief in God. Just as I have no belief in a teapot orbiting near Mars. Really, don’t you have any original arguments? Any we haven’t heard and debunked a hundred times already.

Re: I merely ask because this site and we pea brain humans as a whole, think of the infinite with our lowly finite minds. We use 5 to 8% of our brain power, 95 to 93% of our brain capibility is left unused, dormant. We're still cavemen when it comes to intellectual esoteric pursuits lol and you wish to discuss the so-called unknown with our very small percentage of grey matter power???? LOL

Several people have explained that we do not only use 10% of our brain – that’s an old wives tale.

But then you replied with this piece of equivocation:

Don't you know the difference between the brain and the mind. Excuse me for not elaborating.

I obviously didn't mean the physical brain.

First – evidence please that we only use 5 to 8% of our mind (however you want to define it). Your claim – back it up.

Secondly - yes you did mean the physical brain. Quote (1) you specifically refer to “brain power" and “grey matter” – the physical brain. Quote (2) “I obviously didn't mean the physical brain” – this really goes beyond equivocation and becomes lying. What’s the matter – can’t you debate honestly? Do you have to resort to this kind of sophistry to feel good about yourself?

Re: The info is to be given freely, if not, the Law will not function.

Not according to Joe Vitale. He says it always works – no exceptions. Not even where money is involved. Funny how this “Law” differs depending on which woo is droning on about it. And yet gravity works the same for everyone. But then gravity really is a Law, unlike the “Law” of attraction.

[Tom Foss]

Wow you do scare easy, you must be a ... never mind I was going to get political on you lol

I bet you like to play with guns too. YOU my friend, frighten me.

I'll assume self-centeredly that this refers to me. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I'm scared, and if you want my politics, you can click my name.

I'll admit, I do love guns. In fact, I have my two favorites sitting next to me, bright blue Nerf pistols with not-actually-laser sights. As to the more lethal variety, I've only ever handled one before, and I wasn't real thrilled with it.

Nice to see how you didn't answer any of the questions or criticisms posed to you. You're really tossing out the non sequiturs tonight.

Wow one mistake and now you're a critic :-)

Actually, you've made quite a few mistakes. In fact, there's very little that you've gotten right so far.

Wonderful reply, Skeptico. I admire your succinctness.

[cyrusgeo]

No, Tom, this "argument" was probably aimed at me — and it was so irrefutable that I'm obviously left speechless...

[L. D. Gussin]

I agree with this thread's contempt for the "law of attraction." Yet the "The Secret" is the best selling book and DVD on Amazon. This leads to a conclusion either that a great many people in this global village are "morons" or simply hurting. If you believe the latter, as I do, this furor merely opens a door. I have tried to go further on this in a post titled "How 'The Secret' Harms Holistic Communities" at my weblog theseekeracademy.com. Please visit and, if you wish, here or there, respond.

[Bronze Dog]

I was going to list all the doggerel this guy had spouted, or was about to spout, but I think I hit a character limit with all the html.

But, I anticipated about 50 total out of the list of 62, so I might as well just leave:

The big list for your reading pleasure.

[HCN]

Mr. Vincent said "HCN

Wow one mistake and now you're a critic :-)"

I'm sorry, but you have made more than one mistake. The problem is that you are so close minded you refuse to learn about the real science.

I gave you a list of reading materials in the hope that you would become a bit more educated in the fascinating and wonderful things that have been learned about the human brain over the last century.

Another good book that goes over the history of brain research, including where the "mind" is in the body is _Postcards from the Brain Museum_ by Brian Burrell.

Really, the science and the history of the science are much more interesting than anything you can make up!

[Tom Foss]

cyrusgeo:

No, Tom, this "argument" was probably aimed at me — and it was so irrefutable that I'm obviously left speechless...

Ah, I apologize then, I missed your comment. You are, of course, quite right. It's disheartening to see so much doggerel and fallacy used so efficiently. It's almost content-free.

HCN: Amen to that!

[Jimmy_Blue]

Leaving aside the quantam mechanics, since Tom has more than made it evident that Mr Vincent knows bugger all about it, there's still plenty to talk about here.

Before you whinge Vincent, you stated:
Unless you have a basic understanding of Quantum Mechanics, one will get the reactions that have been expressed within this blog.

And Tom asked you to perform some tasks that would demonstrate your knowledge of quantam mechanics.

Since you haven't, it's safe to assume you can't and that you yourself have no understanding of quantam physics other than what other woo bleevers have told you. And no, copying a definition you found off an internet site for just one of the terms Tom asked you about doesn't count as demonstrating your knowledge.

Just in case anyone was wondering, Vincent looked up the definition of eigenstate here:

everything2.com

and didn't even bother to change the wording. Unless that's you Vincent, that means you've been caught red handed mate.

And in case anyone was wondering further, his definition of decoherence is taken word for word from here:

Plato.stanford.edu

So at best it appears your basic understanding of quantam mechanics involves cutting and pasting words from people who really do know about it, and pretending they are your own.

Oh course it gets funnier when you consider that your source for the quantam physics behind the law of attraction is the already debunked and ridiculed 'What the Bleep'. Priceless.

Vincent said:
I was skeptical until I did this "thing" and discovered it worked.

How exactly does this 'thing' work?

I wished and hoped for our first two pregnancies harder than anything I've ever hoped for, yet my wife had two miscarriages. I wished and hoped for 15 years to get into the RAF as an officer and worked harder for that than anything I ever have, and yet after three attempts they told me not to try again. I wished my grandfather would get better and yet I attended his funeral two days ago. My grandmother is suffering from alzheimers but I'm pretty sure she didn't wish for that.

If this is something we 'all possess' then why the fuck doesn't it work?

In fact, just for one moment sit down and think of all the things you may have wished for and didn't get. Set aside your confimation bias and really think about it.

Vincent wrote:
And Tom if you comprehend wavefunctions, Schrödinger Equation (Cat), why would you have a problem with this ancient technique?

Because he really does understand it, not just what people have told him to understand by them, but really what they mean.

Vincent wrote:
I'm above this childishness

And then you call into question Tom's intelligence a few words later. And post other people's words as your own. And make some ridiculous strawmen statements. And avoid answering his questions. And say you are out of here and keep coming back. Yes, you are such a grown up.

Vincent wrote:
Even an Atheist has a belief, he/she has a belief in NO God.

Oh for fuck's sake. Atheists.Do.Not.Believe.Atheism.Is.A.Lack.Of.Belief.

Vincent wrote this old urban myth out and takes it seriously:
We use 5 to 8% of our brain power, 95 to 93% of our brain capibility is left unused, dormant.

But then pretends he means our minds. As already asked, please do show us how you measure the mind's capacity, or for that matter the brain's. Whichever one you want to.

Take a look at this page. Do yourself a favour and READ.

snopes

Vincent wrote:
And if you state that the brain and the mind are the same... Science is still questioning this.

Please cite just one peer reviewed article published in a respected publication that supports you in this assertion.

Vincent wrote:
Your reference stated 10% of the physical brain and I state 5 to 8% of the emotional mind.

Really. Because what you wrote was:
We use 5 to 8% of our brain power, 95 to 93% of our brain capibility is left unused, dormant.

Maybe I didn't read that properly, but where did you say 'emotional mind' in there?

Vincent then goes off on one:
This is one reason why prodigies cannot be explained and wars can.

If mankind used more of his mind and less of his reptile brain LOL the world would be in much better shape.

Forgive me but, huh? 'Reptile brain'? Not only do you need physics lessons, looks like biology too.

Vincent wrote:
Wow one mistake and now you're a critic :-)

If only you'd made just one mistake. Of course, someone who criticises others for not reading or understanding correctly should at least try, well, reading and understanding correctly. Not to mention writing.

[Jeremy Henderson]

Oh and btw, an eigenstate is one of the many possible states which may exist prior to quantum decoherence. And in case you don't know the meaning of the theory of decoherence:

The theory of decoherence is the study of (spontaneous) interactions between a system and it's environment that lead to such suppression of interference.

Look it up.

Funny, I did look it up, and discovered that you copied and pasted the above bolded quotes from two easily Googlable sites. See HERE and HERE.

Not exactly compelling evidence that you actually know anything about Quantum Mechanics when you just plagiarize the first sites that come up on a Google search for the terms in question.

[Eric]

Honestly, this has been one of the best takedowns of a woo that I've ever read. Catching him pretending to know about quantum physics when he was just quoting something from the internet was the crowning touch. Well DONE, everybody.

[Bronze Dog]

Forgive me but, huh? 'Reptile brain'? Not only do you need physics lessons, looks like biology too.

It's not the best term, but it does refer to an old chunk of our brain, sometimes called the R-complex. It first evolved in our distant reptilian ancestors, and deals with things like the fight-or-flight instinct.

Of course, society's problems actually come more from using our higher functions incorrectly: When we realize that we're inevitably going to die, thanks to the help of one of our more recently evolved lobes, we experience anxiety. Classically, humans dealt with this by believing in an afterlife, thus "avoiding" the unavoidable with a comforting fictional story that often motivates a person to make life less comfortable for the heretics who don't believe in it.

