Space Babe

There are two major divisions of science. We have natural sciences and social sciences. Natural sciences are disciplines designed to predict and explain events that occur in our natural environment (Physics, Biology, Chemistry...) On the other hand, social sciences are usually fields of academic scholarship which explore aspects of human society (law, history, sociology...) While natural sciences study the psychical world, social sciences study human behavior. Psychology represents the science which subject of study is the psychological/psychiatric life of humans. And that psychological aspect of life comes and is developed from the brain, while manifested by a large number of psychological notions. Every reaction and behavior of humans is studied and is directly or indirectly linked to the various methods of how one's mind functions. Now, my opinion here is that, while psychology mainly studies human behavior (making it fall in the category of social sciences), it is still known that the psychological aspect of our way of thinking and reacting, is influenced by the condition of the brain and its parts, such as the frontal lobe, the central nerve system, neurons...In other words, the main organs that are responsible for the development of the psychological life of humans are the nervous system and receptors (making it fall in the category of natural sciences, or biology, to be more specific). According to this, I would say that psychology is a little bit of both, as it can't be defined entirely as a social science, nor entirely as a natural science. However, I personally consider and admit that psychology definitely is a real science, containing social and naturals aspects of study.

I think I've previously mentioned that I wrote an article that was recently published in a scientific journal, regarding to a critical analysis of Charles Cooley's theory "Looking Glass Self" (1902), where I also mention the virtual world and people's various behavior based on their status in the real world. However, It would be very interesting to actually conduct a research and possibly write a paper about this topic as well. Thank you so much for your recommendations, since I am not really a gamer girl and I don't have much knowledge about games... I completely agree with the last sentence of your comment about escaping the real world; But I must say that every person is "escaping" from the real world and that does not have to necessarily mean into the virtual world. In other words, people often escape in their psychological world, were everything is an illusion, but they want to believe those illusions are a reality, trying to act like that in the real world. Here, rationality is sometimes an exception, as most of people's psychological illusions are not realistic or easily achievable for them. Reality is often cruel, and in order for humans to cope with that, they have this habit of turning reality into an illusion, and vice versa. Although it is physically impossible to escape from reality as a concept of existence, people often mistaken their psychology as a different world, and that is not correct because psychology comes and is developed in our brain, and our brain is an essential part of our body which allows our existence on this planet in the first place. Still, even when a person manifests and lives in a perfect illusion of his own creation, there is some conscious present at the back of his head, a consciousness that simply cannot be fooled with lies and self-manipulation. That is often that tiny voice which gives the person a dose of reality in order for him to not get carried away by his illusions and start acting like that in the real world. Thank you, nevim I complete agree with you, as I also don't have tendencies to use social media, such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter... My intention is not to offend anyone who uses social media, however my personal opinion is that they are a waste of time and have a very negative influence upon one person's self-image and confidence. In other words, I view social media as unrealistic worlds that are filled with illusions, which make people to often mistaken them as a reality.

I agree with your opinion, in general. It is undeniably true that the real world cannot be equally compared with the virtual world. There are many factors that influence our behavior and image that we display online. When it comes to creating an image in the virtual world, the option of showing our true self is not the only possibility. On the contrary, it can also represent a chance for a person to manifest his ideal self - similar to an alter ego; A person can decide to manifest his ideal self in the virtual world in order to either create a false impression of someone who he is not, or to satisfy the perfect illusion that other people have of him. Either way, it shows us that sometimes, when a person wants to be a better version of himself, but cannot achieve it from various reasons, he is willing to use the possibilities of the virtual profiles to lie himself and others that he has, subconsciously achieved his ideal self, which in reality is not true. When it comes to your example about the aggressive gamer, that is very different than a profile on social media where everyone can see the false or real image you put on display in the virtual reality. In a virtual game, there are no profiles of the gamer's life, but just his method of playing, which by the way, is also manifested or performed by all the other gamers in the game - because that is how you beat the game and beating the game is the main goal of the gamers. A gamer cannot act the same as a popular Instagram model, simply because their profiles are created for different purposes - and with that, they both act differently. However, there might be a similarity in all of this, and the answer lies in the final goal that the person wants to achieve; Namely, the Instagram model presents a perfect life in the virtual world and is influencing other people to be just like her. If there is a girl who is not popular and insecure, and she wants to change all that, will see what it takes (or at least what she thinks) to become popular and loved. In other words, she will try to act like the Instagram model. In the other hand, we have a gamer who is playing an aggressive game and has the highest scores, always beating the game. He, directly or indirectly, influences the other gamers to play similar to him in order to get better at the game. So, if we have a gamer who is not very good at the game (he is slower, doesn't want to "kill" his fellow players), he will soon notice the best gamer and will try to act and play aggressively, just like him in order to achieve a higher score.

I agree that war does not manifest the urge to kill alone - that is due to the fact that humans live in a sophisticated society that is far more evolved and advances than the survival laws of nature where the other animals live and fight. I have read that there are 8 main reasons for war: 1. Economic gain 2. Territorial gain 3. Religion 4. Nationalism 5. Revenge 6. Civil war 7. Revolutionary war 8. Defensive war But my point was that war could often be viewed as an acceptable way of killing, although there is much more to that. Like I said, wars do not occur simply because humans have a numbed urge to kill, but because of other causes/reasons motivated by the contradicting interests of two or more countries.

In my post, I managed to explain how exactly war is considered as "justified" from the aspect of human nature. However, in our modern society there are a variety of values and laws that must be respected so anarchy does not become a thing. For instance, war can destroy the future of humanity with the improvement of chemical, nuclear or biological weapons. I think that it is highly irrational to jeopardize the faith of all humans because of the selfish reasons for power, control, dominance and politics between two or more countries. Humans should be considered civilized enough to resolve conflicts or to gain political/social goals from a nonviolent approach. Also, war is not moral because it is not ethical to kill innocent people, and furthermore, violate the international law. In other words, it's not necessarily about the people who are fighting, or those responsible for the declaration of the war, but rather the cause, that is, the reason for it, as well as the losses and the consequences of self destruction that humanity will suffer because of that war; Because those reasons are not derived from moral values, but from primary instinct that is originally a trait that is currently present and only manifested in wild animals, who as such, possess no moral or values.

War may be considered as morally wrong, but the manifestation of its methods are a primary instinct for human beings.That desire or urge to kill present in humans actually exists since the very beginning of our existence - mainly because of the behavior which is now known as self-preserving or "survival instinct". It is very clear that the early human was not on the top of the food chain in nature, and so a lot of wild animals threatened his existence. So, in order to survive, he had to kill (to feed himself). In fact, self-preserving is a universal behavior among all living creatures on this planet, and pain and fear are the integral components of this mechanism. Now, the fact that the human began to kill his own kind only meant that, according to his developed cognations, he started to make a distinction between the people around him, comparing himself to them and deciding which people are dangerous for him and endangering his life, and which do not. In other words, through the evolution of the instinct and the development of the mind, the situation where previously some wild animal represented a threat and the human killed him because of that, now a similar situation has occurred, only in this case the killer's target is replaced with another human being. This being said, although war is considered to be morally wrong, it still represents an acceptable way of killing. Because from a psychological point of view, the modern and sophisticated man is lying to himself that war is a justified murder because it allows, in those circumstances, to manifest its urges which have been numbed for centuries due to the changed (safer) lifestyle. Because the human understands that the majority of people support murder during war, he is also encouraged to manifest his urges in practice, but also because a real life threatening situation. There is this impression that the modern human is, in a certain way, "torn apart" between a safer and nonviolent lifestyle and resists to eliminate the people who are a "thorn in his eye", mainly because of the legal punishments for murder.

Yes, I see what you mean. And I agree that, although it may not be very relevant, it still proves that if not by internal factors, then any life form can be spread by external factors and by external factors I mean the possibility of humans to send, create or develop a life form on a extraterrestrial planet or body (intentionally or not). However, when it comes to spreading and seeding any signs of life, we would need to calculate the probability of that happening, as well as other considerations. For instance, if and how will they manage to survive in the harsh conditions of space, their adaptation to their new environment, their effects on it, etc.

Maybe I did not express myself in the best possible way. My point was that, compared to the universe, the human race, and even our entire planet, has no significant meaning or influence upon it by any means. Our existence is not a factor that can influence the galaxy we live in, no matter its size. For now, we are aware of ourselves as the only intelligent life form that has evolved, but when it comes to the rest of space, we think of it as empty because we have not even traced any signs of extraterrestrial life, let alone any signs of intelligent extraterrestrial life forms. Humanity is under the impression that is it completely alone in the universe, that it is the only known form to possess self awareness about its existence. And maybe this impression is not far from the truth...

