Chaos Magic

[Sledge]

So how do I build this telescope, Limbo?

 

[Myriad]

So how do I build this telescope, Limbo?

That was covered earlier. The "telescope" is wishing while stoned. You get high and then beg the universe really really hard to do you favors.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[tsig]

So how do I build this telescope, Limbo?

I think we're going to need a proctoscope for this one.

 

[tsig]

That was covered earlier. The "telescope" is wishing while stoned. You get high and then beg the universe really really hard to do you favors.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Well I tried that 35 years ago and it worked fine till the unemployment ran out.

 

[Katopale]

That was covered earlier. The "telescope" is wishing while stoned. You get high and then beg the universe really really hard to do you favors.

Respectfully,
Myriad

See post #316 for instructions on "sigilization".

I built my own telescope years ago Limbo. Any critique of my instructions?

It was a very fun and creative ritual which I participated in scores of times (giggity, giggity). Like all believers I got giddy about the "hits" and ignored the misses.

Comic book geeks may be interested to know that Grant Morrison and Alan Moore were both influential in the Chaos Magic scene.

You have performed a total of one Chaos spell, right, Limbo?

 

[Waterman]

Yup, good summation - although we didn't all miss those points, they've all been made previously in the thread; without noticeable effect.

Thank you, true this is not really 'new ground' but perhaps it was time to reword and reitterate some of these ideas again as the discussion had drifted a bit.

 

[Zanders]

That's easy - post an MD5 hash of the prediction. Then when the prediction is posted, anyone can calculate the hash themselves and show that either they really made that prediction or they've proved that P=NP.

Which by curious coincidence also has a million-dollar prize attached to it.

So, anyone up for demonstrating some magic over the internet? If it works we can always send it to James Randi.

But most likely the trickster archetype won't allow any accurate predictions to be made over the interwebs.

 

[tsig]

So, anyone up for demonstrating some magic over the internet? If it works we can always send it to James Randi.

But most likely the trickster archetype won't allow any accurate predictions to be made over the interwebs.

More likely you'd get a series of early hits only to be frustrated with misses later.

Magic seems to be a lot like Michigan J. Frog.

The running gag in the two-part series is that Michigan's undeniable talent is discovered by some hapless (and greedy) person who has visions of making a fortune by putting this great entertainer in front of an audience and profiting from it. He invests all his time, money and eventually his sanity in that cause. He catches on too late that the frog will perform for him and him alone; in front of anyone else, Michigan is just a normal frog and thwarts the man's dreams of wealth.
http://search.surfcanyon.com/search...a.org/wiki/Michigan_J._Frog&now=1295731596155

 

[sadhatter]

More likely you'd get a series of early hits only to be frustrated with misses later.

Magic seems to be a lot like Michigan J. Frog.

The running gag in the two-part series is that Michigan's undeniable talent is discovered by some hapless (and greedy) person who has visions of making a fortune by putting this great entertainer in front of an audience and profiting from it. He invests all his time, money and eventually his sanity in that cause. He catches on too late that the frog will perform for him and him alone; in front of anyone else, Michigan is just a normal frog and thwarts the man's dreams of wealth.
http://search.surfcanyon.com/search...a.org/wiki/Michigan_J._Frog&now=1295731596155

Michigan J frog was always my favorite looney tunes skit. But i always wondered why the person didn't just threaten to squash it if it didn't preform. Or barring that, just squash it afterward ( if i am correct someone cemented him in at one point, only to have an ancestor of theirs find him. ), i mean how funny would it be, the schleppy guy walks out of the office, dejected, sits down on the bench, the frog starts going nuts, and he throws the box down and has a 5 minute stomp fest.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Then multiple witnesses count as independent verification? If thats the case, then theres plenty of evidence with regard to my claims and others similar. The plural of anecdote is data.

No. Multiple eyewitnesses of a single event can help one determine possibilities. The commonalities between perceptions, and the differences, can help narrow the range of possibilities.

