Do skeptics prevent magick from working in their presence?
-
@Los said
"If these "certain feats of magick" you're talking about are actually something real -- like, for example, gravity is real -- then they're going to work regardless of who's watching."
If these "certain feats of quantum mechanics" you're talking about are actually something real -- like, for example, gravity is real -- then they're going to work regardless of who's watching (in other words, taking measurements).
Couldn't resist
-
I have a different view.
The type of skeptic you are describing isn't a neutral party but, rather, someone with a deep commitment to magick not working.
They manifest reality around them the same way that you do. Yes, their successful magical act of holding reality in place is as much a magick act as your own.
There's a simple enough test, though - which is to do your work in isolation, maintain silence about it, and give them nothing they need to resist. If your magick is real and effective, you'll get a different result.
-
@Simon Iff said
"
@Los said
"If these "certain feats of magick" you're talking about are actually something real -- like, for example, gravity is real -- then they're going to work regardless of who's watching."If these "certain feats of quantum mechanics" you're talking about are actually something real -- like, for example, gravity is real -- then they're going to work regardless of who's watching (in other words, taking measurements)."
The "feats of magick" implied here aren't comparable to looking at subatomic particles: they are -- if the claims about them are true -- real changes in the world that anyone would be able to detect, if they were actually happening.
-
@Los said
"
@Simon Iff said
"
@Los said
"If these "certain feats of magick" you're talking about are actually something real -- like, for example, gravity is real -- then they're going to work regardless of who's watching."If these "certain feats of quantum mechanics" you're talking about are actually something real -- like, for example, gravity is real -- then they're going to work regardless of who's watching (in other words, taking measurements)."
The "feats of magick" implied here aren't comparable to looking at subatomic particles: they are -- if the claims about them are true -- real changes in the world that anyone would be able to detect, if they were actually happening."
Not if these real changes in the world happened by a similar principle to quantum mechanics - that, if they could happen, depended on which observers have what information and, if any at all - which would produce precisely the sort of effects which Mr. Eshelman suggested.
An effect I myself have often observed. As could you, would you personally experiment, not only hypothesise, with or about this stuff.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"The type of skeptic you are describing isn't a neutral party but, rather, someone with a deep commitment to magick not working."
Most skeptics I know would be delighted to be proven wrong.
"They manifest reality around them the same way that you do."
That's nonsense (I'm critiquing an idea -- not attacking any individual).
Reality is reality. That's why we call it "reality." It doesn't matter what any one person believes about it."There's a simple enough test, though - which is to do your work in isolation, maintain silence about it, and give them nothing they need to resist."
That is the best advice for someone who wants to hoodwink themselves, delude themselves into thinking they have "powers," and basically never subject their cherished beliefs to anything that could enable them to figure out what's actually going on (as opposed to what they assume is going on).
-
@Simon Iff said
" they could happen"
Sure they could. For example, there's always the possibility that you could "remote view" a piece of information randomly selected by a netural third party (i.e. something that would be almost impossible for you to guess). If you could really do that, then anyone could observe you do it.
You can't, though. That's the only problem.
-
@Los said
"Reality is reality. That's why we call it "reality." It doesn't matter what any one person believes about it."
This is the Achilles heel of all your arguments. You might really want to question that belief (Index: Simon Iff, see my Ontology text for definition) some day. You are wrong there, and all your good reasoning (I mean that, not being ironic) is off due to that.
@Liber Al said
"Also reason is a lie; for there is a factor infinite & unknown; & all their words are skew-wise."
The factor is consciousness.
-
@Los said
"
"They manifest reality around them the same way that you do."
That's nonsense (I'm critiquing an idea -- not attacking any individual).
Reality is reality. That's why we call it "reality." It doesn't matter what any one person believes about it."(Yes, I didn't take it personally.) We disagree on this.
The "band" in which we really ought to be able to agree is in the range of subjective experience. The diversity of points of view, the power of preconception to filter perception, and the immeasurable amount of the data about the universe flowing into us is enough to require no variation in an objective reality while still producing the effect of everyone seeming to live in a uniquely constructed universe.
Where I don't expect us to agree is in the next level: that the mind controls the form that objective reality assumes. (As Simon indicated, this is consistent with basic elements of quantum physics; but also of ancient metaphysics.)
-
@Simon Iff said
"You are wrong there"
Well, if it's true that thoughts create reality, then you have no grounds for saying that I'm "wrong." Amusingly, you equally have no grounds for saying that you're "right" and thus no valid grounds on which to accept your own premise that thoughts create reality.
