Chaos Magic

[PixyMisa]

Which was vehemently rejected for decades.

[citation needed]

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.

[citation needed]

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

So?

The key point is that they didn't prove anything by going against whatever the prevailing beliefs might have been.

They proved that their aircraft could fly by flying it.

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Carl Sagan

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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.

Sorry that this is a bit rambling..................


Cognitive styles vary. This is not controversial nor should it seem strange. Some folks tend toward the concrete while others are malleable. Consequently, people express differing opinions. That a scientist in the past might have expressed a strong opinion based on his experiences and biases (many strong opinions prove to be religiously based on further examination and not ‘scientific’) should surprise no one and is, in fact, to be expected. That some of those opinions will prove to be wrong should also be expected.

This is how scientific reasoning works: we assume a framework, we gather data and form hypotheses rejecting those contradicted by the data, we form theories based on previous hypotheses that work, and we create a paradigm that explains the theories that survive these rigorous tests – all within the prevailing framework. The framework within which we judge scientific theories is methodological naturalism. In its simplest form, we posit that there is a set of rules that nature follows and that we can explain all that we are capable of explaining by using this set of rules.

Hypotheses obviously change with time and specifically change when new data contradicts them. Theories are more resistant to change, but do so frequently. Hypotheses live and die with single experiments; theories require more evidence, generally, than a single experiment to overturn. Paradigms resist change even more strongly, requiring considerable evidence that can best be explained only with a change in our basic view of how our theories cohere. The overarching framework for all of scientific reasoning, however, is the most resistant to change. It requires absolutely extraordinary evidence to overturn.

Many current theories and paradigms were unknown until proved; that is the nature of science. Some of these ideas were thought strange or impossible by a few and, at times, by the many. The heliocentric theory shines as the prime example, but there are others, though rare. Generally, and particularly in our current climate, a cauldron of ideas compete with the best prevailing. While somewhat strange, I have found it best to view all ideas as rationalizations (even with all the Freudian baggage that entails). It is just that some rationalizations work and are supported by evidence.

As Haldane liked to remind us, our ignorance probably trumps our knowledge – but, being ignorant, we will never really know. We will surely make new discoveries about the universe as time goes by, probably never reaching the end (I would say, based on our construction, that we definitely will never reach the end since we must begin with assumptions, but I abhor absolute statements). Recent conjectures on the multiverse, string theory and dark energy serve as good examples of ideas that are not yet part of a coherent schema.

Philosophically, while it is possible that the observable universe (multiverse) is part of a greater whole, with mind (or experience) being more fundamental, we already have a word for that – idealism. Even with an idealist framework, we do not encounter mind independent of body in our regular observations of the world. In Idealism Mind creates matter through the action of thought; there is no additional provision for Mind to interact with what we call our minds (which are dependent on matter) unless we invoke some form of dualism; a discarnate mind interacting/speaking to someone relies on dualism and cannot be explained within a monistic framework.

Magic, by definition, contradicts methodological naturalism since only natural explanations are allowed. If the supernatural exists (an ontological possibility) science, being based in methodological naturalism, cannot account for it nor comment upon it because the supernatural would not follow the rules of the natural world. Anything that does follow the rules of the natural world, whether a part of our current understanding of physics or not, is natural and is amenable to study by methodological naturalism.

Meanwhile, we do know certain facts about brain/mind function. We are prone to type 1 errors and particularly to certain kinds of type 1 errors. The classical evolutionary explanation concerns an early hominid and rustling grass – we are prone to view the rustle as due to an agent because it doesn’t hurt much to run away from the wind but hurts considerable not to run away from a crouching lion. We also know that certain people are more prone to type 1 errors, particularly to the kind of type 1 error that posits an agent behind whatever pattern we perceive. We even know how to manipulate people into committing such errors more and less often based in large part on dopamine pathways. Increase dopamine neurotransmitter levels and we tend to posit the presence of an agent; remove the action of dopamine and we are less likely to do so. This is the basis of neuroleptic treatment for delusions (an extreme form of this kind of type 1 error).

