|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9981 Posts |
I am alwaysy amazed at those who feel a need to attack when someone has a different opinion or point of view that theirs, tosses about disparaging terms and then proceeds to draw false assumptions.
Entity -- I disagree with most of what you say, offer opinions based on life experience, and see nothing in what you say that would change my perceptions -- but do not consider your opinions either nonsense or ludicrous. you say, "To suggest that ignorance is somehow proof of the supernatural is ludicrous." Of course, I never suggested that at all, do not equate "ignorance" with those who don't "understand the science involved" -- whatever that means. Since we are all the expert you are in involved science I guess everyone here is ignorant. I have never offered any proof of the supernatural (oops, I thought we were discussing paranormal), any ointing out that youo have not either. So, I will try again in simpler terms: Magic and paranormal can never be proved scientifically, for if they can be replicated, predicted or taught they are not magic nor paranormal. Yet, every person has some sense of what magic is and what is paranormal in the psychic sense -- usually because of some experience with unexplainable phenomena. As performers we awaken this sense of the impossible -- but do not create it. It doesn't matter what scientist say (or your opinion), spectators will see things happen and label them either magic or paranormal by their own wits and experiences. Of course, you are probably expert in what all spectators think, which would make you psychic by my definition -- so, why are you interested in proofs at all? Just for fun, why don't you pretend that someone else's world view might have value, and attempt to learn from it. Since I have published books on this theme with hundreds of reader comments supporting these views, just maybe we are not all in error.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
IAIN Eternal Order england 18807 Posts |
Just because something can be replicated by other means, doesn't discount the other/original means...
just because a master forger can replicate to a high degree a piece of art by say, Dali...does not mean they are as talented or contain the artistry to create such pieces without having the original to mimmick... it might look the same, but the inner process is entirely different... I think part of the problem with testing psychic ability, or even understanding what, potentially, psychic ability means...is that we do not understand the human mind quite enough right now... if we don't understand something completely - to its full potential, how can we test its limits or inherent/hidden abilities? look how different peoples brains are wired, savants, autism, even tourettes...synesthesia and other such things...the mind is too vast and magnificent to say a definitive "no" to what we currently call "psychic ability" - as we genuinely don't fully understand what we are capable of...and that's the wonder and the fun of the human mind, and the term "psychic" (in my opinion - not stated as fact)....
I've asked to be banned
|
|||||||||
Garrette Special user 926 Posts |
Quote: I know this was directed at entity, but I would like to address this idea that if it's explained it isn't paranormal. In a sense you're right, but only after the fact.
On 2010-11-14 18:03, funsway wrote: If some claimed ability is considered paranormal now and is then found to have an explanation, it of course ceases to be paranormal because it is within what is normal (not that it is common), but it will also have caused a paradigm shift in science and knowledge. But the problem I have with your statement is actually larger than that. You are assuming an attempt to prove the paranormal as a whole when that isn't the issue. The issue is certain claims, which according to what is known now about how the universe works almost certainly aren't true. There is no experiment to prove or disprove the paranormal (creating a falsifiable hypothesis and a commensurate null hypothesis would be daunting). Instead, there are or can be tests of specific claims, such as "I can flip telephone pages with the power of my mind." In that instance it doesn't matter if we call it psi, paranormal, supernatural, or Fred. It is just a claim. "Paranormal" is simply a convenient umbrella label for an ill-defined group of claims normally considered outside what current science would expect but in itself it has no relevance to the science of it. Only the claims themselves do. |
|||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9981 Posts |
One poster above offers, "those who understand the science involved in the event can explain it in terms of science." -- and this is worth considering.
In measuring/testing anything thought or purported to be magic, paranormal, psychic or supernatural and the like, just who is it that "understands the science involved?" In my ignorance I pereived that thsoe conducing experiments and tests of things perceived impossible were applying the scientific method to insure some control over the people being tested, i.e. to eliminate either randomness or external influence. But now we are to presume these scientists to be knowledgeable in the events and practices themselves. How did they acquire such knowledge? How do we know if that knowledge is valid and unbiased? It's the old question of, "Who watches the watcher?"
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5925 Posts |
Directed at you? Did you ask if my QUESTION required belief In psi- phenomenon? But not just you, it's an in general thing as it is not a one time occurrence.