Congratulations, your ideas have just defeated themselves.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Where I don't expect us to agree is in the next level: that the mind controls the form that objective reality assumes."
Of course I don't accept that, for the very good reason that there's nothing to suggest that it's true.
The OP of this thread provides an additional reason to think that there's nothing to these claims: if these "feats of magick" really did work, then they could be demonstrated to any objective inquirer, but that's not the case: the OP acknowledges that they only seem to "work" when believers are watching, which strongly suggests that the belief is likely the product of confirmation bias and wishful thinking.
The purpose of putting controls into experiments is to eliminate the possibility that the mind is twisting data to fit claims that it wants to be true.
I hate to break it to you, but what the OP describes is not the "method of science." Crowley, by the way, never takes the approach that a person needs to believe in something before it works: he consistently urges skepticism and doubt toward all of this supernatural stuff, and he explicitly says that it's the experiences generated (and not the supernatural beliefs attached to the experience) that are of use when it comes to Thelema.
"this is consistent with basic elements of quantum physics"
I've seen you misuse the "observer effect" before. The observer effect appears to be a physical phenomenon rooted in the relative scale of the things being observed. That is to say, the act of observing something involves physically changing it in some small ways. When the "something" in question is super-tiny, those "small ways" have more pronounced effects on it.
To give an example, at the most basic level, we have to shine a light on whatever we're observing. If we're observing something like a desk, the photons from the light we shine on it do nothing -- at least nothing that we can detect on the level on which we interact with it -- but if we're observing subatomic particles (which are almost infinitely tinier), the photons knock those particles around and change the way they move.
The observer effect does not appear to have anything to do with "matter reacting to consciousness" or any of the other wacky things that people falsely use QM to conclude.
In other words, the observer effect in no way implies that reality changes to conform to someone's thoughts.
-
@Los said
"
@Simon Iff said
"You are wrong there"Well, if it's true that thoughts create reality, then you have no grounds for saying that I'm "wrong." Amusingly, you equally have no grounds for saying that you're "right" and thus no valid grounds on which to accept your own premise that thoughts create reality.
Congratulations, your ideas have just defeated themselves."
It is good that I did not claim that "thoughts create reality", then. Had I claimed that, I actually agree, my argument would have defeated itself as you suggested. But this is not what I meant.
What I meant was that, in quantum physics, for example (and I am not claiming that this can be transferred 1:1 to "paranormal" phenomena), systems and/or aspects of systems do not have any objective reality before the observer system has assembled (measured) information about them - only after the information was obtained, do those systems gain objective properties.
So there is at least one example in the hardest of natural sciences that there is a middle ground between "Reality is reality ... It doesn't matter what any one person believes about it" and "thoughts create reality". It is perfectly possible to assume that reality is mostly as good as observer-invariant, while some aspects of reality react to how observers interact with it (which information is obtained or not, etc.)
It is the latter what I am claiming, not a naive radical constructivist stance.
@Los said
"The observer effect appears to be a physical phenomenon rooted in the relative scale of the things being observed. That is to say, the act of observing something involves physically changing it in some small ways. When the "something" in question is super-tiny, those "small ways" have more pronounced effects on it.
To give an example, at the most basic level, we have to shine a light on whatever we're observing. If we're observing something like a desk, the photons from the light we shine on it do nothing -- at least nothing that we can detect on the level on which we interact with it -- but if we're observing subatomic particles (which are almost infinitely tinier), the photons knock those particles around and change the way they move."
The problem with this is that it is half-knowledge. Let me try and suggest a reading course:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat (Still, until today, no decoherence upper size limit has been found, there goes your size argument out the window - for now, at least.)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics (Your above interpretation is ontologically naive and misses the point, that the easy-to-observe effects are tiny - also for now - doesn't mean that there are not massive repercussions for an objectivist worldview due to their very existence.)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser (After objective reality has been established, it can be erased again, leading to retrocausal effects!)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner_friend (And even the a bit more wobbly than your assumption quantum reality - which, if you have read the three links contents before, is not as objective as you think, even on the macroscopic level - is again observer-relative in unexpected ways that have yet to be experimentally looked at.)
At least "Reality is reality ... It doesn't matter what any one person observes (<- altered by me, but belief will steer perception will steer observation!) about it" doesn't hold.
Prove me wrong.
Regards,
Simon
EDIT: Let me add this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind/body_problem ... also quite interesting for any "consciousness-independent world" philosophy.
-
@Simon Iff said
"At least "Reality is reality ... It doesn't matter what any one person observes (<- altered by me, but belief will steer perception will steer observation!) about it" doesn't hold."
*You are the only contemporary physicist, besides Laue, who sees that one cannot get around the assumption of reality, if only one is honest. Most of them simply do not see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality—reality as something independent of what is experimentally established. *
-- Einstein to SchrodingerWe would err greatly if we said that the universe is entirely subjective or objective. If we observe both POVs from a "third party" perspective, we can say it is relative. That's the closest we can come to "objective reality." It is called intersubjectivity.
Not to worry -- Los has already admitted in another thread that reality=perception=parts of the imagination. This shows, in some cases, when we are talking of perception, which he admits is real -- an aspect of reality can be imagination -- and this is proven through the correlations between physiology and psychology via fMRI's, EEGs, etc.
I'm assuming he means that reality is only intersubjectivity and there is no OBJECTIVE REALITY that exists independent of an observer? It gets confusing as to what he thinks. He wasn't able to prove strict objectivity (what I think he calls "reality is reality") in the other thread either.
When he can prove his theories of "reality," he wins the Nobel Prize. We would probably be considered as well, as we are fellow researchers in the thought experiment...
@Los said
"All perceptions are real experiences of perception.
What's not real are the things I'm imagining.
It's a real act of the imagination. It can generate real effects in your body. But the stuff being imagined doesn't really exist.
What's not always real are the things perceived. Imaginary things, for example, can be perceived by me."I confess -- this is really hard to understand and it seems completely contradictory. Maybe he'll better explain it.
Again, I think he means that his images (imagination) in his head, are not real to you, but they are real to him, as they are real perceptions. This is commonly called subjectivity (or subjective reality) -- it is measured by a combination of qualitative and quantitative data. Los seems to discount qualitative data.
Also, I think he would agree that you (Simon) need to see the images, before they are "reality" to both you (Simon) and him (Los), which is called intersubjectivity.
What Los wants to prove (I think) is that there is an objective universe that exists without observation, fixed in "reality is reality" without any observer. Which is impossible to prove -- "proving" something requires the scientific method, which requires observation. Which is very related to Schrodinger's problem...
If it is impossible to prove, it can be considered IMAGINATION. See Einstein's quote above.
In closing, skeptics can choose to employ a POV that uses materialism (quantitative data) to explain the only paradigm that exists in the universe. Namely, one that assumes that only measureable phenomena exists.
However, this is an error. There are forms of magick that are not presently measurable accurately with known methods -- i.e. Love. Love does exist -- although it can only be measured "qualitatively," and not very accurately with "quantitative" measurement.
Yes, the skeptic can prevent the efficacy of certain forms of "enacting change in accordance with will" (magick) by not being able to suspend disbelief (e.g. letting their rational mind put limits on phenomena based on limited data apprehension). This can also be considered "lust of result."
But the real magician should aim to adopt POVs according to his or her will.
-
This is a striking example (through striking examples are hardly rare) of the advantage of shared definitions when communicating.
The Yoga Sutras, for example (and the Samkhya philosophy more generally), refer to anything coming through the senses (among other external channels) unreal. Only when these unreal things are removed (for example, physical sensation, intellect, emotion) do we disclose the Real.
I completely agree that these are the preferred definitions. Ordinary people have the valuation of real and unreal exactly backwards.
However, it doesn't help in ordinary communication to use the words that way.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I completely agree that these are the preferred definitions. Ordinary people have the valuation of real and unreal exactly backwards."
And not even that is correct, as any mental equation or model can be salvaged by simply exchanging any "Reality: Index Ordinary people" with "Unreal: Index Mystics" and vice versa - then the difference is no longer one of interpretation but of semantics.
To really work together in a field like what is termed magick here one has to share a certain vocabulary, share certain experiences that vocabulary points too, and at least an inkling of common models or at least models in principle translateable into each other. And if this is not there, it has to be created.
Simply saying "real is real" or "actually, what people think is real is unreal" is basically miscommunication. (I assume you meant that with "However, it doesn't help in ordinary communication to use the words that way.")
Or at least, that's the way I would look at it currently.
-
@Simon Iff said
"Simply saying "real is real" or "actually, what people think is real is unreal" is basically miscommunication. (I assume you meant that with "However, it doesn't help in ordinary communication to use the words that way.")"