Wait, wait. How does that contradict what I just said? Are you suggesting that multiple observations of a particular event or phenomena is not an example of independent verification?

So if there are no official records backing up the events of your day-to-day life it didn't happen? In the absence of such sources, would not first hand accounts of the events in question count as evidence?

Do you actually want an honest debate? Because if you do, I'd suggest you actually respond reasonably, instead of this type of nonsense.

Do you seriously believe there's no difference between "I had a cup of coffee this morning" and "Spirits gave me special information this morning"? The level of evidence corresponds to the impact of the claim. The day-to-day events of my life are immaterial to most people on the planet. The claim your making here (and the claims made by most propoentns of psi or the mystical) would impact everyone the world over, and the entirety of science as well. Not to mention requiring a rethinking and modification of most of what we currently know. That takes a bit more than your word.

First of all, the veracity of an account has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on how impactful a single person, or persons the world over, feel it to be. Either it happened or it did not. It doesn't matter whether the event was tea sipping or receiving information from "spirits".

Second of all, the accounts I've given aren't just a couple of anomalous events, but one of countless others that have been reported. It just so happens that they are a class of reported experience you [and some others] consider suspect precisely because they run counter to your expectations of what is plausible/possible. As soon as you hear of such reports you automatically begin the process of downplaying and/or reinterpreting them to conform to your preset expectations to the point where your criteria for "evidence" becomes so steep that virtually nothing will convince you that they are valid. In other words, you have a strong cognitive bias toward discounting such events regardless of the evidence presented.

What about the links and articles already presented?

Which ones have not been addressed by others? These are evidence, but what they prove depends on the strength of the argument and evaluation of the evidence.

There are many, many other documented accounts and studies like the ones linked by Malerin and Limbo. If you agree that such reports are evidence what do you think they're evidence of, if not what they're reporting?

True. But I don't see how one can take a photograph of their own internal perceptions of receiving veridical information.

I was answering your question of how one can provide evidence on the internet. If you would like to know how to provide evidence of your specific event, then these may need to be modified. THis one may not apply to you, which would be obvious if you read this with honmest intentions, instead of "How can I reply in a way that makes them look stupid?"

No one here is making claims of prophetic predictions. What kind of documentation do you think would be able to substantiate the claims that actually have been made here?

*sigh*

THAT WAS AN EXAMPLE.

Seriously, do you have any intention of intellectual honesty?

You gave a list of examples with little to or relevance to the topic at hand. I asked you for more relevant examples and, instead of simply providing such examples, you accuse me of trying to make you look stupid. Who's the one being dishonest here?

So basically, the claim/argument must conform to theoretical models in common currency to count as evidence? That does not sound like a very scientific or skeptical approach to me.

If all you have is your assetion of truth, yes, it should. If it doesn't, then you'd better have some evidence to support why most of what we know is wrong. Your misreading of what I'm saying is not my fault.

My point is that the claims being made here do not voilate what you know, but what you believe. In any case, what alleged knowledge do my accounts contradict? Be specific.

But those are not experimental protocols. I asked how one would experimentally test field observations; detailing field protocol does not accomplish this. More to the point, tho, how would one experimentally test the kinds of claims that have been presented in this thread?

Actually yes, they are experimental protocols. Your inability to understand why this might be so simply realtes to your inability to understand scientfiic method.

Thats interesting. My teachers don't seem to think so.

The information given concerning the details of the observation allow other researchers to look for similar behavior, thus allowig for independent replication...one of the main pillars of scientific study. Additionally, the original researcher should work on replicating his observation.

Again, not all scientific studies follow experimental protocols and real phenomena are not necessarily replicable under controlled conditions. In the social sciences in particular, much of the data collected involves recording individual accounts of subjects lives and their experiences may be unique to them. In the case of accounts like the ones I've just given, if we are in fact dealing with autonomous intelligences experimental replicability would be extremely problematic, to say the least.

As to how it applies to this, how about ANY level of detail even REMOTELY comparable to that done by field biologists, geologists, or anthropologists? Have you ever been able to replicate the experience?