I'm guessing we agree on Hydrick, but you mentioned you disagree on something I said. Do you disagree with my styrafoam not being proof or disagree that Hydrick blew? It sounds to me that you are saying the styrofoam proves nothing definitively but it does allow you to stop looking toward the exceptional explanation. I just find that flawed. I believe the only answer is the actual answer, not the answer indistinguishable from the actual answer. Hydrick could have performed with the styrofoam in place and I'll just repeat again, again... The styrofoam moving would have been totally congruent with Hydrick's claims. Fortunate for Randi Hydrick wasn't quick enough on his feet to realize this. The reason debunkers are more susceptible to losing their cred. is their often adopted self important, I'll save you authority frame of mind. Such blunders make their disingenuiness obvious in a similar way that certain phony psychic elements display the phony psychic's disingenuity. |
|||||||||
Garrette Special user 926 Posts |
Quote: I could address this from a few aspects but for now I'll choose just one:
On 2010-11-14 18:14, IAIN wrote: You're right. Someone accomplishes X which could possibly have been done using Method A. We happen to know Method A will positively lead to such accomplishments. It is not only a tested and proven method, it has the benefit of being useful in that we can say with a high degree of certainty that "If a person uses Method A, then he will accomplish X." This is true even if I set the conditions so that the person could not surreptitiously use Method B. On the other hand, X might have been accomplished with Method B. We can't prove it didn't happen with Method B, and lots of people think Method B is a perfectly plausible explanation. But of what use is Method B right now? It hasn't been tested or proven, but more importantly it has no use. I can't say, like I did with Method A, that "If a person uses Method B then he will accomplish X." In fact, when I make it impossible for the person to surreptitiously use Method A then hen can't accomplish X at all. So Method B turns out to not only provide results identical to Method A, it can only be implemented in the conditions that allow Method A. Method A may exist, but it adds nothing even if it does. Quote: I don't think I agree with this, or rather, I don't agree with your conclusion (which you state first). We certainly do not know the extent of the human mind, but we're not testing claims about the extent of the human mind. We're trying to test specific claims such as "I can flip yellow pages with my mind."
I think part of the problem with testing psychic ability, or even understanding what, potentially, psychic ability means...is that we do not understand the human mind quite enough right now... Quote: I am at a loss as to what you mean here.
On 2010-11-14 19:06, Tom Cutts wrote: Quote: I think I was clear, but I'll try again.
I'm guessing we agree on Hydrick, but you mentioned you disagree on something I said. Do you disagree with my styrafoam not being proof or disagree that Hydrick blew? I agree that Hydrick blew; I agree that the styrofoam is not proof that he blew. I disagree that the purpose of the styrofoam was to prove that he blew. Quote: No one is preventing anyone from looking for the actual answers. If it were a perfect world with unlimited resources and time, then perhaps there would be no excuse for trying to prove what even the proponents of psi have not been able to prove. But since resources are not unlimited, then priorities need to be set. Since I am not one claiming that psi exists, I think it is more than disingenuous to expect anyone but the claimants to set up those experiments and seek that proof. Absolutely no one is stopping them.
It sounds to me that you are saying the styrofoam proves nothing definitively but it does allow you to stop looking toward the exceptional explanation. I just find that flawed. I believe the only answer is the actual answer, not the answer indistinguishable from the actual answer. Quote: Yup. Even magicians can make mistakes. I'm not surprised.
Hydrick could have performed with the styrofoam in place and I'll just repeat again, again... The styrofoam moving would have been totally congruent with Hydrick's claims. Fortunate for Randi Hydrick wasn't quick enough on his feet to realize this. Quote: And no such arrogance is ever apparent on the side of the believers?
The reason debunkers are more susceptible to losing their cred. is their often adopted self important, I'll save you authority frame of mind. Such blunders make their disingenuiness obvious in a similar way that certain phony psychic elements display the phony psychic's disingenuity. |
|||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9981 Posts |
Ok Garrette, that makes sense. Yes, we can apply scientifically controlled tests to prove that a specific claim is false -- and I am glad they are being done. I personally debunk fake fortunetellers whenever possible, usually by revealing the trick they use -- rationally rather than scientifically.
