Tossing some food into the thought tank:
Project: design and conduct a scientific experiment which measures the effect of a sigil.
The sigil would be designed to affect the external world in a measurable way, like increasing the number of google hits for a specific phrase. No one but the designer would know this phrase (thereby preventing participants from consciously effecting results). The participants would charge the sigil using a time-old formula for acheiving gnosis ( :fap:). Over time, we would observe any fluctuations in hits for the target phrase.
Once data is collected and analyzed, we could then roll it up like a newspaper and hit people with it. Or maybe it'll hit us.
I checked the Randi Challenge and I couldn't find anybody trying anything with sigils (but some people that thought they could talk with angels). So, go for it.
I'm pretty sure this wouldn't work, since most people here subscribe to a psychological model of this sort of thing and so the effects of "magick" would be subjective and interpersonal.
But maybe I'm wrong. Ratatosk, what say you?
Quote from: Cain on October 01, 2008, 04:24:47 PM
I'm pretty sure this wouldn't work, since most people here subscribe to a psychological model of this sort of thing and so the effects of "magick" would be subjective and interpersonal.
yeah, my hypothesis is that we'd see no effect
but I'd
love to be proved wrong.
I don't even see how we could design an experiment that dealt with even half of the potential variables...
I agree, but what variables should we consider?
Factors:
We'll either need a lot of participants or a lot of time, preferably both. If we run enough trials, we should get a sense for whether we're having an effect despite possible external variables. Like if we run ten trials, and the sigil phrases consistently get more hits than non-sigil phrase, we can mathematically prove an effect.
We should track a few "target phrases" to get an idea of their stability and natural growth in hits
Assuming this process works, do you think the effect would be greater with more people wanking?
IE - have a sigil that one person is focusing on
vs a sigil that ten people are focusing on
participants know what their sigil's target phrase is
vs not knowing what the sigil means
the real rub is to find a way to investigate an effect that has no subjectivity about its results. I picked Google hits (off the top of my head) because it's something we can easily track and measure.
I think a focus group of some kind would probably (at the expense of objectivity) get you more interesting ideas.
what KIND of sigil? because a logo could be considered a sigil...or were you thinking of the sentence, remove the vowels, make a design with the remainder type of sigil?
Quote from: burnstoupee flapjacks on October 01, 2008, 06:01:50 PM
what KIND of sigil? because a logo could be considered a sigil...or were you thinking of the sentence, remove the vowels, make a design with the remainder type of sigil?
yeah, that kind.
statement of intent: "There will be more google hits for the phrase 'lard surfing'"
Quote from: Felix on October 01, 2008, 05:00:02 PM
I think a focus group of some kind would probably (at the expense of objectivity) get you more interesting ideas.
What kind of scientific research could we do with a focus group?
We're trying to prove/disprove things, not come up with ideas or market a product.
I'm just saying, since sociology and empiricism are difficult to mesh in practice.
Quote from: Cain on October 01, 2008, 04:24:47 PM
I'm pretty sure this wouldn't work, since most people here subscribe to a psychological model of this sort of thing and so the effects of "magick" would be subjective and interpersonal.
But maybe I'm wrong. Ratatosk, what say you?
In my experience, most, but not all of the time, I have found a psychological model which would usefully describe what the fuck had happened.
:lulz:
Quote from: Cramulus on October 01, 2008, 03:31:36 PM
No one but the designer would know this phrase
LOL; I have a feeling that this is the downfall of this project.
"What number am I thinking of?"
"Seven?"
"Oh... Ummmm... nope, you lose."
Interesting idea, Cram. This brings to mind a sigil I designed for the first MaybeLogic class that Pete Carroll taught. The seed phrase was "I will for this sigil to fail" and I used an image of Diogenes and his dog to pull attention away from the random glyph it turned into. That got a big laugh on the class forums, but I'm not sure how to measure the results of that one.
From reading AO Spare's stuff and commentaries, it seems to me that what makes a sigil 'work' lies in the proccess of obfuscating the statement of intent. The narrative of breaking a clear statement of intent down into something that the consious mind wont recognize seems to remain in the subconscious. Then, of course, you need to blot this narrative out of the conscious mind (Spare recommends taking a shit as a good method) and forget about the statement of intent. Thus, charging the sigil tells your subconscious that X IS REALLY FUCKING IMPORTANT, while complately distracting the conscious mind from X by flooding it with sense data that doesn't include the language used to encode the intent.
If it does work this way, then a groupwork where part of the origional statement is hidden may not be the most efficient method.
Maybe, "The Google Hits for one of the phrases from Cram's list will rise significantly." as intent. Then you can flash the list of phrases for a couple of hours and take it down. Then later let people develop their own sigils around the statement (thus, not the phrases).
I'll give this some more thought.
I've been fighting migraines for two days, but I'm feeling well enough to tackle this now ;-)
Quote from: Telarus on October 02, 2008, 08:54:05 AM
Interesting idea, Cram. This brings to mind a sigil I designed for the first MaybeLogic class that Pete Carroll taught. The seed phrase was "I will for this sigil to fail" and I used an image of Diogenes and his dog to pull attention away from the random glyph it turned into. That got a big laugh on the class forums, but I'm not sure how to measure the results of that one.
From reading AO Spare's stuff and commentaries, it seems to me that what makes a sigil 'work' lies in the proccess of obfuscating the statement of intent. The narrative of breaking a clear statement of intent down into something that the consious mind wont recognize seems to remain in the subconscious. Then, of course, you need to blot this narrative out of the conscious mind (Spare recommends taking a shit as a good method) and forget about the statement of intent. Thus, charging the sigil tells your subconscious that X IS REALLY FUCKING IMPORTANT, while complately distracting the conscious mind from X by flooding it with sense data that doesn't include the language used to encode the intent.
If it does work this way, then a groupwork where part of the origional statement is hidden may not be the most efficient method.
Maybe, "The Google Hits for one of the phrases from Cram's list will rise significantly." as intent. Then you can flash the list of phrases for a couple of hours and take it down. Then later let people develop their own sigils around the statement (thus, not the phrases).
I'll give this some more thought.