I agree with your opinion. Still, we don't exactly know what are the odds that other intelligent life forms like us have evolved within our galaxy. As to human beings, I think that the significance of life is mainly divided in two different and contradicting aspects. The first aspect says that human lives matter, manifested by the sense of humanity, equality, unity,... and in a way, it limits the perspective of people to see or at least to think that this aspect only matters within the boundaries of our planet, but not outside of its atmosphere. The second aspect says that human lives don't matter, manifested by our knowledge about the vastness, but also the great emptiness of the galaxy we live in. And instantly, that concept of equality and unity actually proves that we are equally and all together insignificant compared to the universe as a whole. Because the universe is so vast, it functions in a way that the most painful thing that people must understand is that nothing matters and that we are irrelevant. The perspective of "no lives matter" may only matter outside our planet's atmosphere, but I suspect that some people apply this mentality into human society, in a sense that those who are on the top of the hierarchical pyramid consider that every human can be an easily replaced number.

My view on this topic (although it may not be a popular opinion) is that no lives matter, of course, compared to the vastness of the universe. It is actually strange to consider how much time has passed since the Big Bang to the first signs of human life on Planet Earth, and it is even stranger to consider that even if entire existence on this planet disappears, literally no one will ever know that there was once intelligent life, nor will our disappearance have any significant meaning or consequences in the cosmos. There were so many people that lived before our birth, and I presume that many people will exist after we die. But if we see this from a more narrow perspective, all those people who lived before us has a certain meaning for someone in their environment, some people thought that they were influential, powerful, while others did not think of themselves in that manner. In other words, different people = different characters. But after the time will erase them, what is left of them? - Absolutely nothing... History is constantly repeating itself, creating masses and masses of people, whom from a psychological aspect see the world through the lenses of their own use and pleasure, giving themselves a significant meaning, when in reality, they are something limited, without a special meaning for the universe, or even for Earth. I believe that the reality is that we all await the same end, after our death we may be mourned by a small amount of people, but they will not mourn their whole life for us. As the world existed before us, it will also exist after us.

I apologize for replying a bit late, but firstly, I want to thank you for sharing your opinion on the thread Generally, I agree with your statement, as people with higher anxiety were more likely to have the urge of the high place phenomenon, according to Jennifer's study. However, l'appel du vide moments can also be experienced by people who don't have obsessive thought disorder; Your presumption is indeed correct and accurate. It is a known fact that people lack control over the subconscious mind (and the high place phenomenon takes place in the subconscious mind). Only a tiny fraction of our thinking is part of the conscious mind, which we can control, but the rest of our thoughts (which we can't control) is part of the subconscious mind. Interesting enough, some of these subconscious thoughts can "cross over" into our conscious part of the mind, and it results with us being able to see what is going on in our subconscious. And more importantly, that is exactly what happens with the l'appel du vide moments -a misunderstanding between the conscious and unconscious aspect of our minds, proving that the brain occasionally makes a "check-up" on our will to see whether we want to live or not, that is, if we have suicidal tendencies. As you can see, this complies with your presumption that if we try to ignore something, our subconscious mind will keep checking up to see if we are ignoring it. In the case of the high place phenomenon, the fact that we are ignoring is our own mortality and how easy it actually is for us to die or to cause someone else's death. But thoughts that are manifested through the high place phenomenon are not like the other random thoughts in our subconscious. As I have previously mentioned, they fall under the category of intrusive thoughts, since the idea of committing suicide or murdering other people is disturbing and/or distressing. And intrusive thoughts only manifest the fact that, although our mind as a whole, controls many functions, still the conscious aspect of it does not possess control do not include intrusive thoughts, that is, they are outside of conscious control.

I am familiar with Christopher Hitchens and his views on religion, abortion, women, politics, etc. He was indeed described as an anitheist because he viewed faith in god or any other superior entity or being as totalitarian belief that impedes individual freedom. While I am an atheist myself and agree with his critiques in general, I also respect the fact that Hitchens fought and argued in favour of science. I know that there are scientists who are also religious, surely on this forum as well. However, when it comes to Hitchen's above mentioned quoatation in the thread, I see absolutely nothing offensive. Therefore, I personally think that it would make an excellent "mission statement" for the forum.

