The Occult

[Deepwaters]

Responding from a different thread:

Originally Posted by dreamer

A clear definition of what constitutes magic or magic thinking in your opinion would be helpful.

Very well.

As I said above, magic (or "mana" as I call it) is a natural (not "supernatural" -- more below on this) quasi-force that operates by altering the probabilities of indeterminate events.

I call it a "quasi-force" because it's not actually a form of energy and therefore shouldn't be called a "force." It doesn't operate under the rules and restrictions that bind energy, i.e., it's not conserved, it moves in its own frame of reference which I call "association space" rather than in space-time, and it doesn't "do work" in the meaning of that term used in physics. That is to say, it doesn't impart momentum.

By "association space" I mean the frame of reference defined by association: two things within it (which may or may not also exist within space-time) are "close" in association space to the extent that they are similar or have attributes in common, and "far apart" to the extent that they are dissimilar and unrelated. Two things that are physically close together are also associated by reason of that proximity, so to that extent there's a connection between space-time and association space, but it's also possible (and common) for two things to be close in association space but distant (on a planetary scale anyway) in space-time.

Things within association space may or may not also exist in space-time. Everything in space-time (i.e., in physical reality) also occupies association space, but the reverse is not true. A purely imaginary entity also occupies association space and is frequently important in terms of magic, although in terms of physics it is inconsequential except insofar as it influences behavior.

Magic operates under restrictions of its own, though. It's impossible to alter a probability of 1 or 0. (Except with infinite mana, which is itself impossible.) It's also impossible to alter any fractional probability so that it becomes 1 or 0 (same exception). Also, in practice, it seems to be impossible, or at least very very rare, to affect the probabilities of events which are not visible to the naked or at least lens-assisted eye. By which I mean the events at the molecular and/or quantum levels of reality on which all so-called "deterministic" events are built. There are stories of people able to do this, but nothing I've been able to verify. I have my own speculations as to why this can't be done, but they are entirely speculative so I won't repeat them in this post. Maybe later.

"Magic" is the art of sensing and using this quasi-force, mana.

"Magical thinking" is thinking appropriate to magic: heavy on recognizing and manipulating associations, including those that wouldn't be important in "physical thinking," and making no magically-inappropriate distinctions between the imaginary and the physically real. (Which is not to say there are no valid distinctions to be made. But in magic, one does not dismiss anything on that basis, and "imaginary" is not synonymous with "unreal" or "illusory.")

The term "magical thinking" in psychology refers to an error that applies this thinking in ways magic cannot effectively operate. For example, the support in the U.S. for the war in Iraq was largely a result of this error, in that the Arabs/Muslims of Iraq were associated with the Arabs/Muslims who attacked the U.S. on 9/11/01, and the bad man ruling Iraq was associated with the bad man who masterminded that attack, even though they were completely different people and those two bad men hated each others' guts. The associations are valid and could be used in the construction of spells, but they do not mean that Saddam Hussein was in any way responsible for 9/11.

The mistake made by psychologists, then, is merely to assume there are no circumstances in which magical thinking IS appropriate. There are.

Now, about the term "supernatural." It's a bit arrogant even to use that term, don't you think? It implies that we have full and complete knowledge of the limits of "nature," so that we are able to determine what is or is not within those limits. Faced with something that seems not to be described by current scientific theory, what sense does it make to throw in the towel and give it a label like that? Doesn't it make more sense to assume instead that it is not described by current scientific theory, because current scientific theory is neither complete nor fully correct? Should we not take that for granted anyway?

I believe in (because I have experienced) a fair number of things that some people might call "supernatural." However, I refuse to call them that. I'm a firm believer in science, and so I believe that all observable phenomena can, eventually, be incorporated within the structure of scientific theory -- although to do so will require changing that theory substantially in many cases. Definitely including this one.

[fsquared]

Originally Posted by Deepwaters

I believe in (because I have experienced) a fair number of things that some people might call "supernatural." However, I refuse to call them that. I'm a firm believer in science, and so I believe that all observable phenomena can, eventually, be incorporated within the structure of scientific theory -- although to do so will require changing that theory substantially in many cases. Definitely including this one.

I usually don't wade into these discussions, but I will remark that the history of science is chock-full of times where people thought they had it basically figured out, except maybe with a few loose ends around the edges. I'd say 1900 was a lot like that: Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell's electromagnetism explained "almost" everything, except a few "peculiarities" like the lack of an ether wind, and blackbody radiation.

