An experiment with Babylon and LMNO

[the last yatto]

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0884349/bio

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Wait, all cheating is the same?

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

I am still trying to figure out how its cheating to begin with.

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

Wait, all cheating is the same?

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

I am still trying to figure out how its cheating to begin with.

If it works, it's cheating.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Wait, all cheating is the same?

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

I am still trying to figure out how its cheating to begin with.

If it works, it's cheating.

How so? It seems to me, that if Magic1 works... its just making use of tools to play with your head. Where's the cheating bit at?

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

We are testing whether or not it's possible to cheat. So, if it works, it's cheating, and is therefore valid.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

We are testing whether or not it's possible to cheat. So, if it works, it's cheating, and is therefore valid.

Ok... I am apparently confused, which seems normal for me at this point.

[fomenter]

i think enki has trouble with the difference between mag1 and mag2 the introduction of cheating has me baffled as well, if cheating = knowing results ahead of time by some means other than mag2 and it works and you trick someone with it you are not a successful mag2 magician you are doing  mag 3 an illusionist...

cheating and mag1 don't seem to have any connection since the mag1 definition is self-hypnosis, NLP, meta-programming, etc.

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

I was being silly, hence my ambiguity. If I want to ruin the joke (and I do, since it wasn't funny anyway) I can explain:

Magic2 and Magic1 both, in the case of the experiment in this thread, are what may be being tested for. The way that it is being tested is determining whether or not someone does significantly better than they should given the rules (i.e., cheating) but is not breaking explicit rules (i.e., not cheating). So, we are checking for a method of cheating that we have yet to explain well enough to forbid it: getting into LMNO's computer and fudging the results is obviously against the rules, but breaking into LMNO's head in the future or using telekinetic mind bullets to screw with the random number generator or simply gaining insight into what the numbers are likely to be from having normal conversations with people who have seen them is not.

[fomenter]

mag2 is being tested for, mag1 is being preformed but only in the situation that the believers of mag2 may have there programing changed when the results effect there views on magic (maybe), changing the definition of cheating to include the magic2 you are attempting to perform  is adding unnecessary confusion..

[Iron Sulfide]

Wait, all cheating is the same?

I said it was all cheating, not that all cheating is the same.

let's say that
Cheating₁ is employed by conscious self deception.
Cheating₂ is employed by unconscious self deception.
cheating₃ is employed by conscious decieving of others.

for the sake of convenience, the numbers of cheating and magic correspond.

Magic1 bould be cheating1 in action. It would be cheating because it reworks systems
that your brain has set in place for the sake of its own survival.

Magic2 is cheating2 because you believe in means that (as far as we know) aren't at work,
the results of said magic2 (when there are any at all) are typically comprable to the results
of magic1. Should the results of magic2 be significantly different than magic1, or something
that is impossible using only magic1, i may reconsider.

i shant droll on further with magic3.

i would also like to throw in there that i read pg.1-5 ish and then jumped to about 13. there's probably backstory i haven't had time to read anyway.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Wait, all cheating is the same?

I said it was all cheating, not that all cheating is the same.

let's say that
Cheating₁ is employed by conscious self deception.
Cheating₂ is employed by unconscious self deception.
cheating₃ is employed by conscious decieving of others.

for the sake of convenience, the numbers of cheating and magic correspond.

Magic1 bould be cheating1 in action. It would be cheating because it reworks systems
that your brain has set in place for the sake of its own survival.

Magic2 is cheating2 because you believe in means that (as far as we know) aren't at work,
the results of said magic2 (when there are any at all) are typically comprable to the results
of magic1. Should the results of magic2 be significantly different than magic1, or something
that is impossible using only magic1, i may reconsider.

i shant droll on further with magic3.

i would also like to throw in there that i read pg.1-5 ish and then jumped to about 13. there's probably backstory i haven't had time to read anyway.

I see where you're coming from... but for me Magic1 seems more like modifying your own BiP, than cheating your brains survival system.

[fomenter]

why not call
conscious self deception. = conscious self deception.
unconscious self deception. = unconscious self deception.
cheating is employed by conscious deceiving of others.

it seems far simpler than creating multiple definitions for a word that has an understood definition already

[Iron Sulfide]

yeah, well enough people 'round here have no problem calling something "magic" when they have other, viable terms. Why aren't you bitching at them?

stop causing a threadjack.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

yeah, well enough people 'round here have no problem calling something "magic" when they have other, viable terms. Why aren't you bitching at them?

stop causing a threadjack.

PErhaps because magic is a viable term for what they're discussing? If you go read Crowley, he says "magic" and means Magic1. If we go through the works of Abremelin the Mage, what he calls Magic looks like Magic1. Same for Peter Carroll, Antero alli, Phil Hine, Phil Farber, Israel Regardie... etc.

Then of course, there are many modern writers like Silver Ravenwolf that use magic to describe magic2. And modern stage performers who use it to describe magic3.

As opposed to making up new definitions here in a PD.com thread for the word cheat

Not that I'm opposed to making up new words... as long as they're clearly defined for the use intended... or conveniently obscure in order to intentionally cause more chaos

[fomenter]

what rata just said... the  1 2 and 3 are pretty common and have been well established definitions for a long time