Yet I know that it is possible that these individuals do have some paranormal ability, in the same way that being a magician does not mean one cannot do authentic magic. All that can be tested or refuted are those you make claims. What of those who make no claims, but just go about doing magical/paranormal things -- healing, for example? As performing mentalists we pretend to do what our audience considers to be paranormal, and scientif proof has little to do with it. In the fine book "Physics of the Impossible," the term "magic" is used frequently for what people bleive to be physcially impossible. The book then explains how many are possible and ahve even already been done -- yet acknowledges that this "fact" in no way deminishes what most people consider to be magic.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
Garrette Special user 926 Posts |
I mostly agree, funsway, with your general stance, but for my real stance I would ask you to read my response to IAIN above.
|
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
Funsway:
You wrote: Quote:
If you do something that causes another person to say, "You must be psychic," then "psychic" must exist as being more than that person considers "normal." ...and followed that with: Quote:
Well, Entity, I notice you stillnot define "paranormal" -- so from the dicionary. My point is that if the person observing is ignorant of the science behind an explainable event, and their ignorance of that science causes them (as you suggest) to perceive the event as "paranormal", then that doesn't make the event "paranormal" in reality, but only in their mistaken perception of reality. One can't hide behind semantics in order to promote their own agenda with regard to psychic phenomena. You have to specifically define your terms. Do you mean "paranormal" as a category of phenomena that holds true for everyone in reality, or "paranormal" for just that person, based upon their mistaken perception of (not understanding or being aware of) the reality behind an explainable phenomena? You seem to be saying that even if an event has a rational scientific explanation for others, but the science is unknown to a particular person, that you still label the event as "paranormal". To me this is just obfuscation and muddying the waters for no useful purpose. - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9981 Posts |
If I am performing either conjury or mentalism and a spectator asks, "can you do paranormal things like read minds and see into the future," I am not going to grill him on the depths of his knowledge or challenge his level of ignorance. He is in the audience because he has a concept of paranormal that is important to him. I am going to respect the "reality of his experience" and build on that to establish rapport. A performer creates a special world in which common defintions do not apply -- he sets the rules and they do not have to be scientific. The "reality" is whatever the performer and audience agree to. Sorry if that muddies your pond, it certainly just clarifies the water in mine.
Now I am curious. When you pretend to do mentalism, just what is it you pretend at? If "paranormal as audience perception" doesn't work for you, what term do you use instead?
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9981 Posts |
Hey, a sudden thought! If mentalists want to be thought of as actually doing paranormal stuff, then why do they use the term "paranormal?" If they can do it it isn't, and the use of the term puts a lie to the claim. If you'all don'tuse that term, then what do you call what you do?
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
For the duration of a theatrical performance, I'd agree with you. "The "reality" is whatever the performer and audience agree to", given that the context of the theatrical performance is clear, so that the audience enters into the agreement with informed consent.
To carry that theatrical reality over into the real world is promoting irrationality. I call what I do Psychological Mysteries. - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
gabelson Inner circle conscientious observer 2137 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 20:44, entity wrote: I like your moniker, "Psychological Mysteries" very much. Nice framing. But why does the context of a "theatrical performance" have to be made clear? I just don't get why it's not ok to leave the audience guessing as to what's real and what isn't, and why you feel they must be "informed". |
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
I guess I could equally ask why it's important for you to have the audience believe that at least some of what you do is "real" (do you mean genuine psychic ability?).
