The Philip Experiment: magic in action

[Maia]

This is one that the sceptics rarely mention, presumably because it upsets their worldview. Creation of thought forms, such as the one described below, is fundamental to magic. Notice also how they gave life to their creation by surrounding themselves with associated objects and performing relevant actions, which is another classic principle of magic, namely like attracts like, and to which rituals are geared.

paranormal.about.com/od/ghosthun … -ghost.htm

+++The TSPR, under the guidance of Dr. A.R.G. Owen, assembled a group of eight people culled from its membership, none of whom claimed to have any psychic gifts. The group, which became known as the Owen group, consisted of Dr. Owen’s wife, a woman who was the former chairperson of MENSA (an organization for high-IQ people), an industrial designer, an accountant, a housewife, a bookkeeper and a sociology student. A psychologist named Dr. Joel Whitton also attended many of the group’s sessions as an observer. The group’s first task was to create their fictional historical character. Together they wrote a short biography of the person they named Philip Aylesford.+++

+++In September 1972, the group began their “sittings” - informal gatherings in which they would discuss Philip and his life, meditate on him and try to visualize their “collective hallucination” in more detail. These sittings, conducted in a fully lit room, went on for about a year with no results. Some members of the group occasionally claimed they felt a presence in the room, but there was no result they could consider any kind of communication from Philip. So they changed their tactics. The group decided they might have better luck if they attempted to duplicate the atmosphere of a classic spiritualist séance. They dimmed the room’s lights, sat around a table, sang songs and surrounded themselves with pictures of the type of castle they imagined Philip would have lived in, as well as objects from that time period. It worked. During one evening’s séance, the group received its first communication from Philip in the form of a distinct rap on the table. Soon Philip was answering questions asked by the group - one rap for yes, two for no. They knew it was Philip because, well, they asked him. The sessions took off from there, producing a range of phenomena that could not be explained scientifically. Through the table-rapping communication, the group was able to learn finer details about Philip’s life. He even seemed to exhibit a personality, conveying his likes and dislikes, and his strong views on various subjects, made plain by the enthusiasm or hesitancy of his knockings. His “spirit” was also able to move the table, sliding it from side to side despite the fact that the floor was covered with thick carpeting. At times it would even “dance” on one leg.+++

+++The Philip experiment was so successful that the Toronto organization decided to try it again with a completely different group of people and a new fictional character. After just five weeks, the new group established “contact” with their new “ghost,” Lilith, a French Canadian spy. Other similar experiments conjured up such entities as Sebastian, a medieval alchemist and even Axel, a man from the future. All of them were completely fictional, yet all produced unexplained communication through their unique raps. Recently, a Sydney, Australia group attempted a similar test with “the Skippy Experiment.” The six participants created the story of Skippy Cartman, a 14-year-old Australian girl. The group reports that Skippy communicated with them through raps and scratching sounds.+++

[Silhouette]

+++The sessions took off from there, producing a range of phenomena that could not be explained scientifically.+++

I find that the entire article rests on this casual dismissal. The “magic” is presumably the means by which the results are explainable. I maintain that there are always different explanations whether they have been created yet or not. Some are just more lazy than others in order to satisfy other aspects of human pscyhology than any urge toward stringent precision. I am not so closed minded as to deny the value in these lazier explanations - I just don’t personally value anything more than stringent precision. Whether it’s magic or religion etc., it’s just simply not going to appeal to me over something more scientific and logical. I have no beef with those who would choose differently, I just have (relatively) little interest in entertaining that side of my humanity. To me, magic sounds cool, but I just simply cannot take it seriously.

This would loosely sum up my philosophy of explanation: it’s not whether it’s magic that exists (or not) it’s whether people prefer its explanation or not. I think people used to prefer it a lot more than they tend to nowadays because values have changed and more disciplined explanations have been much more refined, and proven themselves more and more in the process.

[Maia]

You are assuming that magic is a lazy explanation, as if noticing that an apple falls to the ground and calling it gravity is lazy.