I agree. From what I've experimented with and from the 'magic' dudes I've talked with/taken classes from, well, let's look at Carroll's model:
M = G x L(1-A)(1-R)
Magic (M) is the desired result.
Gnosis(G) is the process of 'Sleight of Mind' :fap: or whatever
Magical Link (L) is the link between your goal and your subconscious (ie sigil, athame, etc)
A is Conscious Awareness (How aware you are about what you're doing)
R is Subconscious Resistance (the built in Psychic Sensor that says "Hey, Stupid, you can't do magic!")
So for a Result (M) you use Gnosis to overcome the Conscious Awareness (You distract your conscious mind from the task) and you use the Magical Link (L) to get by the Subconscious Resistance. Ergo, the Link (Sigil) needs to already have a connection to the intent in your subconscious. If Cram makes a sigil and passes it out, I would be surprised if there was any result, since the Sigil would have no LINK to intent in the subconscious.
I'm also very unsure that Sigil magic would work to up Google hits. In general, it seems most helpful in dealing with modifying perception or invoking new behaviors. Although, there would be a few ways we could test it.. maybe.
1. Each individual participating in the experiment would write down the Google search they're hoping to cause an effect upon.
2. The experimenter then creates a sigil based off of the search terms. The search terms are then placed in an envelope and sealed.
3. All Sigils are posted here without link to their statements.
4. The sigils are imagebombed across the Internet.
In theory, according to some sigil magicians, the meaning of the Sigil may exist in the 'collective' subconscious. So if we stick the sigil in from of many eyes, and if it is connected in some way to a meaning, then we might encourage people to subconsciously search google for it.
However, there seem to be a lot of IF's in this. For example, they would have to search the exact phrase, rather than a closely related phrase for us to catch it on Google. They would have to use Google, not some other search engine and 1) The Collective Subconscious would have to exist in some sense, 2) The Sigil would have to have a strong tie to the phrase in the collective subconscious.
However, at the end of the experimental time, everyone could post the before and after metrics for the phrase they used.
-----------------------------------------
In almost every case where I have done Magic, I've found the psychological model usefully describes what I experienced. However, I have also had results which, as of yet, are not explained in such a fashion.
For example, in one of the classes I took on Chaos Magic, someone did a ritual to invoke Ratatosk... ie me. They used a meditation technique with a mirror. The next day they emailed me and wanted to know if I had seen/felt anything around this particular time.
During that particular time, I had actually wandered into the bathroom and Sjaantze had found me, staring into the mirror with a blank expression on my face. When she said something to me, I felt ill and had to go lay down for about 20 minutes. This happened at exactly the same time as the 'invocation'.
It could have been a simple 'coincidance'. I dunno... but I have left it in the 'Don't Know What Happened' category for some years now ;-)
see that's what I'm curious about.
I follow the psychological model. But there's tons of anecdotal stuff (like that story) which gives credence to any number of other models. Phil Hine lists a few of 'em in Prime Chaos - the spritual model, the energy model, etc..
Here on PD, we've often bandied about the psychological model being the only "real" one... well I say let's SEE. Let's DO the reseach that no one else is doing and see if we can measurably, scientifically effect the external world by force of will.
I know the Amazing Randi has offered good money if you can prove that you can do magic. But he's looking for individuals with powers - to my knowledge, he's not investigating this angle.
My problem here is that we're looking for Correlation, not Causation.
Basically, if we don't have a hypothesis about the mechanics of the process, then all we're looking for is long-tail coincidence, and calling it evidence.
Basically, how can we remove our own Law Of Fives goggles if we don't really have an idea of what's actually happening?
but we're not studying mechanics, we're studying efficacy. Sigils could work because invisible cosmic angels carry out your will when given gnosis-charged instructions. I don't think that's relevant if the process works. If we show significant correlation, we don't really need to worry about causation. We'll have shown that a lot of internet spags jerking off over a sigil is somehow related to some obviously unrelated variable.
and if it doesn't work, we'll have some DATA to shout at pagans we're trolling
Quote from: Cramulus on October 02, 2008, 05:07:22 PM
see that's what I'm curious about.
I follow the psychological model. But there's tons of anecdotal stuff (like that story) which gives credence to any number of other models. Phil Hine lists a few of 'em in Prime Chaos - the spritual model, the energy model, etc..
Here on PD, we've often bandied about the psychological model being the only "real" one... well I say let's SEE. Let's DO the reseach that no one else is doing and see if we can measurably, scientifically effect the external world by force of will.
I know the Amazing Randi has offered good money if you can prove that you can do magic. But he's looking for individuals with powers - to my knowledge, he's not investigating this angle.
Well, sure. I think there are definately events which we can't really fit on the psychological model (at least not as of yet). However, sigil 'magic' in particular seems quite nicely tucked in there. I wonder if we couldn't either perform an experiment that is more closely aligned with what mosbunal people tie to Sigil 'magic' or find a set of tools more 'theoretically' likely to come up with results.
Right now, I feel like this particular experiment is trying to test a tool in a way its not designed to function... lack of data would result in "you're doing it wrong" conclusion rather than "See it Din't Werk!" Of coure, if we got some kind of strange correlation, then that would be very interesting. Antero Alli called me a couple days ago, I could shoot him a quick query and get his opinion... out of the crazy bastards I've learned from, he seems the most willing to go WAY Out on a limb, Peter tends to hold the psychological model pretty closely, Phil leaves a lot of space for Questions, but Antero seems willing to just go for whatever. I think that probably makes sense, as he also tends to be the most 'discordian' of the three as well. LOL.
(If Phil or Peter read this... I didn't mean it HONEST... DO Not Send Egrigores after me!!! Fnord)
So, maybe we should modify the plan, either to more accurately represent what mosbunal people think sigils do, OR use a different mechanism to play with Google.
So, Sigil ties to idea... should it be the idea "The Google Search Term "ijdsaoncsokncow" will get higher rankings" or "I will that more people search google using the term "njxchsocnso"." or "*Insert Google Search Term Here*?
The first and second fit more with traditional sigil magical statements, but they're also focusing on I and Will, both internal mechanisms. The third, would rely on the sigil carrying the meaning to the user in a memetic sense. So for the search term "His Majesty's Orbital Bombardment Squad" a sigil created/inspired by the term, could (in crazy madman theory) carry the full meme, implant it in the mind of the observer... and hopefully inspire them to search on that term.
But again, we're limited by the precise term (would a search on "Bombardment Squad" or "Majesty's Bombardment Squad" count in the final tally? What happens if they use a search engine other than google? Maybe the statement would have to be something like "Google *Foo*!!" where FOO = your search criteria. This would be a direct command, and if memes can be carried in sigils, then maybe it would work. We could still explain this kinda on a psychological model... but it would provide some evidence, that sigils can be used to invoke action, which is pretty damned impressive, I think.
Of course, we'd need a control, so maybe we need 10 people to make sigils and do rituals with 10 separate search terms. We need another 10 people to select a random search term, not create a sigil and see what happens. If the ratio of increased hits are average across all 20, then we've got nothing. If the increase in hits is overwhelmingly on the side of the sigil terms, then we have at least some circumstantial evidence and maybe some correlation. We'd need to have that as a base, I think, before we could even begin to create tests to understand causation, if causation actually exists. ;-)
I dunno... the migraine medication makes me loopy so maybe this is drivel.
Ask Iason, Vene and Kai to design the test.
They're all scientists, I'm sure they can come up with something rigourous and controlled. Maybe Cram and Richter, being our psych people and thus more used to discreete variables, can help and give input too.
Triple Zero and I were talking about this the other day..
he was talking about creating an audio sigil by cutting up the statement of intent and mixing into his electronica jogging mix. He figured the exhaustion / runner's high is a psychically suggestable state, adequate for lodging a suggestion in your subconscious.
and I pondered - I wonder if that's more effective than the :fap: method.
He also mentioned reading somewhere about chanting the statement of intent - which goes against what some of the traditional literature suggests, that you want to obfuscate the statement of intent because your conscious mind will handle it differently from your unconscious mind.
But we have no method of testing this.
Let's step away for a second from my previous proposal, that we're trying to basically challenge nearly every model except the psychological one. What about different levels of efficacy within the psychological model? Is there a methodology for creating a sigil which works better than the others? Is doodling a sigil in your notebook better or worse than the fap and forget method?
Being results-oriented, that angle might be a bit more useful.
Triple Zero's response to this was that measuring results would be hard, as sigils are most useful for kind of personal, internal things. It'd be challenging to design an operational measure of success.
Counterpoint: if you listen to Phil Hine and Grant Morrison, they suggest that sigils works for everything - winning the lottery is a common example which can't be explained by the psychological model. Surely there's a way to measure the effect.
Lemme keep brainstorming....
Group A: wanks to a sigil which with a statement "I will see Oscar the Grouch today." (or whatever)
Group B: wanks to a random symbol that looks like a sigil. But it's a placebo.
Group 1: is told their sigil means "I will see Oscar the Grouch today."
Group 2: is not told what their sigil means
So we have a 2x2 array of participants. Basically, everyone's in one of four groups, A1, A2, B1, B2.
Then, a day later, we have people fill out a survey:
It asks a number of questions about what their day was like. One of the questions is "Did you see Oscar the Grouch?"
I hypothesize we'll see a significant difference between group 1 and group 2. But not a significant difference between group A and group B.
-experimental note: best to pick a variable with countable, rather than boolean results. The results of the question "Did you see Oscar y/n" will be harder to prove significant than "How many times did you see <whatever>"
I think that structure is good.
I'd also suggest two tests, in total. One external (as described above) and perhaps one more internal, for the sake of science. Same methods would apply, but it would be interesting to see the results.
the cool thing is that if we actually do find significant results -- which will support the idea that sigils are a functional way to hack your unconscious mind -- we can retrial with all sorts of interesting variations.
like - are audio sigils more effective than visual ones?
also: for good data, we should have at least 16 participants. Which might be hard to come by without recruiting elsewhere.
Get everyone on IRC involved. That has to bring us pretty close to 16. Plus we could ask the few #irreality spags hanging around to participate.
oh good call
I like that test Cram, though I don't know if the time period would fit with what most systems would claim... that is, not a simple glance at the sigil and then later that day guaranteed results. The individuals would need to have some sort of recurring interacting with the sigil, or at least some level or ritual/gnosis while focusing on the sigil.
The audio sigil is a good idea, but I wonder if it would appear more like subliminal messages?
I'd add multiple thresholds maybe... check results in 1 day, 2 days, 3 days... though I dunno how to check results without indicating the goal to the participant.
Also, I wonder if we should have another set of testers that we trick... that is we say "The Sigil means "I will see Big Bird today"... at the end we could check their results against both group 1 and 2...
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 08, 2008, 04:10:48 PMAlso, I wonder if we should have another set of testers that we trick... that is we say "The Sigil means "I will see Big Bird today"... at the end we could check their results against both group 1 and 2...
I had that same thought, but I'm a little more concerned that the sample size is so low. If Cain's number of 16 people is accurate that is just not enough to remove random chance. Without a decent sample size adding new groups would make the data generated even less reliable.
these are awesome ideas.
except one thing, i think these experiments are super interesting, BUT i'm srsly not going to fap to any symbol or whatever (or at least, post about it on the internets afterwards :-P ). it's ... a religious thing, maybe.
so, different method of gnosis, please.
Quote from: triple zero on October 09, 2008, 12:22:25 AM
these are awesome ideas.
except one thing, i think these experiments are super interesting, BUT i'm srsly not going to fap to any symbol or whatever (or at least, post about it on the internets afterwards :-P ). it's ... a religious thing, maybe.
so, different method of gnosis, please.
Laughter, Meditation, High Ritual, Repetitive Copy, sex and/or drugs mixed with and and all of the above ;-)
Basically, sleight of mind, force your focus to something else (or in the case of meditation... that to the exclusion of everything until it loses meaning). In Carrolls model it's the variable used to overcomes 'conscious awareness'.
FUCK IT! i'll be your MAN! :fap: gimme the sigil! :fap: (give it a little makeup and those knee high stockings [in red], plzkthnx)
Pics start at $5.00
Vids start at $20.00
overseas: http://www.xe.com/ucc/
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 09, 2008, 04:23:21 AMQuote from: triple zero on October 09, 2008, 12:22:25 AMthese are awesome ideas.
except one thing, i think these experiments are super interesting, BUT i'm srsly not going to fap to any symbol or whatever (or at least, post about it on the internets afterwards :-P ). it's ... a religious thing, maybe.
so, different method of gnosis, please.
Laughter, Meditation, High Ritual, Repetitive Copy, sex and/or drugs mixed with and and all of the above ;-)
Basically, sleight of mind, force your focus to something else (or in the case of meditation... that to the exclusion of everything until it loses meaning). In Carrolls model it's the variable used to overcomes 'conscious awareness'.
yeah i know, it's just, if we're going to make this into an experiment, it's one variable we need to keep constant (for most experiments), if everybody picks their own different method, any results might vary wildly. at least in my (psychological) model of these things, you use it to somehow imprint the intent on your mind when it's in a vulnerable/receptive state (seems plausible to me, right?), but what
exactly gets imprinted (and what not) would IMO depend a lot on exactly what kind of state you're in.
to carry out this experiment, we'd need to make sure to pin down as much variables as possible, highly controlled conditions. basically a detailed step-by-step guide, so people can easily participate.
what do you mean by "repetitive copy"? as in repeating a mantra? or a movement? or something else?
other ways of gnosis i've read about are physical exhaustion (i like this one, esp if you include the runner's high) and hyperventilation/forced loss of consciousness (doesn't sound too healthy to me, oxygen deprivation, brain damage, much?).
personally i could incorporate the physical exhaustion thing in my exercise routine, but that might not be for everybody.
i would guess that for the average forumite/discordian that might join this experiment, the Gnosis by Laughter and Gnosis by Meditation methods might appeal to most, wouldn't you think?
* so let's pick either Laughter or Meditation or a combination of those two (got any practical ideas on how to combine them? you said "all of the above" which is nice, but in practice?)
another thing, i'd like Netaungrot's input on this. he came up a couple times earlier with these short questionnaires things, that cut right to the heart of the matter, with questions like "what is your goal?", "how are you going to go about achieving this" and "what do you expect to happen?" and afterwards "how did it turn out for you, what would you change?", stuff like that. having people fill out these questionnaires before during and after the experiment would greatly facilitate our drawing of conclusions, or at least guide us to design an improved experiment for round two.
second difficulty, apart from "testing out chaos magic", what IS our goal? what should the Statement of Intent be? if we're going to do Cram's 2x2 grid, or per cain's suggestion, that twice, we cannot publically brainstorm on the Statement of Intent because part of the group isn't supposed to know it.
On the other hand, if we
do agree publically on a Statement of Intent, and then, as soon as everybody crafted their Sigils, delete it from the thread (as part of the ritual), I somehow have the idea we'd get better results. but in that case we cannot vary the variables "knows the SoI/doesn't know/real Sigil/fake Sigil" etc.
BUT, is that really necessary right away? Shouldnt we measure the success of the ritual without varying the personal method too much?
How about varying the SoI? We'd need to pick 4 Statements of Intent, all of them of roughly equal "difficulty" (so, some strict unoriginal variations of them), with an objective method of measuring Success afterwards (I think hits on some kind of search engine thing varying keywords may be a good idea):
(public SoI / public Sigil) SoI-A will be publically brainstormed, in this thread, the Sigil will be constructed as part of a group effort also in this thread (let's use Gliffy for that), then it will be frozen, the Statement of Intent itself will be edited/deleted from the thread, and everybody in group A will use the same method of gnosis (say, Laughter) to charge and fire the sigil for themselves. after that, the Sigil will also be deleted from the thread (and destroyed, and wiped and such).
(public SoI / private Sigil) SoI-B will also be publically brainstormed in this thread, as a strict variation of SoI-A (same challenge, different keywords), but in this case, everybody who is part of group B will craft their own personal sigil, following a strict step-by-step procedure that still allows for personal involvement/creativity (say, that letter/word method that you read everywhere about), then charge, fire and destroy it. Also all following the same method of gnosis, same as group A.
(private SoI / public Sigil) SoI-C will be made up by one person, again, same challenge, different keywords. S/he will construct a Sigil for this SoI that s/he will pass around privately to all the participants in group C, who will then independently charge, fire and destroy the sigil according to a set step-by-step procedure.
(private SoI / private Sigil) This would be the test-group, null-hypothesis, of some sorts. Not entirely certain about it, but I suppose everybody in group D could pick their own keyword, craft a sigil, charge it, fire it and destroy it all by themselves. Alternatively, somebody could think of a bunch of related SoIs, put them in a sealed envelope (see below), tell everybody in group D they're part of the experiment but they won't get a SoI or Sigil, and are instructed to carry out the charge/fire/destroy ritual with a doodle they made by themselves without any particular special meaning.
i just realized btw that instead of completely destroying the SoIs, they should be kept in a sealed envelope or something, because otherwise you cannot measure the level of success afterwards :)
so we need a way to generate reasonably "equal difficulty" SoIs. in scientific wording that means that the a priori probability of success must be reasonably equal.
the easiest type of target would be "number of google hits on keywords X and Y", which can easily be tracked with Google Trends and a bunch of other SEO tools.
However, in order to level the playing field a bit, i'd like to narrow it down somewhat more. So, not just any keyword X and Y, but selected from a particular criterium using dice or coins (people might be biased to pick easy or harder targets on purpose, so leave it to the dice). Ideas:
- sports teams, preferably selected randomly with dice, together with perhaps the word "wins" or "loses" (coinflip)
- random picks of three words from a "good" wordlists [i have a few, but you cannot pick just any random combo from a huge default wordlist, because research has shown that, on average, a google query for 2-3 truly random words is so uncommon that it usually yields
nothing but hits for the wordlist they were picked from in the first place :) ]
- like the above, except you do it three times, and look at the ratio of the number of hits relative to the numbers at the start of the experiment. the SoI can then be picked randomly with a coinflip for each of these queries to go up or down, yielding another 2x2x2=8 possibilities.
i like the last one best, because the a-priori probability of success seems reasonably leveled to me, while still allowing for a good focus of intent (because the words have meaning).
though the SoI may become a bit too complex? any ideas?