Right. Unless I'm able to reenact an event to the tee it never happened

Have you excluded other possible factors, and how? Have others replicated your experience, and how do the details of their observation differ from your own? How are they the same? Have you verified your "veridical information" was not obtained through other, mundane means? Quite frankly, to date you've presented nothign to indicate that you've ruled out any mundane factors besides your own personal certainty.

The methodology must be appropriate to the object(s)/area(s) of study. Controlled conditions and experimental protocols are not feasible methods for every scenario, such as the ones being discussed in this thread.

Which is EXACTLY why I brought up the subject of biology. Historical sciences operate under this same restriction, yet still manage to maintain the level of science.

Are you suggesting that if I had such experiences more frequently they would be more real/valid? In any case, you still haven't addressed how -- via web forum -- one would provide non-anecdotal evidence for the types of experiences being discussed here.

First point: Scientific protocols must be appropriate to the area of investigation. Repeated calls for experimental evidence for every claim is itself indicative of a lack of understanding concerning the scientific process.

You're lack of understanding, again, does not make it true. Experiment does NOT equal something tested in a lab.

Okay. How can we experimentally test what I experienced on this web forum?

Second point: Scientific knowledge is cumulative. Scientific theories, on the other hand, are the tentative conceptual tools we formulate to frame, interpret, and explain that cumulative body knowledge. It's the hardening of scientific theory into dogma and the uncritical acceptance of such dogmas that leads to "scientism".

Can you provide any evidence of this happening in the past, or that it is happening now?

I just gave an example on page 28. Heck, just read up on the history of science yourself. Do I have to list every historical example of scientists rejecting new theories/findings/ideas merely on the basis of established dogma?

"People won't accept my word over the internet as proof that a majority of current scientific knowledge is wrong, therefore science=dogma" seems to be about the level of your argument. What have I missed?

That I never claimed that the majority of our scientific knowledge is wrong.

Seriously, it's responses liek this that convince me you aren't here to discuss ideas. TO any rational reader, it would have been obvious that I Anyoen interested in actual discussion and understanding would easily pick up that the level of evidence needed varies depening on the level of impact and the general likeliehood (based on what is known) of the claim. Anyone interested in anythign other than painting their opposition in the worst possible light (a straw man tactic) would udnerstand the concept of experimetn means more than just a test tube. Ayone interested in discussing science, the method, woudl understand that repeatability and replication are key, and don't require a laboratory. Really, have you ever studied anything about the soft sciences? Things like field biology, paleontology, archeology and anthropology? They operform experiments all the time, despite the fact that they can't put their subjects in a lab.

You've simply confirmed that you have a limited and incomplete view of science, yet somehow feel qualified to say that scinece is wrong, and you can revolutionize it by allowing in subjective experience...which is pretty much exactly the opposite of what scientific method is based on.

Wow, dude...Just...Wow. I hardly know where to begin. I'd definitely like to engage you in discussion but, being as how the above doesn't even begin to address the points I'm actually making I don't see how that is possible. Straw-maning, indeed...

Sorry, but I'm bowing out of this thread, as well.

Good idea. That was probably one of the most breathtaking pieces of irrational ranting I've ever seen on these boards. You definitely need a break from this discussion, dude.

 

[AkuManiMani]

No, genius. I've just enough honest presence of mind to realize that every answered question simply opens the door to still more questions. There have been countless other people who've, in previous generations, assumed that the scientific state of the art in their day was pretty much the whole story. The truth is that there is no end to scientific inquiry and whatever understandings are gleamed from it are always tentative and liable to change.

Do you expect the law of gravity, conservation of energy or the speed of light in a vacuum are going to change soon?

Funny you should mention changes in the speed of light...

Things do change in science but generally in evolutionary not revolutionary ways. Einstein extended Newton's theories he didn't overthrow them.

And what claims have been made here that overthrow the foundations of scientific knowledge or even contradicts some specific bit of knowledge?