Not to mention a tautology...
But, I agree with the overall point -- IMHO we could benefit greatly on intersubjective agreement in relation to shared terminology. Too much code switching and semantics otherwise...
EDIT: I wanted to move back to the original question...trying to keep it on topic and it's a great question.
@Shadow Self said
"Also, if that is the case, what methods can one use to get around that or subvert that, using the skeptics energy to actually make the magical operation work better?"
Inside the magickal working, IMHO, all skepticism should be removed in the operation itself. This is sometimes referred to as "suspension of disbelief." The skeptic is to be applied when drawing up the MR -- to assess the data as a scientist. I refer to these as the Cup and the Sword...both are valuable tools...
You won't get very far if you can't move past your rational mind in the operation itself. That is why there is method upon method aimed at removing the "psychological censor."
So, generally, synthesis for the working, analysis for the recording. As far as making the operation work better -- through skeptical analysis, you will (hopefully) figure out what variables and details can be refined to ensure success. The "failures" of the operations themselves sometimes teach more than the "successes."
The scientific method is both induction (hypothesis), then proof through deduction (data collection and conclusion). Eventually, the data should become more and more pure -- and can be applied to subsequent constructions of magical operations that are more useful and efficient.
Compare these steps to the Tetragrammation (YHVH) and the "weapons" of the magician. Note the similarities between the "Hehs" and the recursive loop that the scientific method is based on...
-
Recently I have pondered the usefulllness of a forum lexicon
-
@Simon Iff said
"It is perfectly possible to assume that reality is mostly as good as observer-invariant, while some aspects of reality react to how observers interact with it (which information is obtained or not, etc.)"
I agree it’s possible to assume that. Whether a person has valid grounds for assuming that is an entirely different question.
One problem with trying to have a discussion about quantum mechanics is that even the people who professionally study it don’t completely understand it, making attempts to appropriate it to support certain paranormal claims extremely difficult.
There’s another huge problem, of course: even if you were right that QM indicates that certain quantum systems don’t have “objective reality” before they are measured – and that’s a huge “if” – that wouldn’t mean the same thing would necessarily apply to the level of reality that we interact with in everyday life.
There’s nothing for me to “prove wrong,” because you haven’t presented anything that demonstrates much more than that there’s a bunch of stuff – on one specific level – that people don’t perfectly understand. Big whoop.
-
@Los said
"I agree it’s possible to assume that. Whether a person has valid grounds for assuming that is an entirely different question.
One problem with trying to have a discussion about quantum mechanics is that even the people who professionally study it don’t completely understand it, making attempts to appropriate it to support certain paranormal claims extremely difficult."
Agreed, with some caveats.
The links I put in above debate the essential problems quite nicely - it is due to current experimental restrictions that some of the questions are not cleared up without ambiguity, the essential problems are not trivial but also not much more complicated than as expounded in the links given.
My personal suspicion hints to the physical process behind the "paranormal" being the solution of the Wigner's Friend paradoxon. Due to the patterns of reality suggested by Wigner's Friend being very concordant with the structure of paranormal experience. I will readily admit that I can't prove that, just hint at the similarity. And as a very valued (by me) physicist (the "nearly nobel price" one) once said to me, another interpretation of that similarity could of course be a third factor that is cause for the structures of quantum mechanics and the "paranormal" alike. So the jury is out, though we have a suspect here.
Also understand that if a quantum mechanical cause is behind the class of "para" - phenomena, this predicts that these phenomena would be probabilistic, not linearly causal, and be very vulnerable to break down if too much information is taken out of them. Which is the reason your argument of "this should work all the time irrelevant who and how many people observe and measure it" is not as straightforwardly applyable as you think.
@Los said
"There’s another huge problem, of course: even if you were right that QM indicates that certain quantum systems don’t have “objective reality” before they are measured – and that’s a huge “if” – that wouldn’t mean the same thing would necessarily apply to the level of reality that we interact with in everyday life."