People have only one real self, but it is their decision whether they will manifest it or not. This also depends on the acceptance of society. It is a known fact that most people want to feel accepted in society, or in other words, have the feeling that they belong somewhere. However, society does not accept all types of personalities and it often mocks some people for them trying to be what they truly are. Therefore, the real self can be manifested in the real world, but only if it is accepted by society, or if the individual simply does not care what other people think of him. The other alternative is for the person to pretend to be someone else (that is, to manifest a personality that is acceptable or what is expected from him by society) in the real world, while the virtual world (often anonymous) gives him the chance for him to manifest his true self in a virtual environment where no one knows him in real life. That way, he can finally achieve the impression that he belongs somewhere.

I actually wrote an article about this that should be published in a scientific journal during these following months, so I am just going to write something according to my manuscript. I don't know if you are familiar with Charles Cooley's theory of Looking Glass Self (1902), where there are three main components: 1. We imagine how we must appear to others in a social situation; 2. We imagine and react to what we feel their judgment of that appearance must be; 3. We develop our sense of self and respond through this perceived judgments of others; Now, in the case of your question, the reason why some people act differently online versus in real life is connected with Cooley's third component, by creating the virtual self that differs from the real self that one person possesses in the real world. People often yearn toward achieving their ideal self by reflecting it in the virtual world. Virtual self refers to the “person connected to the world and to others through electronic means, such as the internet, television and cell phones. It is a sense of being and is a particular way of experiencing and interacting with the world” (Agger, 2004, p.9) Even online, people are aware about their self-presentation. A typical example is when people reevaluate themselves before posting something on social media, because they consider it as a relevant factor which determines their character in the real world. But there is no need to change our real self when the virtual world exists. If one individual wishes to change his self under the influence of other people’s judgments, he will no longer have to actually do it. It’s enough to create a self in the virtual world where he will presented his ideal self or the self according to other’s assessments. However different people do this in different ways. Even though we look at our displayed virtual life, we get the false impression that we really have the life others imagine. Thus we get a false image of ourselves that we somehow managed to achieve the desired life according to other people’s views, even though it’s not real. With the virtual worlds appearance they now understand the real world as a spare and something irrelevant, until at least in one of the worlds (real or virtual) they live the desired life, in this case the virtual world, but just enough and satisfactorily to fool people in their immediate surroundings. Thus confirming the theory of Goffman that people really are actors playing roles in public but deep inside, far from other’s eyes, they act according to their true self. The virtual world is an opportunity for people who aren’t satisfied with their self to appear different before social network users. It’s like they have a copy of themselves in front of them where their views, behavior, life, style and looks are presented. And they are given the power to be the creators of their self. They have felt that they could not truly affect to change their true self because deep in their subconscious they know they are still a different person behind their mask used in public. But now they have the impression that they are the creators of their new persona who they make out of their taste, like a piece of clay shaped until they are satisfied with the final results. This is inspired by two things: Other people’s opinions and the ideal self;

Acrophobia, or the term for fear of heights, has a very close connection with these moments, that is, only in the example I pointed out where the man is standing on a very high place (like the edge of a cliff) and suddenly the desire to jump appears. However, I don't believe that a person that suffers from acrophobia would likely get even close to the edge of a high place, nor even think about jumping. Besides, I think that in your example, the idea of jumping that appears in the mind of the person, is manifested by the conscious aspect, not the subconscious aspect. That is the main difference between ordinary thoughts that we experience daily, and l'appel du vide moments; According to me, I think that the so-called "call of the void" has a stronger connection with the fact that we are aware of our own mortality, that is, we think about how easy it is for us to cause death, either our own or someone else's. Still, no matter how aware is the person about his own mortality as an inevitable event, he has an even stronger will to live as long as possible and the brain, during these situations, is trying to perform a sort of a "check up" on us to make sure just how willing is the person to stay and be alive, in general. This explains why the person immediately withdraws after the l'appel du vide moment is over. Because, during the l'appel du vide moment (which is manifested by the subconscious aspect of the human brain) the person thinks in a way that he normally would not think at all, and when he retreats, the first questions that comes to his mind is why did he even retreat, or took a step back. The person asks himself why did he suddenly took a step back because now, thinking with the conscious and rational aspect of his brain, he perceives and observes the environment in which he has found himself, he notices that he is not in danger (because he previously took a step back) and only then he comes to the realization that the only reason why he withdrew is because he certainly wanted to jump in his subconscious mind. And with the fact that he wanted to jump, but retreated, clearly points to the fact that the person has a will to live. I would say that the mind wants to play tricks with our subconscious and the thin line that divides us from our end of our existence on this planet. Namely, as our mind has both conscious and subconscious aspects that are manifested at different times and in different situations, there is a kind of a misunderstanding and this misunderstanding between the conscious and unconscious aspect of our minds proves that the brain occasionally checks up on us and our existential will to see whether we want to live or not, that is, if we have suicidal tendencies. Because of this, I feel that it is also important for me to point out that these moments also appear in people who do not want to commit suicide because their goal is quite the opposite.