The strength of anecdotal evidence depends on the number and strengths of alternative explanations for the data. Recall, first, that evidence is data used for or against a proposition – evidence does not exist as evidence independent of some form of argument. If there are many likely explanations for why we encounter a particular piece of data, the data cannot serve as strong evidence. If there is only one likely explanation for particular data, then that data serves as strong evidence for the argument being made. Converging data points also provide better support. So, for instance, my wife is late for an appointment. She tells me that she went to the store to buy something for dinner tonight. There are a few likely scenarios, but one is most likely based on my knowledge of her and her way of acting in the world – she went to the store. If I see the new bottle of red wine vinegar in the pantry and that only reinforces the idea.

We use anecdotal data as evidence all the time. But no one considers anecdotes as strong evidence, particularly because there are often many different explanations for any anecdote (true, misrepresentation, confirmation bias, pure invention, etc.). Anecdotes cannot, therefore, be used effectively to suggest that our current way of viewing the world needs revision. Stronger evidence is needed.

 

[Robin]

.Magic, by definition, contradicts methodological naturalism since only natural explanations are allowed. If the supernatural exists (an ontological possibility) science, being based in methodological naturalism, cannot account for it nor comment upon it because the supernatural would not follow the rules of the natural world. Anything that does follow the rules of the natural world, whether a part of our current understanding of physics or not, is natural and is amenable to study by methodological naturalism.

But by "naturalism" we are only referrring to the kind of underlying order that science has actually discovered.

It is not as though science is specifically designed to find one sort of underlying order and to ignore all others.

If an angel appeared in the labs at Cern saying "be not afraid" would the boffins look up briefly and then murmur "not our department" and get on with their work? Or would they become interested in studying the angel?

If magic followed any kind of consistent pattern then we could use scientific methods to study it.

If it were really the case that you could shift your paradigm, construct a sigil then have sex or do energetic dancing and unlock your psi potential then this claim could be verified by scientific means.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

But by "naturalism" we are only referrring to the kind of underlying order that science has actually discovered.

It is not as though science is specifically designed to find one sort of underlying order and to ignore all others.

If an angel appeared in the labs at Cern saying "be not afraid" would the boffins look up briefly and then murmur "not our department" and get on with their work? Or would they become interested in studying the angel?

If magic followed any kind of consistent pattern then we could use scientific methods to study it.

If it were really the case that you could shift your paradigm, construct a sigil then have sex or do energetic dancing and unlock your psi potential then this claim could be verified by scientific means.

Yes, correct. As we have magic defined currently, though, it is outside of scientific scrutiny because it doesn't follow rules. A CERN angel would follow some set of rules or we couldn't communicate with it.



ETA:
Which is to say, once again, that science is methodological naturalism and not ontological naturalism, as is often claimed by those who do not engage in science and speak of 'scientism'. Science describes the rules we find; it does not assume ahead of time what the rules are or what actually is out there. It really can't because we are frequently surprised by what we find.

 

[tsig]

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?

I'd follow your experimental protocol and see if I got the same results so now all you have to do is post your protocol and we'll all follow it and you can shut all the skeptics up.

 

[Zanders]

Yes, correct. As we have magic defined currently, though, it is outside of scientific scrutiny because it doesn't follow rules. A CERN angel would follow some set of rules or we couldn't communicate with it.



ETA:
Which is to say, once again, that science is methodological naturalism and not ontological naturalism, as is often claimed by those who do not engage in science and speak of 'scientism'. Science describes the rules we find; it does not assume ahead of time what the rules are or what actually is out there. It really can't because we are frequently surprised by what we find.

While believers claim that there are confirmed and consistent methods for getting such results, that can't be the case.

The truth is, there are many powerful people in all fields that believe and would love to be able to prove such a thing, and if these methods really worked belief in such things wouldn't be in such a rapid decline. Most people want to beleive in magic, ghosts and angels, so if there were any good working methods for contacting them belief in such things would have been steadily growing since the spiritualist boom, as opposed to the movements slowly dying out.