As to why I feel the need to have the theatrical context made clear -- it's a matter of having an honest business relationship with my clients (the audience). If I take their money for my performance it's a legal agreement we enter into. Without informed consent on their part (their understanding that it's a theatrical performance and not a supernatural, religious or psychic event) then I'm taking their money under false pretenses. That's fraud. While I probably wouldn't be held accountable with the law or police, I personally prefer to have an honest relationship with my audiences from the start. Once the context is understood, any pretext is allowable, and mysteries abound. The audience IS left guessing, is amazed and enjoys the show. They may even believe that what I do is "real" for the duration of the show. (Actually, some of it IS really based upon psychology.) Hopefully, after the enchantment of the theater wears off, when assessing my performance in terms of their own beliefs and life choices, they take the theatrical context of the show and my disclaimer into account and act accordingly. Please note that I don't insist that everyone else feel the same way that I do about this. Obviously I think it's the right way to go about things, but we each do what we choose and live with the consequences. - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9981 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 20:44, entity wrote: for more than forty years as a business consultant I had thousands of business owners use terms in ways that did not agree with what I thought/knew they meant. As long as I understood I did not correct their error or grammar. If they used the word psychic or magic or impossible I did not query as to their scientific education, but accepted the word in the context it was offered. I was their to help solve business problems, not sell dictionaries. To do otherwise would have been irrational. So, yes -- I carry the concept of "user defined terms" over into the real world. If what you learn about people "while in theater context" and performing is not useful it in everyday life, then why do it at all? Real people have dreams and plans related to what they consider impossible and consider solutions as magic. For every person I have entertained with performance magic/mentalism I have done "real magic or psychic things" for a hundred in the "real world" -- those being their terms, not mine. They usually have many perceptions that require changing in order to be successfull -- those aren't some of them. In more than 27,000 consulting interviews in which those terms were used by the owner, I never had identified myself as a magician or mentalist. Carry over? -- you bet!
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
...which may partly explain the state of the business world and economy we currently are experiencing. Scams and scammers flourish in an environment of irrational thinking.
- entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
gabelson Inner circle conscientious observer 2137 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 21:40, entity wrote: The legal agreement is to entertain your client, period. If you booked yourself as a genuine psychic, I would agree with you. But once you've signed that contract to deliver a PERFORMANCE, no further disclaimer in your show is necessary, IMHO. What the audience takes away from it, is up to them. -Assuming they're adults, they can make up their own minds about what is real and what isn't |
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
If everything in your performance is designed to lead them to believe that your performance is real, are you really leaving it up to them to believe what they will?
As I said, it's my point of view that I expressed, and I don't expect you to see things the same way that I do. - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
gabelson Inner circle conscientious observer 2137 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 23:45, entity wrote: In short, yes. No matter how talented the entertainer, or even the so-called "psychic" for that matter (John Edward, James VanPraagh, Uri Geller), I will never be convinced that what I am watching is real. I am happy to SUSPEND my disbelief while watching their shows, and there's a certain giddiness that comes with that, a certain childlike glee, which I think is the very purpose of a magic or mentalism performance, but at the end of the day, I'm not leaving the theater with a different core belief system. My wife visits psychics often, and puts complete stock in what they tell her. She's a very bright woman, and understands that there are scam artists out there, but she believes with all her soul that there are also "good" psychics (her words), who are 100% real, and able to predict her future with Tarot. She also devoutly believes in God, (which I believe to be in contradiction with her devout belief in psychics, but that's a whole other argument). Nothing I can tell her- and I tell her often- explaining to her in detail how psychic readings are done- can change her belief system. I will never "convert" her to what I believe to be a more rational way of thinking. And nothing she can say, no matter how accurate her reading was, will make me believe that it was anything but just that- a great job of reading by a non-psychic individual. Entity, I really don't believe that a strong 3-envelope test, a great drawing dupe. and even a killer Q&A is going to change a person's belief system after a night at the theater. And you know what? If I give them pause for thought, I've done my job. But they're going to have the same basic core of beliefs going out as they did coming in. Having an audience leave the theater asking, "How could he KNOW that?" is a wonderful thing. However, as you said, we can agree to disagree. Whatever works for you. |
|||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9981 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 22:06, entity wrote: Yup -- may explain our entire culture going into the sewer. Everyone flourishes in this environment, or fails. Voters, purchasers, lawyers, teachers, marketers and our entire government. If people thought rationally there would be no need for most TV ads, pop-up screens and even cell-phones. Folks would only own utilily and comfort clothing and always be at work on time, driving a properly maintained car without any ego attachment. Where would magicians and mentalists be if people made rational decisions? However, I would suggest that terms like un-rational, non-rational and psuedo-rational be used instead of the blanket irrational -- is only used as a pajorative when one does not have an answer to a question. Business world? More than 90% of all business start-up fail with five years because the owners do not make rational decisions, including going into business in the first place. How many magicians make a rational decision to make of it a career or purchase new effects. You have finally made a statement with which I can agree -- our world is in a mess because people do not make rational decisions. Many use words and concepts they do not fully understand. Some of us try and help.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » A test... (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.1 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |