Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Show
| | |-+  Law of Attraction
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 32   Go Down

Author Topic: Law of Attraction  (Read 90549 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DanPatrick

  • Guest
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #270 on: February 09, 2009, 03:52:58 AM »

FTL lost at least 6 listeners last night.

I hope that they go an and find entertainment that is doing as much for liberty. Perhaps they can give their AMP dollars to the Campaign for Liberty and listen to Neal Boortz.

It doesn't really matter, Mark.  Even if they give their AMP dollars to someone doing LESS for liberty and it means the government continues hurting people that much longer it's only because the universe took people that wanted to be victimized by the government and government people that wanted to hurt them and put them in the same room.

I didn't say that. Sam is not the Arbiter of all things spiritual. I do think that some people get what they want from the government. Look at Ian and his gross couch.

I liked what you said about proselytizing.  Ian and Sam claim that it makes no difference to them whether people buy into LoA or not.  Yet, when they go on a radio show and start making claims about thoughts affecting reality and people getting shot are asking for it then it damn sure seems like they're involving everyone else in their beliefs.  It also seems that they speak about it in such a way that they are pushing the idea that if more people actively practiced positive thinking and "harnessed LoA" then the word would be better.  That, to me, is proselytizing.

Dan, I would propose that Ian doesn't see himself as proselytizing his belief as much as reacting to attacks here. Proselyting goes both ways and we have some very evangelistic atheists here on the BBS.

Its all well and good until someone gets pissed and takes their AMP money and goes home. Now the cause for liberty has been harmed because some people just can't leave Ian to his own beliefs.

I started listening to The Market for Liberty today.  I was surprised at how much of it is based on Objectivist ethics, which is based on the Objectivist approach to metaphysics.  I'm blown away that while Ian really touts this book and claims that it is such an excellent explanation of free-market values, he has abandoned the logical system upon which that description of those values is based.

I have my own share of criticisms about Ayn Rand, but picking up a copy of "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff would go a long way in squelching this debate.

Logged

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #271 on: February 09, 2009, 04:00:23 AM »

Dan, I'll say this. You can't refute her metaphysics as it's even the very basis of Scientific Naturalism (which is also the basis of modern scientific thought). You can't really refute her epistemology, because it's been replicated in the fields of psychology and computer science in their own variations. And you can't really refute her ethics as it seems that even Mises own magnum opus, Human Action, mirrors similar premises and conclusions about ethics leading to economics (and etc).

So, whatever particular issues or criticisms you have, I hope you're don't try with the big issues of her basics. You can disagree with her aesthetics, or more or less her interpretation of them, or even disagree with her weak ass conclusion that minarchism is consistent with her own ethics (which it is not). That wouldn't make you not an Objectivist in my view point. I'm an Objectivist and I disagree with her on those issues.
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

DanPatrick

  • Guest
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #272 on: February 09, 2009, 04:00:35 AM »

Ok, tell me how this strikes you:


Do you believe in evolution? (If no, stop here)

If so, do you believe that humans evolved?

Does the Law of Attraction apply to animals? Meaning, do animals' thoughts affect "reality" in the same way that we do?

If not, then how would humans have evolved this ability to affect everything throughout the universe?  At what point in our evolution did our thoughts begin to affect everything?  Do you believe that this is scientifically sound?
Logged

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #273 on: February 09, 2009, 04:04:09 AM »

I think LOA is bullshit as it violates one of the most basic concepts of metaphysics: the primacy of existence. Our minds may be real things, but they're not part of reality or independent of it. LOA requires one to reject the primacy of existence for the tenet of the primacy of consciousness (of mind), which is far more problematic and could lead to logical conclusions that justify everything from genocide to collectivism (if you've noticed the line of reeasoning that was used by the Ingsoc party in 1984).
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

DanPatrick

  • Guest
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #274 on: February 09, 2009, 04:05:49 AM »

Dan, I'll say this. You can't refute her metaphysics as it's even the very basis of Scientific Naturalism (which is also the basis of modern scientific thought). You can't really refute her epistemology, because it's been replicated in the fields of psychology and computer science in their own variations. And you can't really refute her ethics as it seems that even Mises own magnum opus, Human Action, mirrors similar premises and conclusions about ethics leading to economics (and etc).