First of all, I would like to thank you for commenting on the thread and sharing your opinion Maybe I did not express myself in the best possible way. When I wrote about thoughts, it actually applied to intrusive thoughts, since the idea of committing suicide or murdering other people is indeed disturbing and/or distressing. Your examples are thoughts that pass through our mind daily, and more importantly, they appear in our consciousness, not our subconsciousness. Intrusive thoughts can also be urges, which can definitely make us think of things we don't want to do, coming from the subconscious aspect of our mind. And from this aspect, intrusive thoughts/urges can almost be defined as the same thing, or in other words, they have the same concept - an intrusive thought can suddenly become an intrusive urge. About your last opinion, I think I wrote a longer explanation about the "urges" of people wanting to kill other people in the thread Murder. If you are interested, you can read it...

"Higher ideation" means the formation of ideas and concepts, but that are more advanced than average. I hope this explanation helps... Of course, please feel free to share your explanation. Anyway, I consider these moments to be a misunderstanding between the conscious and unconscious aspect of our minds, proving that the brain occasionally makes a "check-up" on our will to see whether we want to live or not, that is, if we have suicidal tendencies. However, I have another assumption regarding the name "Call of the void" and it is related to the non-belief in the afterlife; I think that even the name itself "Call of the void", shows that deep in the subconscious, people do not entirely believe in the afterlife, such as the concepts of heaven or hell. This applies to all people, whether they are atheists or religious believers. I would say that these moments are like calls of death, and the very word "void" initiates the fact that after death there is nothing and nothing is happening, that is, in which people, especially religious believers, believed their whole life. Its similar as to someone describes most of the universe - complete emptiness in which nothing happens. I can describe this as a thin interaction between the reality that appears in our subconscious, and the illusion that is present in our consciousness. No matter how many people believe in what they want to be true and in which they actually find consolation (in this particular case, that is life after death that symbolizes the impossible tendencies of the human race to achieve immortality), still deep in their subconscious they know that they are not 100% sure about that assumption in which they believed their whole life. In other words, they realize that it might just be a psychological method invented by people to escape the painful reality of final death. That is, from an unconscious point they realize that after death there is nothing left for them, and that it really is the end of their limited time on this planet. However, this is just my opinion and, of course, I have no intention to offend or mock anyone who thinks and believes different than me.

According to Jennifer's study, people with higher anxiety were more likely to have the urge, but also, people with higher anxiety were more likely to have higher ideation. So people with higher ideation were more likely to report the phenomenon. She explains that it could be explained by a strange mix between the conscious and unconscious mind. However, I have another assumption regarding the name "Call of the void" and is related to the psychological aspect of the non-belief in the afterlife.

This is also known as the "High place phenomenon", given the name by Jennifer Hames. She led a study at the department of Psychology at Florida State. The study samples a survey of 431 undergrad students, asking them if they've experienced this phenomenon. A third of the study's participants reported that they experienced this phenomenon. A little over 50% of the subjects who said they felt the call of the void never had suicidal tendencies Since the study was performed only on undergrad students, Hames wrote an article, as I recall, where she gives an explanation about this phenomenon that applies to all humans in general, indicating that it is very common. Anyway, this is my first time starting a new topic on this forum, since I am a new member, and I am very sorry if I made any mistakes, errors or created a confusion. I tried to edit the topic above to be more precise. Again, I apologize...

