Thanks! Great call on the VR being used for super placebo, i will not take that bet. Though i wonder if the nagging sense in the back of your head that you are not in reality might, for some or most people, prevent the magical effect. And i think you are totally right about needing to leave the “metaphysical backdoor” open by remembering that the story of consciousness/physics is not settled (and never will be). This is like the modern version of “enchantment” though i guess im somewhat dubious that it can function similarly, like if you are already thinking about “physics” you are in a non-magical headspace.
A secondary issue: aren't Autism and Schizophrenics/Bipolars "immune to propaganda" (at least in research setting)? Are these developmental quirks merely a nocebo countermeasure against the busting of backdoors? If so, how can one induce these effects at will?
Side question: will this problem force all scientific studies to redefine the applicable "bar of success" against placebos?
I'm not sure "the supernatural origin and violation of physical principles" contradicts his worldview, but it would seem that "the immaterial origin and violation of material principles" might.
Magic is mind over matter (e.g. a spell or incantation or potion to prime a belief state and so heal somebody's hives), and this is antithetical to materialism. I think he's holding onto this because science kind of depends on these assumptions (otherwise maybe your experiment is only working because of magic, which depends on social context, belief, etc.).
My thought is that there's some neat divide for when magic is a good way to control the universe, and when it is not -- that there are domains proper for materialism and immaterialism each, and that Psychology is where the two meet. Interesting stuff.
I would attribute the necessity of using children to the ethics board, not to a weakness of the fundamental approach in today’s culture. In order to have this experiment approved, it was probably necessary to avoid outright lies. Thus, it was necessary to find subjects where they could appear to honestly explain what they were doing without the subject actually understanding. If they were able to tell outright lies, I bet they could have success with adults as well, at least ones that aren’t experts in the domain of Science they draw their magic from.
Which raises an interesting question: is it possible to invoke these forces ethically in the modern world? One work-around to the ethical problems is if the subject knowingly learns to manipulate themselves. I suspect that’s the root of disciplines like self-hypnosis, neuro-linguistic programming, and some aspects of meditation…
Yup and the word “magic” was a sticking point for me for a long time also. But like you say, i think it is still important to call it what it is, and people should remember that we are dealing with the known laws of physics. As i tried to argue, a certain metaphysical openness is needed for the magical effect…understanding what you said here is the first step.
Totally in agreement, but i guess my answer is that its both ethics and the disenchanted minds of most adults. You are definitely right that it would work on some or most adults.
Your question is fascinating and i actually had a section discussing the ethics of this in a previous version. Good topic for another post…
"...indigenous shamanism is the forebearer of modern show business..." This reminds me of the idea that theater started as an offshoot of the cult of Dionysus.
I bought, but never read, an earlier book by David Abrams, The Spell of the Sensuous. Now I might have to drop everything else and dig into it.
What some call magic, others call miracles, though I like “spooky events”. Some say we cannot disprove that bona fide miracles happen. There may be a good retort to that: genuine miracles, if they exist, are so rare as to be pointless to contemplate.
I once did a thought experiment wherein I estimated the total genuine miracles (~1 million) of the last 20,000 years and the total experienced events. There would have been “quintillions of events if everybody who ever lived averaged [experiencing] a couple of events per minute.” If so, “the probability of any human life event being a spooky miracle … is at most something like 1 in a few trillion.”
These miracles would be ones for which a non-biased person could rule out natural explanations, such as charlatanism, coincidence, or placebo effects.
So, there’s just no point in hoping for a miracle. For a person’s entire life there might be about 1 chance in 200 million of experiencing one.
And there’s no point in trying to explain the agency behind them, because humans can hardly keep themselves from attributing agency to numerous natural things that don’t have it, and to myriads of supernatural beings that don’t exist. Which of those many agents caused a particular miracle? There’s no way to even narrow it down.