That's why we need science: The better we can get at knowing the truth through the scientific method, the better we'll be able to do something about the nasty bits.

Pretending that Quantum Mechanics works contrary to how the data shows it works isn't how we make the world a better place, Mr. Vincent.

[John Vincent]

I laughed when I said reptile brain, it was a joke, didn’t you see the “lol”

You guys are a sad bunch of misfits and you deserve each other.

Joe Vitale is rich man not only in his wallet but within his life as well.

Skeptico, maybe he doesn't have time for your foolish questions. Why waste time with a negative, "life Ain't Fair" individual?

How successful are the folks in this group? There might, just might be 1 or 2 but by the discussion within this forum/blog I would venture that the group is filled with sad sacks and “I should have beens...”

Your are the drones, incomplete and frustrated, just waiting to get back at the world for some preconceived injustice. Grow UP!!! Little boys!!!

Joe is wealthy and I'm working on it and doing very well so far. But you guys sound like pitiful losers, drowning in a lake of excrement and too dumb to swim out. You’ll never be whatever you wish to be and if you’re satisfied with where you are...Then God Bless you...you’ll need it.

You folks are indeed a sad lot and I feel sorry for you since you spend your time tearing down instead of creating. Social Masturbating instead of doing something positive for yourselves. Does it truly make you feel better? That Is Sad.

You are indeed a pitiful group of sad, sad people. I hope you have someone who loves you, you reallllly need it.

I wish you better than this.

I’m gone and I leave you with your angst "forever".

[Jody]

And the moral we learn from that last comment, Boys and Girls, is that if you can't win an arguement on its merits, take a shit on the desk and leave.

[Skeptico]

Wow! And I mean, wow! What a pathetic excuse for a response, John Vincent. That last comment of yours was the very definition of ad hominem – you can’t refute any of our arguments and can’t answer any of our questions (and you were caught out copying your supposed answers about quantum mechanics), so you insult everybody instead. Wow! Your response speaks so eloquently to the question of whether the “Law” Of Attraction really is a Law, and to whether you can support your claims or not. If that’s the way you want to leave it - up to you. Your comment stands as a fine indictment of the views you were trying to promote. I’m happy for anyone reading this thread to read your last comment and decide for themselves if your views make sense or not.

[Bronze Dog]

I laughed when I said reptile brain, it was a joke, didn’t you see the “lol”

Someone here has a broken sense of humor. Get the glue.

You guys are a sad bunch of misfits and you deserve each other.

And we're all good buddies. Ad hominem-heavy people like you, however, probably can't tolerate deviation from sacred dogma.

Skeptico, maybe he doesn't have time for your foolish questions. Why waste time with a negative, "life Ain't Fair" individual?

Unlike you, people like Skeptico and us are very, very much in favor of enforcing fairness on life with truth and science. People like you pretend that victims of life's unfairness deserve it.

How successful are the folks in this group? There might, just might be 1 or 2 but by the discussion within this forum/blog I would venture that the group is filled with sad sacks and “I should have beens...”

Yeah, run away from the subject and dwell on irrelevancies.

Your are the drones, incomplete and frustrated, just waiting to get back at the world for some preconceived injustice. Grow UP!!! Little boys!!!

Says the coward who runs away from the real discussion. Says the coward who has to pretend we're exactly like the newage (rhymes with sewage) Hollywood propaganda actually represents reality. Says the coward who contributes nothing to society and rationalizes it into something.

Joe is wealthy and I'm working on it and doing very well so far. But you guys sound like pitiful losers, drowning in a lake of excrement and too dumb to swim out. You’ll never be whatever you wish to be and if you’re satisfied with where you are...Then God Bless you...you’ll need it.

Says the dark age priest who discourages people from looking up at the stars, and into the depths of subatomic space. There's no need to research, you've got it ALL figured out.

You folks are indeed a sad lot and I feel sorry for you since you spend your time tearing down instead of creating. Social Masturbating instead of doing something positive for yourselves. Does it truly make you feel better? That Is Sad.

Your utter inability to see the constructive nature of science is appalling. Your mere presence here would be impossible if it weren't for the scientific method.

STOP PROJECTING YOURSELF ONTO US!

You are indeed a pitiful group of sad, sad people. I hope you have someone who loves you, you reallllly need it.

We've got more than you. I seriously doubt you're capable of genuine love, given your performance here.

I wish you better than this.

I doubt you could come up with something better. The universe is frikkin' amazing! and you'd have us abandon that behind for shallow, meaningless drivel.

I’m gone and I leave you with your angst "forever".