In the last idea, it would become something like
"IT IS MY WILL THAT THE GOOGLE QUERY FOR APPLE+YELLOW GOES UP, ZEBRA+EXPLODES GOES DOWN AND TWILIGHT+FOUR DOWN ALSO"
.. and that kinda brings me to what i don't like about the word-method. if you remove all duplicate letters to make the sigil, before you even get to "IT IS MY WILL THAT THE GOOGLE QUERY FOR", half of the alphabet is already used up, but it's the same for each SoI! I never quite understood what's the deal with that, and something inside me really wants to "fix" this by leaving out or separating the letters that are always the same. thoughts anyone?
I am having an email conversation with various teachers over at MLA, looking for feedback on the proposed experiment. Here's what Phil Farber had to say on the subject:
Quote
I think these could be interesting... however, there's a sticky problem
concerning the levels of intent here. Ultimately, what is the intent of the
experiment as a whole? That is, it seems to me that you have an over-arching
intent for this which is not clearly spelled out - that is, do you want to
demonstrate magick, or evaluate techniques or something of that sort?
I hadn't considered this. Our Intent is to experiment... or gather data or something like that. The 'intent' we've been discussing is simply a mechanism.
QuoteIt's tough to separate the experiment from experimenter with this kind of stuff.
Another factor here... While I'm not real big on sigil magick in general, I do
think sigil magick is most effective for the person who creates the sigil. So
maybe you need Group D, the sigil creators.
I'll be asking what model he would consider more useful, though I think his point fits somewhat with my experiences with Sigils and what many practitioners have stated. So that's something to consider, at least as another test group.
Quote
Yet another experimental factor is the specificness of the intent... If you are
going to be very specific (I will see Oscar the Grouch, for instance), then you
need to pick something that has a statistically even chance of occurring without
the magick influence. For instance, "I will see the Sun go Supernova at high
noon on Thursday" is specific, yet highly improbable given the epistemological
foundations of our cultural perspective. "I will see a candidate for President
lie on television" is so highly probable that it would demonstrate very little.
This also fits with my view of Magic, it may nudge things a bit, but certianly isn't going to change reality to suit your every whim :)
QuoteIt might be worthwhile to start with smaller bits and pieces. How about each
participant creates a sigil for a similar, yet generalized personal goal? "I
will make a new friend." Or "I will make extra money." Something that is
possible within every participant's epistemological framework, yet something
perhaps measurable in some way. Once you've worked out a protocol at this level,
you might start putting the pieces together into a larger scale experiment.
And this leads us frighteningly close to Cram's original post. ;-)
I'll be responding to him with more questions, if anyone here has questions post them and I'll include them.
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 09, 2008, 09:15:08 PMQuoteI think these could be interesting... however, there's a sticky problem
concerning the levels of intent here. Ultimately, what is the intent of the
experiment as a whole? That is, it seems to me that you have an over-arching
intent for this which is not clearly spelled out - that is, do you want to
demonstrate magick, or evaluate techniques or something of that sort?
I hadn't considered this. Our Intent is to experiment... or gather data or something like that. The 'intent' we've been discussing is simply a mechanism.
i disagree. the goal of the experiment is to determine whether "intent" can have a measurable influence on events following a chaos magic ritual. first thing is to see whether it actually does
anything, and only after that we can worry about whether it was the "lower" levels of intent or this "meta-intent" the guy hints at here.
at least, that's IMO.
first target of success would be to show that anything deviating from statistic normalcy actually happens.
i suppose the overarching intent of the experiment is slightly biased towards success, so i don't see much of a problem there either.
then, given that we can conduct followup experiments or investigate the data better to see if techniques can be improved.
but if the "meta intent" is going to muddle up things, then at least we'll know
something has happened, which is a good first step IMO, but it remains to be seen if this is actually the case.
QuoteQuoteAnother factor here... While I'm not real big on sigil magick in general, I do
think sigil magick is most effective for the person who creates the sigil. So
maybe you need Group D, the sigil creators.
I'll be asking what model he would consider more useful, though I think his point fits somewhat with my experiences with Sigils and what many practitioners have stated. So that's something to consider, at least as another test group.
uhh am i being dense or is this guy?
this is exactly what my split "private sigil / public sigil" is about right? one group makes the sigils themselves, the other gets them handed to them.
the difference is, that we cannot assume that it is more effective, the point is that we're going to
find out, because it remains to be seen.
QuoteQuoteYet another experimental factor is the specificness of the intent... If you are
going to be very specific (I will see Oscar the Grouch, for instance), then you
need to pick something that has a statistically even chance of occurring without
the magick influence. For instance, "I will see the Sun go Supernova at high
noon on Thursday" is specific, yet highly improbable given the epistemological
foundations of our cultural perspective. "I will see a candidate for President
lie on television" is so highly probable that it would demonstrate very little.
This also fits with my view of Magic, it may nudge things a bit, but certianly isn't going to change reality to suit your every whim :)
yes. instead of "statistically even chance of occurring without the magick influence", i call it having the same the
a priori probability.
so, was my explanation about using the triple search-query results too complicated? because this is exactly what that set-up is addressing:
a way to randomly generate evenly distributed goals that have a evenly spread out chance of success and failure.
QuoteQuoteIt might be worthwhile to start with smaller bits and pieces. How about each
participant creates a sigil for a similar, yet generalized personal goal? "I
will make a new friend." Or "I will make extra money." Something that is
possible within every participant's epistemological framework, yet something
perhaps measurable in some way. Once you've worked out a protocol at this level,
you might start putting the pieces together into a larger scale experiment.
And this leads us frighteningly close to Cram's original post. ;-)
it sounds to me like getting frighteningly close to designing the experimental for success only.
it's not science if you keep saying that having a possibility of the hypothesis being proven wrong indicates a failed experiment.