That said, I think that the discussions of these magical phenomena that I have heard here suffer from some difficulties regarding repeatability and observability. Hearing someone say "I've experienced X" is interesting, but unless these experiences can be repeated and quantifiably observed somehow, they cannot be distinguished by outside observers from perceptions of the experiencer. Probabilities are particularly vulnerable to this, since most people's intuitions regarding probabilities can be easily fooled. For instance, experiments show that humans, asked to write down a sample sequence of head-tail coin tosses, will generate sequences that do not have enough consecutive runs of heads or tails because those don't look "random enough".

Saying that some people can see it and some cannot...that has some parallels (e.g., perfect pitch) but, without observability, cannot be "falsified".

Feynman had an interesting article on applying scientific techniques to such phenomena; I don't have the reference right now but I think it was in The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, and it would be interesting to apply it to this.

[Deepwaters]

Originally Posted by fsquared

Hearing someone say "I've experienced X" is interesting, but unless these experiences can be repeated and quantifiably observed somehow, they cannot be distinguished by outside observers from perceptions of the experiencer.

Emphasis added. This is true. However, I believe you meant "outside" to indicate "anyone except the specific individual who experienced it," thus leaning to solipsism. With respect to magic, that is not the case, although it is true that it is not a type of sensory perception open to all human beings -- or even, as is the case with normal sight, most human beings.

Saying that some people can see it and some cannot...that has some parallels (e.g., perfect pitch) but, without observability, cannot be "falsified".

Except among those who can see it, and for whom observability is a fact.

When you get right down to it, nothing is observable and verifiable, strictly speaking; to a large extent, we go on trust that what I see and describe in a particular way, is the same thing (or close enough) to what you see and describe the same way. Because for the most part we all share the same senses and the same brain structure, or close enough to it, this trust is good enough to go on in most cases. But perception between two individuals is never identical.

Suffice it to say that perception of magical realities among mages is just about as close to common as perception of physical realities is among everyone. It's enough to allow application of scientific methods by mages -- but not by non-mages to magic very effectively. (That's not to say it's being done much by mages, either; most of us, like most people in general, lack any scientific background. I actually came up with a good, and quite falsifiable, mathematical equation to describe magical effects, but the most common response when I showed it around was "Hey, I hate math, get that thing away from me." Having a foot in two worlds can sometimes produce sprained hamstrings.)

[Edcognito]

Aaaaahhhh!


I love this place! These are my kind of people! Deep - your right - everyone here is a little nuts!

You guys make my night at work so much better than it otherwise would be!

Ed

[Rev]

Originally Posted by MesGourmandises

But can anyone confirm the relation of Alizee to the occult? This is scaring me.

Originally Posted by Deepwaters

Maybe you should explain why it scares you. There's nothing malicious about her. Or me either, for that matter.

I was going to ask you to describe what about the word "occult" scares you but I then saw that Deepwaters already did.

She grew up on Corsica, which has an interesting mix of Catholic and some non-christain practices.

A good example for many of how traditions get mixed would be the use of a Christmas tree (a pagan carryover) at Christmas.

[dreamer]

Nice theory. Problem is, it is not verifiable. It is not even falsifiable (you would just claim that someone who doesn't get it is not a "mage"). Therefore it has zero scientific value. It's fantasy as far as I'm concerned.

The only way you could convince me would be if you could devise a test where you would influence the world via magic in an objective, measurable way (i.e. the test doesn't depend on the observer being a "mage"). If you can't do that the phenomenon doesn't exist.

[chrelion]

Sorry for breaking my own taboo against replying in this thread, but since I am curious I had to say something. This has remained wonderfully civil for a discussion that has a highly personal and subjective nature. For that I thank the quality of our board members. Your answers so far have proven interesting, though at times somewhat confusing.

I'd like to know more, via example, about this concept of "relation-space", if it's something that can be explained in such a way.

Secondly, I'd like to say that applying scientific reasoning to mana/magic/the occult (what's a term that's encompassing of the idea and carries no biases?) is an idea that greatly interests me. My view of it is more from the realm of debunking, though, such as James Randi. If there's a truly scientific way in which such practices and beliefs could be tested and applied (meaning with [relatively] consistent results for similar inputs), it would be a real eye-opener for me.

[Deepwaters]

Originally Posted by dreamer

Nice theory. Problem is, it is not verifiable. It is not even falsifiable (you would just claim that someone who doesn't get it is not a "mage").

You act as if that claim is itself not verifiable. The number of mages is a good bit larger than you seem to think. It's a sizable community, self-defined rather than me-defined, dealing with something that is unignorably real for us. Like all theories, this one is meant to explain something that exists in perception, and which, for us, can no more be ignored than the air we breathe. The perception is the primary reality, and the theory is a cognitive construct designed to account for it. If -- as seems to be the case -- you don't share that perception, if it isn't something real for you, then the theory is of no interest to you, or should be of none, nor are you in a very good position to provide an informed opinion on it.

It's fantasy as far as I'm concerned.

As far as you are concerned, that's true. More accurately, it doesn't matter whether it's fantasy or reality. It's not a reality that matters to you, or you to it.

The only way you could convince me would be if you could devise a test where you would influence the world via magic in an objective, measurable way (i.e. the test doesn't depend on the observer being a "mage").

That's already been done, and I see no need to go over the same ground again, particularly in view of how much work is involved creating an experiment with a statistical test. However, and I apologize if this seems rude, but exactly why should I care to convince you? The only reason I'm going into any explanations at all is because you asked, and to satisfy your (and Chrelion's) curiosity. Since you're not the people who are in a position to make use of my theory, whether you accept it or not isn't that important, frankly.

If you can't do that the phenomenon doesn't exist.

No, that's too strong a claim. If I can't (or won't bother to) do that, then I am unable to convince you of its existence -- which, in perfect honesty, I never expected to do. However, failure to convince you of something doesn't make it false.

Originally Posted by chrelion

I'd like to know more, via example, about this concept of "relation-space", if it's something that can be explained in such a way.

Association space -- all right. Let me go a little bit into space-time first.

Space-time may be thought of as the set of all distances between points, or between objects in the physical world. Or, to add time to the picture, of time required for events to happen, for example the time to drive from San Francisco to San Jose. It's a very large number of binary relationships in terms of spatial and temporal distance. All those relationships together make up the physical universe.

Association space is similar, except that the frame of reference involved isn't distance or time, but association. The "distance" between two "objects" in association space is in terms of how similar or different they are, or how closely or distantly related they are. But like space-time, it's a very large (considerably larger than space-time actually) set of binary relationships, making up the universe, and by "universe" I mean both the physical and the imaginary universe.

Secondly, I'd like to say that applying scientific reasoning to mana/magic/the occult (what's a term that's encompassing of the idea and carries no biases?) is an idea that greatly interests me. My view of it is more from the realm of debunking, though, such as James Randi.

Since there are frauds in the world, debunking has its place, but be careful of Mr. Randi. He is himself something of a fraud. Let me give you a couple of examples.

I assume you're aware of his long-running feud with Uri Geller? (Who is also a fraud, btw.) There was an occasion when Mr. Geller hosted a radio show on which he invited call-ins to use their own alleged psychic powers (note the italics) to fix broken appliances. He got a lot of calls saying it had worked, blah blah.

Mr. Randi responded to this by having a colleague of his put on a similar show and get similar results. Which would perhaps have been a valid act of debunking if Mr. Geller had been claiming to fix the appliances himself -- however, he was not. And there is no particular reason why Mr. Randi's colleague shouldn't be just as good at giving people pep talks (which is all Geller claimed to be doing on that show) as Geller.

Second example. On a television show, Mr. Randi showed a film clip of a South American surgeon who went by the name of Arigo, and was supposed to have performed miraculous cures, using only an ordinary knife, no anaesthetic, no proper aseptic conditions or hospital equipment. (I have no opinion on Arigo btw.)

Randi responded to this by having an accomplice come up on stage and going through a completely different sort of "psychic surgery," the kind done by Phillippino healers who used sleight-of-hand, animal blood, and the claim to be "operating" with their bare hands (Arigo used an actual knife). Randi created the illusion of having mimiced Arigo's procedure -- but he certainly didn't actually do that (and let's be glad on behalf of his poor accomplice).

Don't trust the man, is all I'm saying here.

If there's a truly scientific way in which such practices and beliefs could be tested and applied (meaning with [relatively] consistent results for similar inputs), it would be a real eye-opener for me.

I would like to see that happen, although I'm aware that where the human mind is involved, especially its non-rational elements, there's a limit to how consistent things can get. I suspect magic will always be more of an art than a science, but I think it can be more of a science than it currently is.

[fsquared]

Originally Posted by Deepwaters

Emphasis added. This is true. However, I believe you meant "outside" to indicate "anyone except the specific individual who experienced it," thus leaning to solipsism. With respect to magic, that is not the case, although it is true that it is not a type of sensory perception open to all human beings -- or even, as is the case with normal sight, most human beings.

Well, I'm not necessarily talking about me personally, but in terms of experiments where in principle someone else could be chosen as the observer. If you mean solipsism in the sense of "I don't believe it unless I experience it"...well, knowledge acquisition to me involves a combination of empirical observation (e.g., physics labs), trust (e.g., I've never witnessed the decay of a muon but if I hypothetically went and got a Ph.D. in physics and got some time at Fermilab then I could), and Occam's Razor-type reasoning.