[statiktech]

It is if only a few select crackpots ever see apples fall to the ground, but never manage to gather any hard evidence of the phenomena.

What you’re doing here is the same as what you’ve done in the other thread. It’s a form of argument from ignorance. There occurs some phenomena you can’t explain, therefore it’s magic. Why not just say it’s God?

[Silhouette]

@Maia

You are assuming that magic is a lazy explanation, as if noticing that an apple falls to the ground and calling it gravity is lazy.

On its own, yes. It’s the stuff you can do with calling it gravity - or more specifically, using its constant value and relevance to all sorts of other scientific concepts and precise formulae that link them all together, for example creating cool stuff that “it’s magic” (or alternatively “God did it”) could never come close to.

[Maia]

@statiktech

It is if only a few select crackpots ever see apples fall to the ground, but never manage to gather any hard evidence of the phenomena.

What you’re doing here is the same as what you’ve done in the other thread. It’s a form of argument from ignorance. There occurs some phenomena you can’t explain, therefore it’s magic. Why not just say it’s God?

That is actually the very opposite of how those who work with magic operate. Occultists are experimenting all the time, proposing theories, testing them, pushing the boundaries and so on. I’m sorry to say that it’s you who is arguing from ignorance, ignorance of the subject that you’re criticising.

This very experiment was a classic example of its kind, attempting to explore how these phenomena work, and what the limits are. But you’re not seeing this for some reason.

[Maia]

@Silhouette

@Maia

You are assuming that magic is a lazy explanation, as if noticing that an apple falls to the ground and calling it gravity is lazy.

On its own, yes. It’s the stuff you can do with calling it gravity - or more specifically, using its constant value and relevance to all sorts of other scientific concepts and precise formulae that link them all together, for example creating cool stuff that “it’s magic” (or alternatively “God did it”) could never come close to.

Please refer to my previous answer.

What is it that you’re not getting here? How can I explain it better?

[statiktech]

@Maia

That is actually the very opposite of how those who work with magic operate.

Yet it’s precisely how you are operating here. That seems a little hypocritical on your part.

Occultists are experimenting all the time, proposing theories, testing them, pushing the boundaries and so on. I’m sorry to say that it’s you who is arguing from ignorance, ignorance of the subject that you’re criticising.

Do you know what an argument from ignorance is? Here, check this out: Argument from ignorance.

This isn’t what you’re accusing me of. You’re saying that I shouldn’t bother arguing at all about magic until I’ve experienced it as you have. That’s a cheap way out of an argument and raises questions as to why you’d start a thread about magic on a forum where the majority probably haven’t shared your experiences.

This very experiment was a classic example of its kind, attempting to explore how these phenomena work, and what the limits are. But you’re not seeing this for some reason.

They clearly aren’t attempting to explore how it works. The article says that what they experienced wasn’t explainable scientifically. And we’re just supposed to accept it as you do. I’m not seeing it because it isn’t there. This is classic God of the gaps type thinking and it’s fallacious.

[Maia]

@statiktech

@Maia

That is actually the very opposite of how those who work with magic operate.

Yet it’s precisely how you are operating here. That seems a little hypocritical on your part.

Occultists are experimenting all the time, proposing theories, testing them, pushing the boundaries and so on. I’m sorry to say that it’s you who is arguing from ignorance, ignorance of the subject that you’re criticising.

Do you know what an argument from ignorance is? Here, check this out: Argument from ignorance.

This isn’t what you’re accusing me of. You’re saying that I shouldn’t bother arguing at all about magic until I’ve experienced it as you have. That’s a cheap way out of an argument and raises questions as to why you’d start a thread about magic on a forum where the majority probably haven’t shared your experiences.

This very experiment was a classic example of its kind, attempting to explore how these phenomena work, and what the limits are. But you’re not seeing this for some reason.

They clearly aren’t attempting to explore how it works. The article says that what they experienced wasn’t explainable scientifically. And we’re just supposed to accept as you do. I’m not seeing it because it isn’t there. This is classic God of the gaps type thinking and it’s fallacious.