IF the inpersonal goals appear to not work in the first experiment, that does not yet indicate a failure for chaos magic, but will in fact teach us something about what chaos magic is NOT able to do.
this is WAY more valuable information than setting up people will small personal goals in a self-actualizing exercise, being guaranteed of moderate success because you have basically proven nothing except the already proven psychological "priming" effect.
it's not science if you aren't expecting failure.
if the first experiment yields only positive (for magic) results right away, it means we set out goals too wide.
i can understand that this guy likes his magic wishy-washy and is afraid that a cold experiment might make us dismiss the system in its entirety, but i think that our group can look beyond that:
- we start out on the overall assumption that it does *something*
- if we find that certain things do not work, we have learned something. it does NOT, however, indicate a failed experiment.
- when certain things do not work, we make a new experiment and try if something else might work instead
- repeat
it is, however, imporant, to find out, if the guy says "this won't work" -- well only one way to find out, is there? it sounds to me, he's afraid of us "doing it wrong", and then concluding "it doesnt work at all" as opposed to "this method does not work". ... as if people are going to care even if we 100% certain prove without a doubt that chaos magic is 169% sockfuckery ;-)
at the very least we should design our experiment so that from about half of the test groups we can expect failure and the other half success. and ONLY when we get a result that does NOT correspond to our hypothesis, we will have learned something. that's falsifiability.
so, if you wanna prove, that "magic works", you need to construct an experiment that is able to falsify the hypothesis that "magic doesn't work". it's the only way. running an experiment that confirms a hypothesis teaches you absolutely nothing in a scientific manner.
QuoteI'll be responding to him with more questions, if anyone here has questions post them and I'll include them.
maybe you can rephrase my questions a bit.
Excellent post 000.
I agree with a lot of what you have said here... and I find Phil's 'wishy washy' view when it comes to this sort of thing appears common among people that practice this sort of thing. If it's all psychological then that makes a lot of sense, if its all nonsense then such a viewpoint also makes a lot of sense ;-)
So we could look at a number of groups:
Group 1 - A group of people that agree on a "statement of intent" and create a personal sigil tied to the statement. They need to do some sort of sigil magick and monitor results.
Group 2 - A group of people that are given the sigils created by Group 1 and not told the meaning. They need to do some sort of sigil magick and monitor results.
Group 3 - A group of people that are given the sigils created by Group 1 and told the meaning. They need to do some sort of sigil magick and monitor results.
Group 4 - A group of people that are given the sigils created by Group 1 and told a false meaning. They need to do some sort of sigil magick and monitor results.
First, perhaps we should do a control test though to answer questions like:
Can any measurable result be noted at all?
What period of time is necessary to see an effect?
So maybe the first test are 3 groups of people that simply fill the Group 1 role. Create sigils for an agreed upon statement of intent, try and make them work, that gives us three groups which we could use to test the usefulness of multiple types of gnosis and/or different statements of intent (maybe we need more groups?).
Once we get data from that, it should inform our decisions on crafting statements of intent and gnosis styles for the larger experiment.
Now, as to your earlier point about the type of gnosis to be used. We could require that everyone use the same method, but this doesn't really fit the normal recommendations by CM practitioners. The method of gnosis supposedly depends heavily on the individual. However, we could use Carroll's "formula" as a way of recording results:
M = GL(1-a)(1-r)
The Magical Effect is equal to G (gnosis) x L (Magical Link) and affected by a (conscious awareness) and r (subconscious resistance). With all variables between 0 and 1. So the most perfect ritual would be:
1x1(1-1)(1-1)
Or, a very powerful level of Gnosis distracts the conscious awareness while a strong 'magical link' slips through the subconscious resistance.
In our experiments the 'L' will be the sigil, so that should be static. That leaves 'G' 'a' and 'r' as variables and no matter what we do, they will be variables by individual... each individual has a different level of conscious awareness and subconscious resistance... and each person will achieve different levels of Gnosis... even if we use the same method.
If we can't push these variables out of the experiment, we could use Carrolls equation... that is we could request that people fill in their own variable numbers... it would at least give us their subjective view...
Thoughts?
ehm yeah, you meant to say that the perfect ritual would be 1 x 1 x (1 - 0) x (1 - 0), right? (cause 1 - 1 = 0 and multiplies everything to 0)
also, if we want to reduce the variation in variables a and r (which is what we want for a controlled experiment), i think they'd vary less if everybody did the same gnosis technique, as when everybody would pick their own, no?
we could ask people to fill in these variables as part of the questionaire after the ritual in either case, that's a good idea (among with other questions about their perceived levels of success).
but actually using Carrol's formula, as in, actually multiplying those numbers together, is a bad idea IMO. cause his formula is more useful in the sense as to demonstrate "these variables have a positive effect and these negative" than to actually calculate a numerical value for M. mostly because the way the formula is constructed now, assumes that all these variables affect eachother in a linear way, which i'm pretty certain is not the case.
a more general formula would be needed to calculate a useful number, accounting for non-linearity: M = GαLβ(1 - a)γ(1 - r)δ with the four exponents being unknown, so we're not going to do that, cause it'll just add more variables to the experiment :)
your example of four groups sounds like a good plan, it would get a different hypothesis than the experiment i proposed, cause everybody uses the same sigils. this requires the Statement of Intent to be a personal one (like "It is my will that I will find a quarter on the street next week") instead of the more general ones with google search queries ("it is my will that the amount of hits for the query animal+regard are decreased next week"), because those will either be true or not, regardless of the group.
your hypothesis would then be "group 1 will measure significantly more results than the other groups" ? [i'm a bit confused now, can you have more than one hypothesis? will the group 4 false meaning be the opposite of the true meaning or something unrelated?]
also,
since i think we pretty much covered a lot of ground by now, and we're not going to get it perfect the first try anyway, as long as we take care in being a bit precise and document the fuck out of everything,
it is my will that we will Get On With It and that whoever comes up with the first detailed step-by-step plan is what we will follow ;-)
(NOT E-PRIMED, CONSIDER ALL OF THIS AS 'true' ONLY IN THE MODEL AS I UNDERSTAND IT)
Yes... that's what I meant, though Carroll also says that you never actually get 1, you get .91 or .895967 ;-)
However, yes, I do consider that more demonstration and less actual maths ;-)
As for the gnosis issue, its tricky. Since Gnosis is designed to distract conscious awareness, a lot of the success depends on the conscious starte of the individual. For example, not to be weird, but if you masturbate and I masturbate, we may not experience the same level of 'distraction' because we're different ages, different nerve endings, different techniques, and different psychological profiles... for example, I was raised my entire life to think that God would kill me if I jerked off, so my programming would probably involve different issues than maybe yours (assuming you didn't have the same background).