The French saying "L'appel du vide" or in the literal English translation "The Call of the Void" presents the inexplicable desire to kill yourself or to think of killing someone at a particular moment. "It is however, a feeling common enough that studies have been dedicated it" - Kara Goldfarb, assuming that almost every person has felt these thoughts at least once in their life, and they last very briefly, only a few seconds. Once the thought passes, the man becomes aware of and expels himself from danger. However, the "call of the void" should differ from suicidal tendencies and aspirations because they do not have emotional stress, but come spontaneously and are caused by our subconscious mind. Moreover, people do not listen to these thoughts because they are aware that they would never want to do such a thing in reality. In order to make my self clear as to which situations "the call of the void" are precisely manifested, they are usually those moments where, for instance, we find ourselves on a very high place and we suddenly think about jumping, or when we are driving a car and we think how easy would it be for us to crash with the other cars in traffic, or when we are giving someone a bath ans we think of drowning him, or when we are holding a knife or hammer in our hands and we think how easy it would be to stab and kill someone near us. In other words, for a moment, we think about how easy would it be or how little would it take for us to end our own life, or someone else's life. Have you ever experienced "L'appel du vide" moments? What do you think these moments mean from a psychological point of view and why do they occur at all?

I've often thought about how evolution explains the fact that humans kill, not other beings, but his own kind - homo sapiens. "It is scientifically incorrect to say that we have inherited a tendency to make war from our animal ancestors ... that war or any other violent behavior is genetically programmed into our human nature ... [and] that humans have a" violent brain. " - Dan Jones Although it may sound pessimistic, I think that war and violence are the inevitable features of human life - in the old fashioned but also in a modern form that can still be seen today. There are many aspects of antisocial behavior, including violence and murder, and of course, and in order to understand them, studies of the brain, genes, and the evolution of society is required. When we look at our past, it is already familiar that people behaved really violently, and those behaviors most likely ended with murder. However, it is important to note that this was, logically, a more dominant trait in history, than in the present. The time period when violence among people has fallen, is too short to convince that appealing to natural selection is convincing. If people have evolved to kill, then it seems to me that they would also have developed to live without killing, given the real circumstances surrounding them. From the aspect of psychology and psychiatry, by my opinion, the human instinct for killing can be activated, that is, the urge to come to the surface because of the following important factors: the principle of pleasure; "shadow" or ID; self-preservation (survival instinct); mental illness; Indiscretions; - The pleasure principle is an instinct that requires satisfaction and avoidance of pain in order to satisfy its biological and psychological needs. Thus, if someone has an emotional pain, which in most cases is irrational (jealousy, greed, revenge) the murder may occur in order for the psychological pain and discomfort to stop, and pleasure to take over instead, with the fact that a certain person is no longer among the living. - The shadow is known as the dark side of a person, a part of his character which focuses mainly on those drives that do not recognize any morality but appear to satisfy all our instincts, including hunger, thirst, relationships, etc. The shadow is the cause of all those acts in which we have acted badly or maliciously, actions that our conscious mind would not have done, that is, we would not have acted in such a cruel way - so murder may be one of these evil actions. - Self-preservation or known as the survival instinct is often the cause of murder when we try to defend ourselves against someone. This is a human behavior that provides the survival of an organism and is universal among living things, including homo sapiens. Thus, in certain circumstances, a man is forced to kill to save his life. - Mental illnesses such psychopathy, sociopathy are also ways that cause people to have certain characteristics or lack of them, to become completely immune to guilt or to give them some bizarre reason why they would like to commit murder. - Indiscretions, that often lead to a semi-conscious or unconscious state, such as alcoholism, a condition under narcotic drugs, may also lead to committing murder However, I believe that a certain person who intends to kill someone is deliberately brought in a drugged or drunken state in some occasions, in order to gain more courage to perform the deed. When it comes to the origin of the instinct of people killing each other, I remember a classmate that asked me this question. According to my opinion, from the very beginning of human existence - mainly because of the behavior known today as self-preservation, and in the conditions of the early past of man, such as "survival instinct". It was clear that humans were not at the top of the food chain, so many wildlife endangered their survival. Thus, in order to survive, he had to kill (and feed himself). In fact, self-preservation is the universal behavior among all living things on this planet, and pain and fear are the integral parts of this mechanism. The fact that man began to kill his own kind merely signified that according to the cognations that developed in him, he began to make a distinction between people, comparing them and deciding which people are dangerous to him and endangering his life, and which people do not. In other words, through the evolution of instinct and the development of the brain, a situation where a wild animal was once a danger and a man kills it, a similar simulation of the same situation has been created only where in this case another person poses a danger to a predisposing and potential killer. This is, in fact, a very rational and logical way of thinking - in reality, unless if the person suffers from severe depression, finds himself in a situation where there is no way out, or if he has mental problems, he would literally not allow himself to die of he has the chance to fight and possibly save his own life, even of that means to kill another human being. Because, in the end, It's every man for himself. This may be perceived from the aspect of self-defense, but humans have also found a way to make murder seem justified, at least from a psychological point of view - and that method is through war; War is an acceptable way of killing, because, by modern psychology, the civilized and sophisticated man is lying and self-assuring himself that it is a justified murder because it is allowed in those circumstances, only to express the urges that have dwindled for centuries because of the changed (safer) way of life. Because the human realizes that other people support killing in the state of war, he is also encouraged to realize his instincts in practice, but also because of the real danger that threatens his life. There is a certain feeling that humans today are "torn apart" between a safer and non-violent way of life and refraining to remove people he thinks is his thorn in his eye, mainly because of the punishments of the law (because murder is considered a crime). The fact is that modern life, besides offering security, comfort and ease, according to a large number of people, also offers great annoyance - shortening the drives that are deeply moved by our shadow and the principle of satisfaction.