You seem to be basing your evaluation of the experiment on how that particular article was written, without doing a bit of research. Try Googling it. This was, in fact, a scientific experiment.

I’m not suggesting you need to experience it in order to argue about it, but I am suggesting you need to understand the subject before arguing about it.

Magic is not a mathematically precise science, it is far more akin to pshychology, for example. Psychology tests situations and makes predictions.

[statiktech]

@Maia

You seem to be basing your evaluation of the experiment on how that particular article was written, without doing a bit of research. Try Googling it. This was, in fact, a scientific experiment.

And what you’re doing is looking for gaps where science doesn’t explain what’s going on, then filling the gaps with magic. The article is what you based the thread on, what did you expect? What I read didn’t exactly smack of scientific rigor. I’ll look up some more on it.

I’m not suggesting you need to experience it in order to argue about it, but I am suggesting you need to understand the subject before arguing about it.

I understand it to a degree and have researched this sort of stuff quite a bit on my own. The trick here is that you seem to know some things I don’t, so no matter what I argue, you can just tell me I don’t know enough. Again, that’s a cheap way out of an argument and a poor way to run a thread.

[Maia]

@statiktech

@Maia

You seem to be basing your evaluation of the experiment on how that particular article was written, without doing a bit of research. Try Googling it. This was, in fact, a scientific experiment.

And what you’re doing is looking for gaps where science doesn’t explain what’s going on, then filling the gaps with magic. The article is what you based the thread on, what did you expect? What I read didn’t exactly smack of scientific rigor. I’ll look up some more on it.

I’m not suggesting you need to experience it in order to argue about it, but I am suggesting you need to understand the subject before arguing about it.

I understand it to a degree and have researched this sort of stuff quite a bit on my own. The trick here is that you seem to know some things I don’t, so no matter what I argue, you can just tell me I don’t know enough. Again, that’s a cheap way out of an argument and a poor way to run a thread.

How else is knowledge to be imparted, except by people who know more about a subject explaining it to those who know less, or have incorrect notions about it?

And, to repeat myself yet again, magic doesn’t look for gaps in scientific knowledge. Magic is, itself a science.

[statiktech]

@Maia

How else is knowledge to be imparted, except by people who know more about a subject explaining it to those who know less, or have incorrect notions about it?

Then why aren’t you imparting any knowledge? You’re just telling me I don’t understand enough to argue with you, yet you refuse to address my arguments. Which of my notions are incorrect?

And, to repeat myself yet again, magic doesn’t look for gaps in scientific knowledge. Magic is, itself a science.

I didn’t say magic was looking for anything. You are looking for gaps and filling them with magic. Magic is not science unless it can be explained by science.

[Maia]

@statiktech

@Maia

How else is knowledge to be imparted, except by people who know more about a subject explaining it to those who know less, or have incorrect notions about it?

Then why aren’t you imparting any knowledge? You’re just telling me I don’t understand enough to argue with you, yet you refuse to address my arguments. Which of my notions are incorrect?

And, to repeat myself yet again, magic doesn’t look for gaps in scientific knowledge. Magic is, itself a science.

I didn’t say magic was looking for anything. You are looking for gaps and filling them with magic. Magic is not science unless it can be explained by science.

I expained at the beginning of the thread two of the basic principles of magic, then illustrated them with a famous scientific experiment. Why is it that you are refusing to understand this?

Magic is indeed a science, probably one of the oldest in fact. It can therefore be explained by science, since it explains itself and has a number of known principles. But sceptics would seek to explain it away instead, which is not a scientific way of doing things.

This is not to say that we fully understand how magic works, but the same is true of anything, e.g. gravity. There are a number of theories, but they all have in common the need to explain the interaction between mind and matter.

[statiktech]

@Maia

I expained at the beginning of the thread two of the basic principles of magic, then illustrated them with a famous scientific experiment. Why is it that you are refusing to understand this?