 

[tsig]

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?]

Sorry, I thought you were more familiar with the territory than you appear to be. Here's some beginning info:

If you are new to magic spells and spell casting, start with these articles that provide free information about how real magical spells are cast by authentic practitioners of various paths and learn the simple, easy basics of how to perform powerful magic spells in various traditions of witchcraft, conjuration, hoodoo, voodoo, rootwork, and spell-craft.

Does Magic Work, Are Spells Real, Is There Such a Thing as Real Magick?
Tools and Materials for Casting Magic Spells
Recipes for Magical Potions used in Casting Magic Spells
Practical Tips on Spells and Rituals from Actual Practitioners of Magick

http://www.luckymojo.com/spells.html


and:


The practice of spells is a popular issue in the esoteric world. To do well while casting spells requires knowing some previous principles. The theory and practice involved is explained here. In this article I explain what are the principles behind casting spells and how I can help you to do well with them.

Send Questions Here
Casting Spells Reading - Order Form

In general, this involves actions intended to cause a change over another person, ourselves, a situation or a thing. Casting spells usually helps with the desired change. It can avoid that our future stays under a denial of what we want (see our site on fate, destiny and fate carried from past lives).

When their action is done, somehow the objects and rituals used help the subconscious to carry the channeling into reality. More on this topic, visit this site: rituals used for casting spells, rituals .

http://www.jfinternational.com/psy/casting-spells.html

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

While believers claim that there are confirmed and consistent methods for getting such results, that can't be the case.

The truth is, there are many powerful people in all fields that believe and would love to be able to prove such a thing, and if these methods really worked belief in such things wouldn't be in such a rapid decline. Most people want to beleive in magic, ghosts and angels, so if there were any good working methods for contacting them belief in such things would have been steadily growing since the spiritualist boom, as opposed to the movements slowly dying out.

Yes, indeed. This is one of those situations in which language can create several unnecessary posts because 'rules' can be interpreted to mean the steps one follows in 'chaos magic'. Here, rules means the consistent interactions we see in the real world to produce a reliable result. I hit a red ball into a white ball and the white ball moves according to a formula that involves the relative masses of the balls, etc. We don't have 'rules of the game' like that with magic. We do know how our minds form patterns out of patternless muck, however.

 

[Limbo]

While believers claim that there are confirmed and consistent methods for getting such results, that can't be the case.

The truth is, there are many powerful people in all fields that believe and would love to be able to prove such a thing, and if these methods really worked belief in such things wouldn't be in such a rapid decline. Most people want to beleive in magic, ghosts and angels, so if there were any good working methods for contacting them belief in such things would have been steadily growing since the spiritualist boom, as opposed to the movements slowly dying out.

No, indeed. Movements come and go, methods come and go. Not because they don't work but because they do. The paranormal carries in it the seed of its own change. It can't be institutionalized for long, it can't be put into a structure for long, it can't be subjected to bureaucracy. It is inherently anti-structural and liminal. It marginalizes itself. You simply can't have manifestations of the paranormal without all the patterns in the human psyche manifesting as well. That includes the irrational patterns which are a part of us all...no matter how hard we try to repress them.

 

[tsig]

No, indeed. Movements come and go, methods come and go. Not because they don't work but because they do. The paranormal carries in it the seed of its own change. It can't be institutionalized for long, it can't be put into a structure for long, it can't be subjected to bureaucracy. It is inherently anti-structure. It marginalizes itself. You simply can't have manifestations of the paranormal without all the patterns in the human psyche manifesting as well. That includes the irrational patterns which are a part of us all no matter how hard we try to repress them.

So all manifestations of the paranormal are a one off? Most paranormal practitioners would disagree with that.

 

[Zanders]

No, indeed. Movements come and go, methods come and go. Not because they don't work but because they do. The paranormal carries in it the seed of its own change. It can't be institutionalized for long, it can't be put into a structure for long, it can't be subjected to bureaucracy. It is inherently anti-structural and liminal. It marginalizes itself. You simply can't have manifestations of the paranormal without all the patterns in the human psyche manifesting as well. That includes the irrational patterns which are a part of us all...no matter how hard we try to repress them.