So, whatever particular issues or criticisms you have, I hope you're don't try with the big issues of her basics. You can disagree with her aesthetics, or more or less her interpretation of them, or even disagree with her weak ass conclusion that minarchism is consistent with her own ethics (which it is not). That wouldn't make you not an Objectivist in my view point. I'm an Objectivist and I disagree with her on those issues.

Yeah, those are the kinds of things.  Mostly it's based on judgments that she made and statements of personal preferences that she stated as though they were rational absolutes.  I also greatly question her judgment of character in choosing Leonard Peikoff as an heir.  I dislike how the ARI has distorted certain aspects of the philosophy to essentially become warmongers.  In 2004 they endorsed John Kerry!  Say what you will about how libertarians stating "liberty" as a goal lacks philosophical basis (therefore anti-reality, anti-mind, anti-man, and anti-life) but choosing John Kerry is just stupid.
Logged

DanPatrick

  • Guest
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #275 on: February 09, 2009, 04:13:26 AM »

I think LOA is bullshit as it violates one of the most basic concepts of metaphysics: the primacy of existence. Our minds may be real things, but they're not part of reality or independent of it. LOA requires one to reject the primacy of existence for the tenet of the primacy of consciousness (of mind), which is far more problematic and could lead to logical conclusions that justify everything from genocide to collectivism (if you've noticed the line of reeasoning that was used by the Ingsoc party in 1984).

Yeah, Sam kept saying (paraphrasing) "What's more empowering?  Being in control of everything or not? I believe in LoA because of how empowering it is"  Well La Ti Frickin Da, Sam.  Things don't just exist because their existence would be "better" than their non-existence.  This is essentially the ontological argument for the existence of god applied to LoA.

Anselm's Ontological Argument for God's Existence

   1. God is something than which nothing greater can be thought.
   2. It is greater to exist in reality and in the understanding than just in understanding.
   3. Therefore, God exists in reality

Sam's Ontological Argument for the Existence of Law of Attraction

    1.   Law of Attraction is something than which nothing more empowering can be thought
    2.   It is more empowering for LoA to exist in reality and in the understanding than just in understanding
    3.   Therefore, LoA is real
Logged

Njal

  • Anarcho-Rodent
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 986
  • Being better than you for 30 years!
    • View Profile
    • High North Alliance
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #276 on: February 09, 2009, 06:20:02 AM »

Ok, tell me how this strikes you:


Do you believe in evolution? (If no, stop here)

If so, do you believe that humans evolved?

Does the Law of Attraction apply to animals? Meaning, do animals' thoughts affect "reality" in the same way that we do?

If not, then how would humans have evolved this ability to affect everything throughout the universe?  At what point in our evolution did our thoughts begin to affect everything?  Do you believe that this is scientifically sound?

Awesome!
Logged
Don't be that guy.

Rillion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6804
    • View Profile
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #277 on: February 09, 2009, 06:39:34 AM »

Our minds may be real things, but they're not part of reality or independent of it.

Real, but not part of reality?  How do you parse that?
Logged

fatcat

  • Guest
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #278 on: February 09, 2009, 09:00:47 AM »

Our minds may be real things, but they're not part of reality or independent of it.

Real, but not part of reality?  How do you parse that?

I think Brede is refering to a solipsistic view of reality, that your mind is the only reality, that perception is the only thing that exists, in comparison to the Objectivist notion that the mind is independent of reality, that just because you haven't perceived something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and that when you stop perceiving reality, it doesn't disappear, but your objectively existent brain that was previously generating subjective experiences just stops functioning, and everything else goes on.

It pretty much comes down to the fact that in order for there to be a mind, there needs to be a brain to generate it.

Consciousness cannot exist independent of an organ to generate it, and a physical object cannot exist independently of a physical universe with physical laws.