I understand it fine. What I’m trying to tell you is that you could be, and likely are, describing something else completely, like some well noted psychological phenomena [eg. confirmation bias and idiomotor effect].

The experiment suggests that the participants communicated with a totally fabricated person. This doesn’t strike you as an odd way to suggest that magic works? These exact sorts of events have been investigated and debunked by scientists over and over again.

Magic is indeed a science, probably one of the oldest in fact. It can therefore be explained by science, since it explains itself and has a number of known principles. But sceptics would seek to explain it away instead, which is not a scientific way of doing things.

It explains itself? That doesn’t seem a little circular to you? If it can be explained by science, it’s considered science, not magic. Magic describes supposed phenomena that aren’t explainable by scientific means. That’s why it’s called magic to begin with. Sometimes we can look at something that has been considered magic and find it actually does have a scientific explanation. Do you know what happens then? That phenomena ceases to be considered magic.

This is not to say that we fully understand how magic works, but the same is true of anything, e.g. gravity. There are a number of theories, but they all have in common the need to explain the interaction between mind and matter.

[/quote]
But we have hard, consistent evidence about gravity. That of magic is spurious at best.

[Maia]

@statiktech

@Maia

I expained at the beginning of the thread two of the basic principles of magic, then illustrated them with a famous scientific experiment. Why is it that you are refusing to understand this?

I understand it fine. What I’m trying to tell you is that you could be, and likely are, describing something else completely, like some well noted psychological phenomena [eg. confirmation bias and idiomotor effect].

The experiment suggests that the participants communicated with a totally fabricated person. This doesn’t strike you as an odd way to suggest that magic works? These exact sorts of events have been investigated and debunked by scientists over and over again.

Magic is indeed a science, probably one of the oldest in fact. It can therefore be explained by science, since it explains itself and has a number of known principles. But sceptics would seek to explain it away instead, which is not a scientific way of doing things.

It explains itself? That doesn’t seem a little circular to you? If it can be explained by science, it’s considered science, not magic. Magic describes supposed phenomena that aren’t explainable by scientific means. That’s why it’s called magic to begin with. Sometimes we can look at something that has been considered magic and find it actually does have a scientific explanation. Do you know what happens then? That phenomena ceases to be considered magic.

This is not to say that we fully understand how magic works, but the same is true of anything, e.g. gravity. There are a number of theories, but they all have in common the need to explain the interaction between mind and matter.

But we have hard, consistent evidence about gravity. That of magic is spurious at best.
[/quote]
To assume that there must be another explanation indicates bias on your part, not mine. Magical practicioners are willing to accept what the evidence says, either way.

To criticise the experiement for communicating with a fabricated person shows that you must know very little about magic. The creation of thought forms is one of the most basic magical principles.

If magic employs circular reasoning by having a set of its own principles, then the same can be said for any science.

No, it’s called magic to begin with because the term comes from ancient Greek, and ultimately from Persian. But it’s just a word, if you don’t like it, call it something else. Science grew out of magic, not the other way round.

Magic is not a hard science like gravity, but is far more akin to psychology. A science, but one that does not employ precise mathematical measurements.

[Silhouette]

@Maia

Magic is not a mathematically precise science, it is far more akin to pshychology, for example. Psychology tests situations and makes predictions.

Maia, this is the difference that I was raising with regard to the gravity example. I simply prefer “mathematical precision”.

I am aware that “magicians” (or whatever you want to call people who practice magic) can be highly curious and experimental, but whilst what they come up with might have passed as “science” in centuries past, it doesn’t anymore. I’m even sure their theories go into plenty of detail and everything, but it’s still an explanation that I think can be bettered due to my own values. It’s age doesn’t necessarily make it better, nor does it guarantee it’s status staying the same for all that time.

[Maia]

@Silhouette

@Maia

Magic is not a mathematically precise science, it is far more akin to pshychology, for example. Psychology tests situations and makes predictions.

Maia, this is the difference that I was raising with regard to the gravity example. I simply prefer “mathematical precision”.