Theory of mind works so well for us that we will attribute mental intentions to just about anything. “Some things in the world around them did not truly have agency: weather, objects in the sky, plants, seasons. But agency is a powerful predictive model. So our ancestors lost little by attributing agency to anything that affected them.”
Still, we love our magic. Lots of us stiff-necked secular materialists enjoy or even prefer fantasy stories. To paraphrase John Lee Hooker: it’s in us and it’s got to come out.
Spell of the sensuous is great! I've never heard that perspective on the nature of miracles and I think it's definitely a useful framework, but I would separate your definition of miracles from the magic that I discuss in this post.
“Separate your definition of miracles from the magic …” Yeah, there is a distinction, at least of emphasis if perhaps not of kind. Miracles tend towards the spontaneous and unexpected, while magic always requires the intention of a skilled magician, who expects to succeed.
But, there are parallels. Both can involve a powerful supernatural agent, and both can have a human mediator. In a miracle like a spontaneous healing, the mediator is, at the least, an afflicted person who wanted the cure to happen and who perhaps prayed or sacrificed to influence the powerful agent. In magic the mediator is the magician, some of whom might claim to be the power as well, but more often claim influence over the powerful agent.
The two paradigms can co-exist. In Voudun you can appeal directly to the loa, the spirits, for help and use candles, charms, or trance for the purpose. Or you can ask for the help of a powerful moderator, a human houngan or mambo, probably with better results.
Sometimes there is a crossover between the terms used in the two paradigms. In the Bible water was turned to wine and the multitude was fed at the behest of Jesus, who was both power and mediator and therefore was a powerful magician. Yet these events are always called miracles, not magic.
That said, I can’t see any obvious way to do what I did for miracles, and make a wild estimate of the probability of encountering “real,” non-illusory magic. Miracles are rare but become public, even famous. Magicians operate in sub-cultures and their doings are not as scrutinized. So miracles and magic are inter-related, but not the same. Maybe it's just amateurs versus professionals.
Thanks! Great call on the VR being used for super placebo, i will not take that bet. Though i wonder if the nagging sense in the back of your head that you are not in reality might, for some or most people, prevent the magical effect. And i think you are totally right about needing to leave the “metaphysical backdoor” open by remembering that the story of consciousness/physics is not settled (and never will be). This is like the modern version of “enchantment” though i guess im somewhat dubious that it can function similarly, like if you are already thinking about “physics” you are in a non-magical headspace.
A secondary issue: aren't Autism and Schizophrenics/Bipolars "immune to propaganda" (at least in research setting)? Are these developmental quirks merely a nocebo countermeasure against the busting of backdoors? If so, how can one induce these effects at will?
Side question: will this problem force all scientific studies to redefine the applicable "bar of success" against placebos?
I'm not sure "the supernatural origin and violation of physical principles" contradicts his worldview, but it would seem that "the immaterial origin and violation of material principles" might.
Magic is mind over matter (e.g. a spell or incantation or potion to prime a belief state and so heal somebody's hives), and this is antithetical to materialism. I think he's holding onto this because science kind of depends on these assumptions (otherwise maybe your experiment is only working because of magic, which depends on social context, belief, etc.).
My thought is that there's some neat divide for when magic is a good way to control the universe, and when it is not -- that there are domains proper for materialism and immaterialism each, and that Psychology is where the two meet. Interesting stuff.
I would attribute the necessity of using children to the ethics board, not to a weakness of the fundamental approach in today’s culture. In order to have this experiment approved, it was probably necessary to avoid outright lies. Thus, it was necessary to find subjects where they could appear to honestly explain what they were doing without the subject actually understanding. If they were able to tell outright lies, I bet they could have success with adults as well, at least ones that aren’t experts in the domain of Science they draw their magic from.