It's not a huge "if" since Anton Zeilinger in Vienna proved experimentally that this is exactly what happens. This is no longer speculation, but hard physical fact. Some thoughts of Zeilinger's on what all that might mean can be found here:
www.quantum.at/fileadmin/zeilinger/philosoph.pdf
Regards,
Scientific Simon
-
@Simon Iff said
"It's not a huge "if" since Anton Zeilinger in Vienna proved experimentally that this is exactly what happens. This is no longer speculation, but hard physical fact. Some thoughts of Zeilinger's on what all that might mean can be found here:"
"Let us consider once again the impossibility of a detailed description of the individual statisical event in the sense of a fundamental impredictability. I suggest that the fact is very important that while, by choosing the apparatus, we can define which one of two complementary quantities may manifest itself, for example, position or momentum, we have no influence on the value of the quantity. Therefore, as observers, we have a qualifying but not a quantifying influence on the quantum phenomenon. The latter, the impossiblity of a quantifying influence, is closely connected with the finiteness of the quantum of action. In this I see that the observer does not have total control over the phenomena in Nature. The observer can, thus, through his experimental questioning, jostle, so to speak, Nature, depending on which arrangement is chosen, to give answers to different questions that exclude each other - but for the price of not being able to exert a quantifying influence, an influence which specific result will materialize."
-- Anton Zeilinger
Cool essay -- thanks Simon.
But really, is he saying something more than qualitative measurements are what we have to rely on, since the quantum of action is too small to actually quantify?
The question of the original topic drives at this point: the efficacy of magick is dependent on how one chooses to observe and perceive. Perceptions can be considered "real experiences", whether subjective or intersubjective or classically objective (if we want to believe in Santa Claus, without actually observing him
).What do you think, Simon? Interesting -- I hold the same personal view about the power of observation in the shaping of events. And there is nothing truly "objective" without observation...
Etymology: Object - late 14c., "tangible thing, something perceived or presented to the senses," from Medieval Latin objectum "thing put before" (the mind or sight).
The name "objective" presupposes measurement and observation by the perception and senses, thus making it intertwined with subjectivity -- therefore, the observer subjectively influences the variables of a supposed "objective reality" a priori. Even talking about an objective reality is a form of observation and measurement stemming from perception by the senses -- both QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE BY NECESSITY.
I guess I'm puzzled -- what part of Schrodinger and Berkeley and Kant and Einstein don't we understand??? I have to confess, reading Anton Zeilinger doesn't show me anything that the above philosophers/scientists didn't already know. Namely, that qualitative attributes (and subsequent variables) have to be taken into account in any measurement -- but they are less concrete because they vary wildly and lack the numbers of the quantitative measurements. In the case of QM, we are really in the infancy of being able to measure anything quantitative in a consistent way -- many of the quantitative attributes are "too finite" to measure with any convincing accuracy.
One cell's function/POV (qualitative) not going along with the function/POV of the whole organ's (quantitative) will be assimilated or eliminated. It rarely changes the whole function of the organ in one lifetime.
Same goes for ideas and theories. It's called evolution.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
-- Einstein
Is this what we mean by "reality is reality?"
I guess we really have to try hard to understand that we influence our own universe through the way we observe -- even our boy Dr. Anton said it! We influence it by choosing what manner and qualitative measurements we want to "let in" -- first individually, then collectively. If this isn't effective magick, I don't know what is.
Let's try to make it constructive. He who has ears, let them hear!
To me, it's just like cells and organs -- arguing QM theory is like reverting back to dividing an organ's process down to the cellular level, and then, forgetting all about the function of the organ. Sure it's interesting to theorize for analogy, but what does it have to do with the efficacy of magick? Unless maybe using it for a springboard to suspend disbelief...
In this case, we were talking about the function of magick and we come down to a more modern debate about monads? I just adore Leibniz!
Gotta love analysis.
Again, a skeptic that never creates and always criticizes can never build anything. Those who cannot do, teach...
...critical theory.
-
@Shadow Self said
"I've been wondering if anyone thinks that skeptics cause certain feats of magick to not work when they are around. I've kept my magical journal, sort of haphazardly, but I've noticed a sort of correlation, but I don't know that that implies causation.
Also, if that is the case, what methods can one use to get around that or subvert that, using the skeptics energy to actually make the magical operation work better?"
There are those individuals who maintain a healthy skepticism and that allows them to remain grounded in their work.
There are also those individuals who seem to make it a point to be skeptical even when it is contrary to the ends of an operation.
The former mindset allows for healthy and steady growth while still remaining humble and examining whether or not the intended operation
was effective. While the latter is an individual who simply has a fetish with taking a skeptical point of view and will have trouble with
magick. In my opinion, because of the self-sabotage that's involved with not allowing the confidence of a successful working to aid in
one's growth, it is best to go with a scientific and objective method rather than adhering to a militant skeptic view.... "The Method of Science, the Aim of Religion"