I am aware that “magicians” (or whatever you want to call people who practice magic) can be highly curious and experimental, but whilst what they come up with might have passed as “science” in centuries past, it doesn’t anymore. I’m even sure their theories go into plenty of detail and everything, but it’s still an explanation that I think can be bettered.

Since they’ve experienced it, I’m sure they would tend to disagree.

[Silhouette]

@Maia

@Silhouette

@Maia

Magic is not a mathematically precise science, it is far more akin to pshychology, for example. Psychology tests situations and makes predictions.

Maia, this is the difference that I was raising with regard to the gravity example. I simply prefer “mathematical precision”.

I am aware that “magicians” (or whatever you want to call people who practice magic) can be highly curious and experimental, but whilst what they come up with might have passed as “science” in centuries past, it doesn’t anymore. I’m even sure their theories go into plenty of detail and everything, but it’s still an explanation that I think can be bettered.

Since they’ve experienced it, I’m sure they would tend to disagree.

Yeah, they probably would, due to their values not lying so strongly in line with mathematical precision.

I wouldn’t say certain people experience magic and others don’t. I would say that everyone experiences the same existence, but some explain it in terms of magic and others don’t. The type of explanation one prefers often assumes the status of “the” explanation, but I don’t buy Modernism for a great many good reasons.

In terms of that experiment, any person would be experiencing the same things - tables, sounds, movements etc. - but the reasons why they behaved how they did is up to the values of the person explaining. Some would call it magic, such as yourself. Others would call it worth looking into in terms of science - such as myself. Neither is more right, but the consequences of preferring one type of explanation over another leads to different ends. For example, thinking in terms of science has enabled us to be corresponding right now. Magic has… what has magic done for us btw?

[Maia]

@Silhouette

Yeah, they probably would, due to their values not lying so strongly in line with mathematical precision.

I wouldn’t say certain people experience magic and others don’t. I would say that everyone experiences the same existence, but some explain it in terms of magic and others don’t. The type of explanation one prefers often assumes the status of “the” explanation, but I don’t buy Modernism for a great many good reasons.

In terms of that experiment, any person would be experiencing the same things - tables, sounds, movements etc. - but the reasons why they behaved how they did is up to the values of the person explaining. Some would call it magic, such as yourself. Others would call it worth looking into in terms of science - such as myself. Neither is more right, but the consequences of preferring one type of explanation over another leads to different ends. For example, thinking in terms of science has enabled us to be corresponding right now. Magic has… what has magic done for us btw?

You are creating an artificial distinction between magic and science, and pitting one against the other as an explanation. In fact, magical practicioners regard magic as a science. It has its uses and its limitations. They certainly don’t exclude other explantions if they happen to fit the evidence better.

If your citicism of magic is that it’s not mathematical, then presumably you have equally no truck with sciences such as psychology.

[statiktech]

@Maia

To assume that there must be another explanation indicates bias on your part, not mine. Magical practicioners are willing to accept what the evidence says, either way.

Clearly not. Many, like you, are biased in favor of magic. I’m not assuming there must be another explanation. I’m just saying that’s most likely the case.

To criticise the experiement for communicating with a fabricated person shows that you must know very little about magic. The creation of thought forms is one of the most basic magical principles.

Fair enough. That’s a part of magic i never read about. It’s incredibly absurd.

If magic employs circular reasoning by having a set of its own principles, then the same can be said for any science.

You said it explains itself. That’s what I was talking about. Not a set of principles. Magic employs circular reasoning by referring back to itself, which is not the same as referring to hard evidence like science does.

No, it’s called magic to begin with because the term comes from ancient Greek, and ultimately from Persian. But it’s just a word, if you don’t like it, call it something else. Science grew out of magic, not the other way round.

You missed the point. I wasn’t getting at etymology. I’m talking about why it’s called something other than science.

Magic is not a hard science like gravity, but is far more akin to psychology. A science, but one that does not employ precise mathematical measurements.

It’s more akin to psychology because most of what people call “magic” is generally attributable to psychological phenomena.