Which raises an interesting question: is it possible to invoke these forces ethically in the modern world? One work-around to the ethical problems is if the subject knowingly learns to manipulate themselves. I suspect that’s the root of disciplines like self-hypnosis, neuro-linguistic programming, and some aspects of meditation…
Yup and the word “magic” was a sticking point for me for a long time also. But like you say, i think it is still important to call it what it is, and people should remember that we are dealing with the known laws of physics. As i tried to argue, a certain metaphysical openness is needed for the magical effect…understanding what you said here is the first step.
Totally in agreement, but i guess my answer is that its both ethics and the disenchanted minds of most adults. You are definitely right that it would work on some or most adults.
Your question is fascinating and i actually had a section discussing the ethics of this in a previous version. Good topic for another post…
Great post, thank you
"...indigenous shamanism is the forebearer of modern show business..." This reminds me of the idea that theater started as an offshoot of the cult of Dionysus.
I bought, but never read, an earlier book by David Abrams, The Spell of the Sensuous. Now I might have to drop everything else and dig into it.
What some call magic, others call miracles, though I like “spooky events”. Some say we cannot disprove that bona fide miracles happen. There may be a good retort to that: genuine miracles, if they exist, are so rare as to be pointless to contemplate.
I once did a thought experiment wherein I estimated the total genuine miracles (~1 million) of the last 20,000 years and the total experienced events. There would have been “quintillions of events if everybody who ever lived averaged [experiencing] a couple of events per minute.” If so, “the probability of any human life event being a spooky miracle … is at most something like 1 in a few trillion.”
These miracles would be ones for which a non-biased person could rule out natural explanations, such as charlatanism, coincidence, or placebo effects.
So, there’s just no point in hoping for a miracle. For a person’s entire life there might be about 1 chance in 200 million of experiencing one.
And there’s no point in trying to explain the agency behind them, because humans can hardly keep themselves from attributing agency to numerous natural things that don’t have it, and to myriads of supernatural beings that don’t exist. Which of those many agents caused a particular miracle? There’s no way to even narrow it down.
Theory of mind works so well for us that we will attribute mental intentions to just about anything. “Some things in the world around them did not truly have agency: weather, objects in the sky, plants, seasons. But agency is a powerful predictive model. So our ancestors lost little by attributing agency to anything that affected them.”
Still, we love our magic. Lots of us stiff-necked secular materialists enjoy or even prefer fantasy stories. To paraphrase John Lee Hooker: it’s in us and it’s got to come out.
Spell of the sensuous is great! I've never heard that perspective on the nature of miracles and I think it's definitely a useful framework, but I would separate your definition of miracles from the magic that I discuss in this post.
“Separate your definition of miracles from the magic …” Yeah, there is a distinction, at least of emphasis if perhaps not of kind. Miracles tend towards the spontaneous and unexpected, while magic always requires the intention of a skilled magician, who expects to succeed.
But, there are parallels. Both can involve a powerful supernatural agent, and both can have a human mediator. In a miracle like a spontaneous healing, the mediator is, at the least, an afflicted person who wanted the cure to happen and who perhaps prayed or sacrificed to influence the powerful agent. In magic the mediator is the magician, some of whom might claim to be the power as well, but more often claim influence over the powerful agent.
The two paradigms can co-exist. In Voudun you can appeal directly to the loa, the spirits, for help and use candles, charms, or trance for the purpose. Or you can ask for the help of a powerful moderator, a human houngan or mambo, probably with better results.
Sometimes there is a crossover between the terms used in the two paradigms. In the Bible water was turned to wine and the multitude was fed at the behest of Jesus, who was both power and mediator and therefore was a powerful magician. Yet these events are always called miracles, not magic.
That said, I can’t see any obvious way to do what I did for miracles, and make a wild estimate of the probability of encountering “real,” non-illusory magic. Miracles are rare but become public, even famous. Magicians operate in sub-cultures and their doings are not as scrutinized. So miracles and magic are inter-related, but not the same. Maybe it's just amateurs versus professionals.
Yes, that's how I see it, too.