Also, the method of gnosis isn't supposed to matter... it's the LEVEL of gnosis that is supposed to count. What do you need to do to distract your conscious mind... what do you need to do to perform a little sleight of mind?
So we can certianly try it with the same techniques, but that may not be addressing a variable problem... (since the variable would be the individual neurological system). More food for thought.
Of course, all of this is terribly subjective, so I dunno how exact we can ever get, but we try :)
I agree about moving forward though. So to an earlier post I recommend this:
We get the folks that have experience playing with 'magic' models to come up with an experiment based on what has worked for them.
We get the folks that have experience playing with the scientific method and developing experiments to work through how the above experiment could be conducted with minimal variables etc.
We then try it.
So, Mang, Hoop, LMNO... who else around here has played in the magic model much? Cram? 000?
Bueller?
actually i never really did much with sigils and chaos-magic, i merely find it highly intriguing, and think that from the psychological/priming perspective only it should at least have some measure of success.
no wait, i did once ... but, i can't quite remember the exact statement of intent (that's a good thing?) apart from that i probably did it wrong because what i remember of the goal hasn't been accomplished. the sigil wasn't based on the word method, but some free-form qabalistic symbolism mashup (which should work just as well, no?), drawed it on my chest and went running then showered it off. i should have the statement of intent hidden somewhere in one of my books that i was fairly certain i wouldn't pick up any time soon (totally forgot which one, though)
it seems to me like we are approaching a time where a lot of the 'magic' (even sigil-type magic) is being done by accident these days
along the same lines as the proliferation of musicians on myspace
decades of dedicate study and effort and trial and error could be poured in by one individual to make something successful, but that will be nothing in comparison to the number of people with Photoshop and Illustrator designing their own logos and forum signatures thru the entirity of the web
and due to the sheer volume - a well calculated logo or image would seem to simply fade amongst the ones that accomplished the same objective accidentally
and - no disrespect to any musicians using myspace
my point was that there is some sick shit being put online by individuals that is on par or better than what youll find being distributed by big companies
and then the focus shifts toward creative ways of presenting these sigils. a musician on myspace is expected to have a logo. but give it some contrast....i dunno...an occult looking sigil on a better homes and gardens ad might be more effective. also, perhaps a text based one might be easier to convey..
you know like these: o_O or X_X or ":)"
also if it's text based...it's searchable.
BUMP. Now read this:
http://www.technoccult.com/archives/2008/11/08/zen-werewolf-presents-embued-spaces-technosigilic-approaches-for-hypersaturation-of-intent/
QuoteZen Werewolf Presents: Embued Spaces - Technosigilic Approaches for Hypersaturation of Intent
November 8th, 2008 by Klintron @ Technoccult
(http://www.foolishpeople.com/.a/6a00d8341ce42b53ef010535db5274970b-800wi)By summary of way, this article intends to reframe your understanding of literacy before condensing the bulk of the content presented across the body of the document down to four simple steps for deeper exploration. First off, you'll note the pretentious title. Before we get started, let me ask you to click this link. Don't worry, it'll open in an entirely new window, and you won't lose your place here. I asked you to click the link to distract you from the pretentious title, but that title is likely what lead you to read at least the first three sentences in this paragraph. What does this mean?
Full Story: Foolish People (http://www.foolishpeople.com/)
Done with the article?
Now rethink the whole experimental setup we have going here, knowing what you now know after having read that article.
In regards to Caroll's formula, perhaps the experiment could also try for focusing all of one's awareness on the goal (as opposed to none). I've seen some debate as whether or not the goals of magick are to have an empty mind or simply a highly focused mind.
Also, it's been stated (at least almost) that a more concrete effect could be tested for. I personally like this idea, maybe even as far to suggest attempts at moving some small object (like a dime or a pin), something that is easy to move, but would give a definite "holy shit it worked!" moment.
I would suggest having two "sigils", each linked once from the same place, one of which in charged with the intent "link to me", and one charged with something totally different, like "eat pie". They should be linked to by the same somewhat uncommon phrase (something with maybe 10 or 15 image results). Then, we see if one gets significantly higher in results.
Quote from: Telarus on November 09, 2008, 10:30:53 PM
Full Story: Foolish People (http://www.foolishpeople.com/)
Done with the article?
Now rethink the whole experimental setup we have going here, knowing what you now know after having read that article.
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure that article had little to do with this thread.
The concept of this project is to test the validity of sigil techniques, not to find a new innovative way to use sigils.
What really jumped out at me was the method of saturating a public space with sigils. If they are tagged to some kind of icon, and scattered around, would they affect public behavior. For example, if you add a weird looking scribble, and the tag "Check your feet" onto a couple of Postergasm posters, and then scatter just the weird little scribble on random places (to saturate a given sapce).... would people look down more?
What would happen in a few weeks later a new poster that said "Look up more" appeared.
So
see poster + weird squiggle --> look at feet (unconditioned response)
you're hoping that over time,
see squiggle --> look at feet (conditioned response)
can you think of a testable methodology?
With hidden cameras, you can test the statistics of how much people look at their feet for quite an extended period of time. Then stick up the posters, and keep on filming.
Quote from: Cramulus on November 10, 2008, 08:16:15 PM
So
see poster + weird squiggle --> look at feet (unconditioned response)
you're hoping that over time,
see squiggle --> look at feet (conditioned response)
can you think of a testable methodology?
I fail to see how that tests magical powers of sigils at all. We already know marketing works.
I find it interesting how far clear the more serious science types are staying from this thread...
The Art of Memetics would have you believe that marketing and magic are very very similar creatures.
Both deal with manipulating nervous systems and causing a change in the universe.