When you get right down to it, nothing is observable and verifiable, strictly speaking; to a large extent, we go on trust that what I see and describe in a particular way, is the same thing (or close enough) to what you see and describe the same way. Because for the most part we all share the same senses and the same brain structure, or close enough to it, this trust is good enough to go on in most cases. But perception between two individuals is never identical.

I think we basically agree here, but moreover the transfer of knowledge that I would expect in order to feel that I had an understanding of a phenomenon would include not only "perceptions" of a "particular event" but some understanding of the causal mechanisms, or at least rules of behavior, that govern all events of the same nature (e.g., allowing explanations of past events and predictions of future events).

Note that this assumes (not quite correctly) that we are both observers to the same "external" reality... Quantum mechanics teaches us that there really is no such "externality", since the observer inevitably alters the event itself, but I'm not sure of the philosophical implications of that to this particular discussion.

Except among those who can see it, and for whom observability is a fact.

OK, at the expense of being blunt: if someone experiences X, and cannot produce some sort of "observable" outcome of the phenomenon that can be validated, how (from an Occam's razor standpoint) can this be distinguished from that person hallucinating X?

(Similar difficult questions along the edge between manifestations of phenomena and psychosomatic symptoms recur a lot, especially in the medical field; look at the controversies surrounding fibromyalgia, and more recently, Morgellon's disease.)

That doesn't necessarily explain a shared consensus among a community, but one could formulate Occam's-Razor type arguments regarding that as well.

EDIT: Furthermore, as you remarked to someone else, it probably doesn't really matter, either to the perceiver or the external observer, unless one desires to describe the causal mechanism for the phenomenon.

Suffice it to say that perception of magical realities among mages is just about as close to common as perception of physical realities is among everyone. It's enough to allow application of scientific methods by mages -- but not by non-mages to magic very effectively. (That's not to say it's being done much by mages, either; most of us, like most people in general, lack any scientific background. I actually came up with a good, and quite falsifiable, mathematical equation to describe magical effects, but the most common response when I showed it around was "Hey, I hate math, get that thing away from me." Having a foot in two worlds can sometimes produce sprained hamstrings.)

Something like perfect pitch is apparently for the most part not "trainable" (or so I've read), so I can't actually know what it feels like to have it, but I can design an experiment to verify whether someone else has it.

The truth is that most people don't have much scientific background and are not really trained to think critically; I read once that a survey found that a significant portion of people still conceptualize mechanics of moving bodies using a roughly Aristotelian "impulse" theory of motion, despite thousands of years of progress on that front.

If mana actually influences probabilities on real objects, then it should be able to be manifested on real objects (e.g., just as an example, coin flips). But if it's only able to be manifested on objects for which you didn't know the prior probability to start with (pre-mana-action), then how do you know that the mana-action actually occurred?

In the time I took to write this, the discussion has continued. The theme of "it only really matters to mages whether the phenomenon is real or not" has occurred in previous discussions on this matter. The point that the descriptions are cognitive constructs used to explain phenomena is, I think, a very valuable one. For instance, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is formulated with a particular vocabulary of meridians and an energy (qi) that flows through the body and in various "organs" (e.g., Lungs, Spleen, etc.) that are similar to (but apparently do not quite correspond exactly to) the physical lumps in the body that we use those names to denote. The meridians, to my knowledge, do not correspond exactly to any particular structures in the body that have so far been described. However, it is well-known that some medicinal practices based on these constructs (e.g., acupuncture) can be remarkably effective. Here I think there are quantifiable, observable phenomena, whose causal mechanisms are not fully understood, and a reasonably coherent cognitive construct has been developed to codify and describe them. Further work will hopefully elucidate the relationship between these phenomena and the physiological processes that we currently describe using Western medical and scientific terminology.

EDIT: BTW, you mentioned statistical tests having "been done". Do you have any pointers regarding that?

Originally Posted by Deepwaters

You act as if that claim is itself not verifiable.

At the expense of some jocularity, I would find it a bit unromantic if the test for being a mage involved some analogue of "midi-chlorians".

[Edcognito]

Another explanation for mixing of traditions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus


"It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same 25 December the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries the Christians also took part. Accordingly when the doctors of the Church perceived that the Christians had a leaning to this festival, they took counsel and resolved that the true Nativity should be solemnised on that day." (cited in "Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries", Ramsay MacMullen. Yale:1997, p155)

So mix and match!


Ed