The concept on which the law of attraction is based is not at all rational and manifests a non-logical connection between two aspects - the mental (or subjective/psychological) world (the desires and needs of the people) and the outside world (focused on the universe, which has no direct connection with the circumstances occurring on planet Earth). In other words, the assumption that a particular law that is defined as a natural one, connects the outside world with the inner world, and the reason or main purpose of this connection is the temporary well-being of the mental aspect of a particular carbon based life form that has evolved on a particular planet for which no one else knows that it even exists in the universe. A mental world that denotes different desires and needs of people does not guarantee that they will be realized, that is, circumstances that do not entirely depend on or depend on man, predict the likelihood that they will remain unrealized fantasies, partially fulfilled or entirely fulfilled. Every action or inaction of a person has a certain consequence in the outside world, seen within the surroundings in which he lives, and these same consequences most often have an effect on him, and certain other persons as well (and these are in fact those circumstances that do not depend on the man in question). If a person does not take action and effort to accomplish something he wants, it is very likely that the same desire or need will not be achieved at all. But even when a person takes certain actions, it does not provide success in certain situations. When everything would depend on the man in question, then all his needs would be fulfilled, but the obvious fact is that he is not the only one who lives on this planet, and not all things and decisions depend on him. Of course, there are other circumstances that do not depend on us, and precisely these circumstances decide the final result. On the other hand, the universe is defined as the whole space and time and its content, including stars, planets, galaxies and forms of energy and matter, and itself as such is very dynamic. As such, there is absolutely no direct connection with the mental aspect of a particular carbon based life form that has evolved on a particular planet within the universe. The only outside world that can affect human life is the very nature of planet Earth, such as weather, natural disasters, or even a solar storm, meteor originating from space. From this we can conclude that there is no direct connection between these two drastically different aspects. I have discussed with a couple of people who actually believe in the law of attraction and some of them even consider it as a natural law. To me, it is very illogical how this law is defined as "natural". I think this is just an imaginary human law with a psychological twist to be interpreted as natural only because of the presumed presence of the action of natural elements, such as the universe (which is indeed a very broad notion). In reality, the law of attraction is a human "law" because its existence dates from a certain period when homo sapiens began to exist in a parallel manner, in comparison with the actual natural laws (such as the law of gravity, Kepler's laws for planetary motion, Bode's law...) which have always existed in the universe, even when life of this planet has not yet appeared. Moreover, the law of attraction is not calculated and is not based on principles, but on dogmatic beliefs in the context of certain psychological concepts created by man and nobody else. While natural laws are universal and exist and operate everywhere in the cosmos, regardless of location, this is not the case with the law of attraction. On the contrary, it is applied only to the benefit of the people of planet Earth, and it does not work for all people, but only for certain people based on moral relativism. Also, depending on the psychological needs of the person, this law of attraction can over time be changed in terms of its essence, and this is not the case with natural laws that are never possible to change.