 

[tsig]

Wait, wait. How does that contradict what I just said? Are you suggesting that multiple observations of a particular event or phenomena is not an example of independent verification?



First of all, the veracity of an account has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on how impactful a single person, or persons the world over, feel it to be. Either it happened or it did not. It doesn't matter whether the event was tea sipping or receiving information from "spirits".

Second of all, the accounts I've given aren't just a couple of anomalous events, but one of countless others that have been reported. It just so happens that they are a class of reported experience you [and some others] consider suspect precisely because they run counter to your expectations of what is plausible/possible. As soon as you hear of such reports you automatically begin the process of downplaying and/or reinterpreting them to conform to your preset expectations to the point where your criteria for "evidence" becomes so steep that virtually nothing will convince you that they are valid. In other words, you have a strong cognitive bias toward discounting such events regardless of the evidence presented.



There are many, many other documented accounts and studies like the ones linked by Malerin and Limbo. If you agree that such reports are evidence what do you think they're evidence of, if not what they're reporting?



You gave a list of examples with little to or relevance to the topic at hand. I asked you for more relevant examples and, instead of simply providing such examples, you accuse me of trying to make you look stupid. Who's the one being dishonest here?



My point is that the claims being made here do not voilate what you know, but what you believe. In any case, what alleged knowledge do my accounts contradict? Be specific.



Thats interesting. My teachers don't seem to think so.



Again, not all scientific studies follow experimental protocols and real phenomena are not necessarily replicable under controlled conditions. In the social sciences in particular, much of the data collected involves recording individual accounts of subjects lives and their experiences may be unique to them. In the case of accounts like the ones I've just given, if we are in fact dealing with autonomous intelligences experimental replicability would be extremely problematic, to say the least.



Right. Unless I'm able to reenact an event to the tee it never happened



Are you suggesting that if I had such experiences more frequently they would be more real/valid? In any case, you still haven't addressed how -- via web forum -- one would provide non-anecdotal evidence for the types of experiences being discussed here.



Okay. How can we experimentally test what I experienced on this web forum?



I just gave an example on page 28. Heck, just read up on the history of science yourself. Do I have to list every historical example of scientists rejecting new theories/findings/ideas merely on the basis of established dogma?



That I never claimed that the majority of our scientific knowledge is wrong.



Wow, dude...Just...Wow. I hardly know where to begin. I'd definitely like to engage you in discussion but, being as how the above doesn't even begin to address the points I'm actually making I don't see how that is possible. Straw-maning, indeed...



Good idea. That was probably one of the most breathtaking pieces of irrational ranting I've ever seen on these boards. You definitely need a break from this discussion, dude.

In science this is called replication. If others can't do the same experiment you did and get the same results your result will not be accepted.

 

[tsig]

Some of the conversations I've seen recently are boiling down to the point where a skeptic might realize that its his or her own personal responsibility to, as Sam Harris called it, "build your own telescope". That is to say, evaluate mystical claims by becoming a mystic yourself. Of course Sam Harris would use other terms that are sanitized for 'rational folk', such as contemplative. But me, I am not so kind.

So lets say you are a card-carrying skeptic and you want to do a little mystical investigation of your own, that is to say build your own telescope and see what you can see. Where do you start? Well, you could do as Sam seems to be doing and go the meditation route. But most of us Westerners have a hard time with meditation, and most who try it give it up before achieving mystical altered states of consciousness.

So what other choice does that leave for the intrepid skeptic? Whatever contemplative tradition an intepid skeptic chooses must include a method of gaining altered states of consciousness. That is a universal common denominator in mystical traditions. That is to say, its part of every telescope. Sam Harris has chosen meditation to build his telescope with. But for those of us without the temperament or the time to devote to learning and practicing meditation, there is quicker choice. Chaos magic.

