An experiment with Babylon and LMNO

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Repeating stupid cliches doesn't mean you think for yourself.

And believing in mahdjgickque means you don't think at all.

[bones]

If your magical powers suddenly don't work any time they are placed under scrutiny then they aren't very useful in the real world, are they? Sure you can find all kinds of ways to mindfuck yourself and make yourself think that you are riding a unicorn with Jesus but that doesn't do anything to the objective world.

Magic is real for very narrow definitions of "magic" and "real".

I think Rat had every right to defend against this, shame it turned into another flamefest.

It seems to me that controlled scientific measurement of Rat's magic would be similar to controlled scientific measurement of how much happiness a person gets from cuddling kittens. It's not meant to be an objective thing, like you wouldn't demand that I give you a measurement of how happy kitten cuddles make me, or prove that such happiness exists.

If you reveal your wish it won't come true. Crowley says you should find your true will, but you should keep it hidden, so how can you measure it without affecting the result? I would get bored of kitten cuddles if you started trying to measure my mood changes by them.

On the other hand if someone claims that they can expect 25% more accuracy than random chance go right ahead and prove that they're talking shit... If you can even be bothered.

Sorry everyone for not managing to pull impressive magic out.  Not that it is any real excuse but I was at the beginning of one of the worst bouts of physical illness I can remember.

Apology accepted BH , though imo you didn't fail at magic because you were getting sick, you got sick as an excuse for your failure. THAT is much more likely something the mind could have the power to do.
How did you conclude that your prediction magic works better when you have a 2/3 chance of being right, anyway? Was it a controlled experiment such as this one? or the same law of fives that convinces gambling addicts to put more money in the slot?

[Iason Ouabache]

My non-existant barbs concerning Jesus and Unicorns, I think.

I didn't realize that we looked so much alike.

[Golden Applesauce]

It seems to me that controlled scientific measurement of Rat's magic would be similar to controlled scientific measurement of how much happiness a person gets from cuddling kittens. It's not meant to be an objective thing, like you wouldn't demand that I give you a measurement of how happy kitten cuddles make me, or prove that such happiness exists.

If you reveal your wish it won't come true. Crowley says you should find your true will, but you should keep it hidden, so how can you measure it without affecting the result? I would get bored of kitten cuddles if you started trying to measure my mood changes by them.

We can totally measure happiness*, BTW.  You might get bored eventually, but modern tech will have significant brain function measurements long before then.  Heck, we can measure how funny you find a joke, how much revulsion and stress you feel from a disturbing image, and how turned on you are by an even more disturbing image.

Having not read Crowley, I'm a little curious about the statement to the effect that one should keep your true will hidden.  If you will yourself to be successful (for a given definition of success) and then actually become successful, are you supposed to pretend that that wasn't what you really wanted?  And I'm not really sure how one could put will into practice without revealing it - if you practice for something, it's pretty obvious that you want to get better at it.  Does Crowley suggest doing all your practicing in secret so nobody else finds out that you're training for your life's goal?

*Strictly speaking, we can give mood surveys and measure neurological and physiological responses that are very closely correlated with different (reported) emotions.  But functionally it's pretty much the same.

[LMNO]

Ok, look.

Magic₁ = self-hypnosis, NLP, metaprogramming, etc.

Magic₂ = pre-cognition, telekenisis, telepathy, et al.


IN THIS THREAD (BECAUSE IT'S MY THREAD, FUCKOS), PLEASE USE THE ABOVE TERMS WHEN SHITTING ON EACH OTHER.


KTHXBYE.

[Cain]

My non-existant barbs concerning Jesus and Unicorns, I think.

I didn't realize that we looked so much alike.

Only for people who see what they want to see, I think.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Ok, look.

Magic₁ = self-hypnosis, NLP, metaprogramming, etc.

Magic₂ = pre-cognition, telekenisis, telepathy, et al.


IN THIS THREAD (BECAUSE IT'S MY THREAD, FUCKOS), PLEASE USE THE ABOVE TERMS WHEN SHITTING ON EACH OTHER.


KTHXBYE.

Good idea.

My non-existant barbs concerning Jesus and Unicorns, I think.

I didn't realize that we looked so much alike.

Fail Reading Embedded Quote is Fail... Please redirect my comment at Iason.

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

Ok, look.

Magic₁ = self-hypnosis, NLP, metaprogramming, etc.

Magic₂ = pre-cognition, telekenisis, telepathy, et al.


IN THIS THREAD (BECAUSE IT'S MY THREAD, FUCKOS), PLEASE USE THE ABOVE TERMS WHEN SHITTING ON EACH OTHER.


KTHXBYE.

This.

[Iron Sulfide]

I could do it, but we all know i'd be cheating.

it's always cheating, even if it actually works (magic₁ or magic₂- though magic₁ has a higher success rate in testing, and magic₃ [illusionism and obfuscation] is pure cheating.)
[for the record my interest in Magic_n is limited to 1 and 3]


that and a snuff box is all i have to contribute.

[LMNO]

Wait, all cheating is the same?

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

Would Magic1 be doing Magic3 on yourself, and Magic2 being doing Magic3 on Magic1? If we assume that Magic2 is Magic1 without its rationalization, I mean.

[bones]

Would Magic1 be doing Magic3 on yourself, and Magic2 being doing Magic3 on Magic1? If we assume that Magic2 is Magic1 without its rationalization, I mean.

LMNO, What have you unleashed?? 

[LMNO]

That's just Enki being a fucktard as usual.

[Kai]

Wait, all cheating is the same?

What I want to know is, if Magic₁ is cheating, then whats wrong with cheating anyway?

[Cainad (dec.)]

Wait, all cheating is the same?

What I want to know is, if Magic₁ is cheating, then whats wrong with cheating anyway?

Nothing, as far as I'm concerned.

A stage magician might claim to have supernatural talents, but is actually using misdirection and similar psychological tricks. However, when all is said and done, the audience is entertained and the magician has the audience's money. IT'S MAGIC!