Sounds like a weak excuse.

Then why does sigil magic and transcendental meditation work after all these years of doing it?

 

[dlorde]

... You simply can't have manifestations of the paranormal without all the patterns in the human psyche manifesting as well. That includes the irrational patterns.

 
That certainly follows if the paranormal is a product of the human psyche (mind), and irrational patterns would seem to fit particularly well.

 

[Resume]

No, indeed. Movements come and go, methods come and go. Not because they don't work but because they do. The paranormal carries in it the seed of its own change. It can't be institutionalized for long, it can't be put into a structure for long, it can't be subjected to bureaucracy. It is inherently anti-structural and liminal. It marginalizes itself. You simply can't have manifestations of the paranormal without all the patterns in the human psyche manifesting as well. That includes the irrational patterns which are a part of us all...no matter how hard we try to repress them.

This is all very convenient.

 

[Limbo]

Sounds like a weak excuse.

Things aren't always as they seem. Plus, there is evidence to suggest that environmental variables and sidereal time can weaken or strengthen psi effects. Different ages could have different psi strength, and even different natural laws.

Then why does sigil magic and transcendental meditation work after all these years of doing it?

If they work, then why aren't you off making sigils and meditating?

By what reckoning are you measuring time? By a generation? Or an age?

 

[Zanders]

Things aren't always as they seem. Plus, there is evidence to suggest that environmental variables and sidereal time can weaken or strengthen psi effects. Different ages could have different psi strength.




If they work, then why aren't you off making sigils and meditating?

By what reckoning are you measuring time? By a generation? Or an age?

The point I made earlier still stands with sigil magic, a method you encouraged and claimed worked for yourself in this thread.

 

[Limbo]

The point I made earlier still stands with sigil magic, a method you encouraged and claimed worked for yourself in this thread.

It does. But it is a relatively new method developed by Austin Osman Spare (1886-1956). In past ages, when the environment was different and people believed different things, psychic strength could have been much, much stronger. Psi is sociological, too. It takes a village. We are living in an age where psi-inhibitive variables outweigh psi-conducive variables. The Hindu call this age the Kali Yuga, and in the Kali Yuga we are cut off from Divine power. Our spiritual powers are weak in the Kali Yuga. People are ignorant, lustful, and stressed out and Gurus are not respected. Thats the opposite of what it takes for strong psi to manifest in a culture.

 

[Sledge]

Ah, Limbo, you're about. Excellent. How do I go about building this telescope?

 

[Zanders]

It does. But it is a relatively new method developed by Austin Osman Spare (1886-1956). In past ages, when the environment was different and people believed different things, psychic strength could have been much, much stronger. Psi is sociological, too. It takes a village. We are living in an age where psi-inhibitive variables outweigh psi-conducive variables. The Hindu call this age the Kali Yuga, and in the Kali Yuga we are cut off from Divine power. Our spiritual powers are weak in the Kali Yuga. People are ignorant, lustful, and stressed out and Gurus are not respected. Thats the opposite of what it takes for strong psi to manifest in a culture.

People were ignorant, lustful and stressed out in ancient times too. That's why every holy book and prophet is trying to wake people up and change their ways. Except for the lower belief in the paranormal, people are pretty much the same.

 

[Limbo]

People were ignorant, lustful and stressed out in ancient times too. That's why every holy book and prophet is trying to wake people up and change their ways. Except for the lower belief in the paranormal, people are pretty much the same.

But that lower belief can make a big difference. Psi effects take place against an unconscious backdrop of belief/disbelief. Thats why one has to believe in it (or at least not disbelieve in it) or it won't happen. And even that is not a guarantee, because many people don't believe in it and that inhibits the strength of psi.

Add to that the recent indications that sidereal time can influence it. And magnetic fields. There could be all sorts of things that are making psi very weak these days and in certain areas.