The idea behind Chaos magic is simple. Everything is permitted, everything is true. A chaos magician uses the power of paradigm shifting, in conjunction with altered states of consciousness, in order to elicit psychic functioning for a purpose. That, in essence, is magic.
So an intrepid skeptic who wants to test chaoes magic would start with a little reading about the principles of Chaos magic. Then, he or she selects a method of achieving gnosis. Gnosis is the Chaos magic term for altered state of consciousness. There are several methods to choose from, and its a very personal choice. Self-hypnosis, sexual orgasm, frenzied dancing, entheogens, ect.

Then he or she learns to contruct a sigil. A sigil is a personal symbol of intent, which the psychic energy of your gnosis is directed toward. Intent is a crucial ingredient. For instance, our intrepid skeptic has the intent to experience psychic ability. So he or she first constructs a sigil that symbolizes that intent, then uses a method to achieve a temporary state of gnosis, and waits.

It might take a while to get the hang acheiving gnosis but eventually the unconscious mind of the skeptic, in accordance with the intent of the sigil, would begin to provide the conscious mind with psychic experiences. Then what our intrepid skeptic has done in essence is cast a spell. Paradigm manipulation, sigils, and gnosis. Oh my!

Funny you should mention changes in the speed of light...



And what claims have been made here that overthrow the foundations of scientific knowledge or even contradicts some specific bit of knowledge?

Casting spells.

 

[PixyMisa]

New generations of scientists started making observations and positing theories at odds with the current orthodoxy.

In other words, they presented evidence.

Oh, and Boltzmann was bipolar.

They proved them wrong thru perseverance, ingenuity, and a willingness to not simply acquiesce to the prevailing beliefs of their time.

No, they proved them wrong by flying.

 

[AkuManiMani]

New generations of scientists started making observations and positing theories at odds with the current orthodoxy.

In other words, they presented evidence.

Which was vehemently rejected for decades.

Oh, and Boltzmann was bipolar.

Even assuming Boltzmann was bipolar, it still doesn't change the fact that he was very unpopular, faced public ridicule, and was subjected to professional persecution for presenting evidence and voicing views that contradicted widely held dogma. His suicide was in direct response to what was going on in his professional life.

They proved them wrong thru perseverance, ingenuity, and a willingness to not simply acquiesce to the prevailing beliefs of their time.

No, they proved them wrong by flying.

...Which they never would have endeavored to accomplish in the first place if they acquiesced to the prevailing beliefs of the time.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Casting spells.

What is spell casting, how does such a thing operate, and how would such operation contradict established knowledge?

[ETA: Oh, and what say you about changes in light speed?]

 

[AkuManiMani]

In science this is called replication. If others can't do the same experiment you did and get the same results your result will not be accepted.

So if someone is accused of committing a murder how would you experimentally establish the truth/falsehood of the claim via web discussion? More to the point, how would you experimentally verify the claims I've made?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Which was vehemently rejected for decades.



Even assuming Boltzmann was bipolar, it still doesn't change the fact that he was very unpopular, faced public ridicule, and was subjected to professional persecution for presenting evidence and voicing views that contradicted widely held dogma.



...Which they never would have endeavored to accomplish in the first place if they acquiesced to the prevailing beliefs of the time.

I'm confused. There were many people working on the possibility of human powered flight when the Wright Brothers first figured it out. What do you mean "acquiesced to the prevailing beliefs of the time"? We have known for a long time that flight was possible; the Wright Brothers themselves played with flying toys as children. I don't understand what point you are trying to make here because it seems to contradict actual history.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

[ETA: Oh, and what say you about changes in light speed?]

That it is possible but we still don't have very good evidence to support it. There are many people who support the idea of variable speed of light for various reasons, but we need independent lines of evidence to support the idea. Currently there are too many assumptions at play in the evidence we do have.

 

[Sledge]

I don't understand what point you are trying to make here because it seems to contradict actual history.

Seems to be a variation on "they laughed at Galileo." Establish that a great discovery was considered laughable until it was shown to the public, then claim that whatever you're arguing for (in this case, magic) is real and you are in the role of Galileo/the Wright brothers/whoever. Where it falls down is that people are laughing precisely because Limbo, AkuManiMani et al can't or won't produce their discovery.