Methinks the woo protest too much. You came in here, and started bashing the wonders of the universe and the method that introduced us to them, and we naturally get angry at your act of anti-wonder verbal violence.

[Jeremy Henderson]

Darnit, Jimmy Blue beat me to the revelation that JV just copied and pasted his quantum mechanics info from a couple of websites. From the timestamps it looks he posted his mere minutes before I typed up mine.

Or (GASP!) did my reading JV's post attract someone who'd call him out on his bullshit? Gosh, this Secret stuff sure is neat!

[Rockstar Ryan]

John Vincent:

Please know that the commenters here take absolutely no offense to your ad hominem. We have dealt with so many individuals that make silly claims and can't back them up that end the "debate" just like you have.

Trust me when I say it is obvious that the waiter has brought out the main course on a silver platter - a huge helping of your own ass - and everyone is laughing at you. Your insults have had the exact opposite effect you were looking at. You dropped by, told us you were tougher than us then pissed your pants and ran home.

We'll go back to our "sad little lives" where your magic powers don't exist, we need a reason to believe things and don't smother ourselves in bullshit because it feels good.

You can go back to being milked like a blindfolded house cat by the purveyors of woo.

Remeber this discussion two years from now - perhaps your opinion will have changed. Just maybe this discussion will make you open your closed little mind enough to think maybe, just maybe you and your magic doctor could be wrong.

Good bye. I'll miss you. Sorry I wasn't around to make fun of you.

[Blair Warren]

I won't pretend to understand some of the scientific arguments being made here, but I must say John Vincent's "reasoning" is absolutely terrifying.

Still, I believe the Law of Attraction does work - not as a universal law, of course, but as one hell of a profitable product.

In fact, I would argue that this "law" has been around for thousands of years not because of its validity, but because of its profitability.

A more accurate name would really be the Law of Extraction (of cash, that is) and unlike the "Law" of Attraction, this one does seem to work everytime.

[cyrusgeo]

See what I meant?

Frightening...

[HCN]

Well, that was amusing.

The sad fact is that Mr. Vincent has absolutely no clue as to how silly he really is!

[Tom Foss]

Why waste time with a negative, "life Ain't Fair" individual?

It's not "life ain't fair," it's "life ain't a fairy tale." 'There ain't no such thing as a free lunch' applies to more than just entropy.

Your are the drones, incomplete and frustrated, just waiting to get back at the world for some preconceived injustice. Grow UP!!! Little boys!!!

Oh, that's rich. You believe that the universe will magically offer up anything you wish for, you have to put down others to make yourself feel better, you're judging people without any idea what they are like, and you're telling us to grow up?

Joe is wealthy and I'm working on it and doing very well so far.

All the money in the world won't make magic real.

But you guys sound like pitiful losers, drowning in a lake of excrement and too dumb to swim out.

Sounds like you're talking to the mirror, John.

Social Masturbating instead of doing something positive for yourselves.

No, you pitiful, pitiful fool, we are doing things, real things, because we all recognize that it's simply not enough to wish for something, you have to work at it. What you're proposing is doing nothing and wishing you were doing something better, and waiting for something better to come along. Hell, that sounds a lot more like masturbation than actually doing things.

I wish you better than this.

And I think we've shown how well that works. You don't become an expert in quantum mechanics by wishing for it (and plagiarizing sites and concepts you don't understand). You don't become an expert in neuroscience by wishing for it, and promoting age-old woo as science. And as you have so perfectly demonstrated, you can wish you were right all you want, but it doesn't make it so. You don't become anything by just wishing, except someone who has wished his life away. Life takes effort.

Blair Warren:

A more accurate name would really be the Law of Extraction (of cash, that is) and unlike the "Law" of Attraction, this one does seem to work everytime.

That's fantastic, and yet, so sad. "Law of Extraction," though...awesome.

I'm going to try one more test of the Secret...I wish John Vincent would come back here to address some of the questions that have been posed to him, and to get refuted just a little bit more. I wish he'd see the error of his ways and recognize the Law of Attraction for the idiocy it is, thereby decreasing the number of people with batshit insane beliefs by one.

There's no place like debunking woo, there's no place like debunking woo, there's no place like debunking woo...

[Blair Warren]

John Vincent wrote:

"Joe is wealthy and I'm working on it and doing very well so far."

John, think about all the "big names" in the Law of Attraction market and ask yourself:

How many of them made their real fortunes *practicing* the "Law" of Attraction before they started *selling* it?

Really, do a little investigating and find out. I think you will be very surprised.

Unless you plan on peddling this same type of nonsense to folks more gullible than you, it is highly doubtful you will "achieve" the same level of success they have.