In order for LOA to be true, there either needs to be some fantastically complex and unknown physical mechanism for brains to be having massive effects external of the brain without use of the body (that for some reason isn't scientifically testable), OR you have to buy into metaphysical philosophy where our perception and thoughts can change reality on the basis of some inherent connection between reality and perception of reality.

Although the way Brede has worded it doesn't really make that clear (if this is what was meant), so apologies if I'm confusing the issue.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2009, 09:06:44 AM by fatcat »
Logged

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #279 on: February 09, 2009, 09:23:54 AM »

Our minds may be real things, but they're not part of reality or independent of it.

Real, but not part of reality?  How do you parse that?

What I mean by it's not part of it is that it's not the basis of nature like the four forces of Nature. We could say the four forces are part of reality/Nature, but everything else is derived from them isn't part of Nature or at least not 1-to-1 with Nature. I make this distinction over the concern of solipsism being justified by my words. I've heard too many times in arguments with solipsists that because matter/energy is "part of Nature" therefore our thoughts and minds are "part of Nature." Basically, I don't make that logically possible by recognizing there's no fundamental force of mind like there's a fundamental force of gravity.
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

The ghost of a ghost of a ghost

  • Owned by Brasky. Deal with it.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1026
    • View Profile
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #280 on: February 09, 2009, 10:12:25 AM »

If you don't have the patience for the whole thing.....skip to the last 2 minutes. Funny stuff.

[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/usbNJMUZSwo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/usbNJMUZSwo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
Logged

LordMarius

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 253
  • The only Norwegian freemarketeer
    • View Profile
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #281 on: February 09, 2009, 10:19:54 AM »

I think I've had my share of Sam's rambling from the 06.02 show.

As an answer to the person who brought forward the hypothetical situation of a guy being shot by a lunatic, Sam actually said that the universe only says "Yes!", and therefore will take one person who wants to get shot, and one person who wants to shoot someone together.

The logical conclusion based on Sam's statement is that EVERYTHING that happens to a person happens because the person wants it, conciously or subconciously.

Logically, the citizens of Gaza WANTED to be bombed by Israel, conciously or subconciously.
The citizens of Gaza that died from the bombing WANTED to die from the bombing.
The slaves in the US who died in slavedom WANTED to be slaves for the rest of their lives.

This is the most ridiculous bullcrap I HAVE EVER HEARD!

According to Sam, we also have complete responsibility for everything bad that happens, and he actually said "What did you do to prevent it?" when Ian brought up a real or hypothetic (I don't remember) case where someone was obviously not responsible for someone's terrible ordeal.

Logically we can then conclude that Sam was responsible for the bombing of Gaza?
Logged

Rillion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6804
    • View Profile
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #282 on: February 09, 2009, 10:22:30 AM »

If you don't have the patience for the whole thing.....skip to the last 2 minutes. Funny stuff.

No, they must watch the whole thing.  It's very awesome.   :)
Logged

FTL_Ian

  • Professional Iconoclast
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10446
    • View Profile
    • Free Keene
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #283 on: February 09, 2009, 11:14:23 AM »

Parcgreene,

I'm not here to please the atheists by being completely in line with their belief system.  I understand it must be frustrating that we agree on so much except when it comes to this metaphysical stuff.  I once felt as you do, and don't want to feel that way anymore.

I like believing that I'm part of all-that-is, (or if you like, god) - it's far more empowering than my old atheistic belief system.

I like believing in LoA - I've seen evidence that it's real.  Can I scientifically prove it?  Nope.  Do I care to spend my time proving what I know to be true?  Nope.

Finally, in regards to credibility, do you really believe that the message of liberty cannot stand on its own as credible separate from the communicator's religious beliefs?
Logged
Please support the show by joining the AMP program at http//amp.freetalklive.com

I blog at http://freekeene.com

FTL_Ian

  • Professional Iconoclast
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10446
    • View Profile
    • Free Keene
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #284 on: February 09, 2009, 11:15:16 AM »

Additionally, no one has dropped their AMP over this controversy.   8)
Logged
Please support the show by joining the AMP program at http//amp.freetalklive.com

I blog at http://freekeene.com
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 32   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Show
| | |-+  Law of Attraction

// ]]>

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 32 queries.