What would you say if I claimed that it's magical thinking for you to believe that pricking a person with a needle would cause them to feel pain?

I would disagree. The contact of a needle and a pain receptor causes pain.

What I meant to say that if you believe in or think there is something to the "law of attraction", then it should work like a law of nature. So, you say that you've had instances in which having a certain mindset produces good outcomes. The problem is that you may have a positive mindset for a large stretch of time, and only "attract" some positive goal in one instance of that temporal duration.

If it were a law, then any time you had a positive mindset, positive things should immediately follow. Or it is not a law as is understood in nature. So bad days or good days don't serve as a way to show whether such "law" works.

Destiny is also tricky. I think it has a poetical use which can be powerful, but I wouldn't take it literally. I do agree however, that will is fundamental to the determinism debate.

:mask: :up:

The philosophy of the law of attraction is that it operates all the time, but that the reason bad consequences is due to contradictory wishes. That implies that aspects of the self are playing games with ourselves. I know that I have internal war over my wishes. For example, when I tried to work at a hostel where I hated working and tried to be grateful and develop a positive mindset, practically everything I did at work went wrong until I realised that I really didn't wish to work there.

Okay, this may seem like one example, but on a daily basis I do find such links. Of course, I realise that there is the question as to whether it is simply my perception and interpretation or is attraction itself which influences events? If the law of attraction is true in any way, my perception of it may affect the unfolding of events in my life. On the other hand, you don't wish to see a law of attraction so it does not appear to you. I don't know how much it comes down to choice of how one wishes to see life events and aspects of life and personal will and motivation.

The contact of a needle and a pain receptor causes pain. — NOS4A2

No, that’s not true. Many many more things are needed to cause a person to feel pain. Try again?

For instance?

Such as a cause of needle, and please pardon my racy language, penetration.

I don’t understand. Why is it magical thinking to believe pricking a person with a needle would cause them to feel pain?

I don’t understand. — NOS4A2

I don't either, actually. I've been playing the devil's advocate, your advocate, in order to try to understand your reasoning. Standing in another person's shoes, as they say, in order to at least engender some empathy for your position on the matter. This approach has failed, I'm sorry to say, so if we are to bridge this gap in understanding you will have to do the heavy lifting.

Earlier you wrote:

The other person causes his own actions. The act of hearing my words, processing what I said, and recoiling in horror are the effects of which he is the cause. — NOS4A2

Yet subsequent to this claim you agreed that pricking a person with a needle would cause them to feel pain. If you pricked a person with a needle it is far more likely that they would recoil (reacting to the pain) than if you were to merely say something to them. There is no fundamental difference between words and needles in this context. Both can physically connect two people in a causal chain.

Incidentally, no one thing causes another thing to happen. We merely identify the most efficient 'causes' that are in line with fulfilling our goals.

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Our desires and goals largely shape our reality.

The effects of spoken words on a human being is the same as all acoustic waves, at least the ones our biology is capable of detecting. The waves vibrate the ear drum. So spoken words can effect human beings insofar as they vibrate another’s ear drums, like all sounds, but beyond that the words have no effect. After that all subsequent effects are caused by the biology. So we should not being saying words cause such-and-such reactions in human beings (taking offence for example), when human beings are the causes of such reactions.

spoken words can effect human beings insofar as they vibrate another’s ear drums, like all sounds, but beyond that the words have no effect. After that all subsequent effects are caused by the biology. — NOS4A2

If words only affected eardrums then it would not be possible to communicate verbally. Sounds cause patterns of auditory sense data to be transmitted to the brain which in turn causes particular neural effects.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a causal chain? Perhaps the following video can help. Pay special attention to the cats. They are biological and an inextricable part of the causal chain.

I’ll pass on the YouTube video.

Cells in the inner ear transform vibration into electrical signals. No other thing or force is causing this to happen or performing this activity.

That activity is always happening, silly goose. What you neglect to take into account is the intentional pattern that is transmitted, and that is caused by the spoken words of another’s voice.

You really should watch the video, it’s super cute.

“Intentional pattern”…nifty phrase, but “patterns” is a weird way to describe mechanical sounds, and “intentional” would apply to any sound we make on purpose.

The reason we understand another’s words is not because “intentional patterns” float through the air, but because we can associate meaning with another’s sounds, all of which requires a level of understanding acquired through years of active learning, trial and error, practice, and so on.

I meant the patterns in the electrical signals that you mentioned. Specific patterns that correspond to a sequence of sounds, such as spoken words. Neurons in the cerebral cortex recognize these patterns due to their conditioning or as you say “ learning, trial and error, practice, and so on.” Spoken words cause particular neural activity, in other words.

My point is that neurons cause particular neural activity. The body performs the actions, therefor it causes them.

My point is that neurons cause particular neural activity. The body performs the actions, therefor it causes them. — NOS4A2

You're simply limiting a causal sequence, so what? It would make sense to do that if the events in question were too far removed from each other to find a reasonable causal connection, but that is not the case.

I think you’re trying to insert a chain between two disparate events in order to say one caused the other. Sorry, I don’t see it, or you haven’t made it clear, one or the other.

I’ve tried to explain to you that the information or pattern is independent of the medium. For instance, I’m conveying this message through written language but I could also convey it by voice. Two “disparate” mediums, same information or pattern that your brain recognizes. Comprende, senor?

Yes, I comprehend it. But you don’t cause me to comprehend it, is my point.

My last point was merely that you would comprehend it via written form or by voice, things of a different kind (disparate).

We could have avoided this silliness if you would have whatched the Cats and Dominos video. Cats and dominos are DISPARATE. :lol:

What is silly is the amount of time you’ve spent to say very little. I have to wonder why you tried to refute my initial point.

It was a small demonstration of causality, my friend, nothing more. I provoke, you reply.

Maybe it’s the other way about. You’re doing exactly what I caused you to do.