Most people in marketing are better at it than most chaos mages. :wink:
there didn't seem to be enough energy in this thread to move it from "thought experiment" to "actual experiment", but it was a good discussion. I really would be curious to see if sigil effects can be measured, or if they're totally just placebo.
Quote from: Cramulus on November 11, 2008, 07:53:46 PM
The Art of Memetics would have you believe that marketing and magic are very very similar creatures.
Both deal with manipulating nervous systems and causing a change in the universe.
Most people in marketing are better at it than most chaos mages. :wink:
there didn't seem to be enough energy in this thread to move it from "thought experiment" to "actual experiment", but it was a good discussion. I really would be curious to see if sigil effects can be measured, or if they're totally just placebo.
QuoteI really would be curious to see if sigil effects can be measured, or if they're totally just placebo.
And the difference is? ;-)
The placebo is the most potent drug on the market.
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 11, 2008, 07:57:55 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on November 11, 2008, 07:53:46 PM
QuoteI really would be curious to see if sigil effects can be measured, or if they're totally just placebo.
And the difference is? ;-)
Same as the difference between drug and placebo groups in clinical trials
One is a drug
One is a fake
Quote from: Cramulus on November 11, 2008, 11:35:23 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 11, 2008, 07:57:55 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on November 11, 2008, 07:53:46 PM
QuoteI really would be curious to see if sigil effects can be measured, or if they're totally just placebo.
And the difference is? ;-)
Same as the difference between drug and placebo groups in clinical trials
One is a drug
One is a fake
Sometimes the effect of the placebo outperforms the drug.
let me rephrase:
wouldn't you want to know if there was a difference in effect between using a sigil
and not using a sigil?
Quote from: Cramulus on November 12, 2008, 04:05:28 AM
let me rephrase:
wouldn't you want to know if there was a difference in effect between using a sigil
and not using a sigil?
Ah, now that I can agree with ;-)
Quote from: Cramulus on November 12, 2008, 04:05:28 AM
let me rephrase:
wouldn't you want to know if there was a difference in effect between using a sigil
and not using a sigil?
Of course.
But I'd need to brush up on my experiment design before I could contribute to this thread. Any recommendations? I was getting to that before I hopped majors.
It seems we'd need to make the plan super rigorous and polished in order to get it funded.
Or am I mistaken in thinking such an experiment would need to be of a large scale?
Quote from: Net on November 13, 2008, 02:19:01 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on November 12, 2008, 04:05:28 AM
let me rephrase:
wouldn't you want to know if there was a difference in effect between using a sigil
and not using a sigil?
Of course.
But I'd need to brush up on my experiment design before I could contribute to this thread. Any recommendations? I was getting to that before I hopped majors.
It seems we'd need to make the plan super rigorous and polished in order to get it funded.
Or am I mistaken in thinking such an experiment would need to be of a large scale?
The original vibe was it'd be something we could do on the net
not intending to submit it to a peer reviewed journal or anything - just our own little web study
In that case, why not use something quite simple to test? Sell cookies, and have a sigil on each jar, with only one actually charged with the intent of "buy me", with all the cookies the same type. Start with the same number of cookies in each jar, and at the end of the day, see which jar has the least cookies, and whether or not the same jar is the one with the charged sigil. You can make it double-blind by having the person who charged the sigil be different from the person who sold the cookies.
Additionally, you can do a follow-up experiment if the charged sigil worked best, wherein all the sigils are charged, but only one is charged with the intent of "buy me" -- the rest are given dummy intents, like "pick your nose" or "read a book" or "wank later".
Quote from: Cramulus on November 13, 2008, 02:29:26 AM
Quote from: Net on November 13, 2008, 02:19:01 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on November 12, 2008, 04:05:28 AM
let me rephrase:
wouldn't you want to know if there was a difference in effect between using a sigil
and not using a sigil?
Of course.
But I'd need to brush up on my experiment design before I could contribute to this thread. Any recommendations? I was getting to that before I hopped majors.
It seems we'd need to make the plan super rigorous and polished in order to get it funded.
Or am I mistaken in thinking such an experiment would need to be of a large scale?
The original vibe was it'd be something we could do on the net
not intending to submit it to a peer reviewed journal or anything - just our own little web study
Well, that makes my science hard-on droop miserably.
Do you have any other experiments in mind that would at least lend this one some credibility?
Quote from: Cramulus on November 11, 2008, 07:53:46 PM
The Art of Memetics would have you believe that marketing and magic are very very similar creatures.
As would the Chaos Marxist people, who I dropped off a copy of the text to, after noting the similarities.
i forget the thread where this was originally created but what if we took this symbol: (http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa261/broodwitch/symbol.jpg)
or just a meme that's unique to this board and see if we can "create change" with it? or even something like "TITCM". come up with a way to measure the results. if the goal is to get the meme to spread right so the only thing we're looking for is "Buzz." Or take something like the AWS and operate it as a marketing department. We even have a nice list of meme bombs going... see if we can get our coworkers to repeat it to us as if it's the brand new thing.
course then i'm probably just dreamin.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 01, 2008, 03:31:36 PM
Tossing some food into the thought tank:
Project: design and conduct a scientific experiment which measures the effect of a sigil.
The sigil would be designed to affect the external world in a measurable way, like increasing the number of google hits for a specific phrase. No one but the designer would know this phrase (thereby preventing participants from consciously effecting results). The participants would charge the sigil using a time-old formula for acheiving gnosis ( :fap:). Over time, we would observe any fluctuations in hits for the target phrase.
Once data is collected and analyzed, we could then roll it up like a newspaper and hit people with it. Or maybe it'll hit us.
I just read this now somehow.
I like this idea. I'm willing to try.
Also, I have only read the OP at this point... I will read the rest on my lunch today.
the update to the OP is that I don't personally have the time/patience for rigorous experimental design, that with all the other stuff I have going on right now. For this project to move forward it needs some more dedicated leadership.
Even if we take no action, I still think it's a pretty good thread in terms of discussion / thought experiment.
I don't know that I could until the end of November, but after that it should be all good. Mang might be one to ask as well, if he hasn't been involved already.