[Opinion] Does placebo/nocebo have a place in magick?

[DiLoco_DelEted]

@Robert Ramsay
Don't forget Frater Albertus and the Paracelcus Research Society for that matter...

 

[Ziran]

It's that simple

Well..... maybe it's not that simple. What you've described in your post is a recipe like baking a cake. And there is magic that operates in a recipe format, but the cake that's produced is not particular, it's general.

Perhaps one of the most fundemental principles working with "magic" is "as it is below, so it is above". In this principle, "below" is this place, "here-and-now", a realm of distinction. Distinction means "particular". In the here-and-now, there is:

1. particular this
2. particular that
3. particular other
4. particular causes
5. particular effects
6. particular events ( particular moments flowing in a particular order in a particular timeline )

The here-and-now is all about "particular". ( generally speaking. )

If one could completely escape from the here-and-now, what would be observed is a continous process of refining here-and-now from a general stock of raw-material via a series of contractions. Going back to the principle "As it is below, so it is above", the "above" is a realm which is more general than "below" which is more particular.

"As it is below, so it is above" is actually incomplete in this context. In "magic" ( or drawing down a miracle ) the principle needs to be expressed as a full-circle. "As it is below, so it is above AND As it is above, so it is below". Full circle.

If "below" is particular, and "above" is general, then, the casting, the recipe, the ritual, whatever it is, is happening in particular, in the here-and-now. Then this results in a general effect "above". In turn this general effect "above" is the cause for a particular result "below", in the here-and-now, but, the particular result at the end of the chain is passing through a medium of generalization which is defocused.

Because of this, the result at the end of the chain ( below ---> above ----> below / particular ---> general ---> particular ) will only be loosely connected to the original cause. The chain of cause and effect is passing through a layer of abstraction before producing the result in the here-and-now. The cause ( recipe, ritual, casting, incantation, whatever ) is particular. The result that is produced is particular. But the cause is passing through a cloud or a field of many possibilities which is "general". This generalization is what produces the variance of effect. The variance is not a fault condition. It is expected.

Yes, one could be lucky ( or blessed ) to get a particular result which is very closely connected to a particular desired result, but, the underlying mechanics would not exclude a general loosely connected result as a success. Because of this, can a person delude themself into thinking they made a miracle or are working magic when they aren't? Absolutely. Not only that, if a person deludes themself, and their practice is essentially trial-and-error, then they could very much spin themselves far off-course into the weeds, because they are not accurately evaluating the "error" condition in the trial-and-error.

But wait, there's more. If there is a deceptive force, a trickster, in the mix, that makes it even more complicated. The trickster might force a brilliant obvious success even though what the individual had done ( attempted ritual / craft / incantation ) would have fizzled or backfired without the trickster's intervention. Doing so is building up the practitioner, just for the purpose of knocking them down. In this case, receiving obvious repeated results are actually a bad thing, especially if the faux-success(es) when contrasted with other future fizzles ( or backfires ) lead the individual to become discouraged either giving up, or, perhaps seeking out the trickster(s) or other malevolent forces to further the individual's pursuits. Because of this, it's wise to guard one's particular desires. They can be used for manipulation. Not just by "divine" forces, but by anyone.

So... it's not so simple. When it comes to types of magic which are founded on the principle "as it is below, so it is above", a loosely connected result which cooresponds to the intention is considered a success. It is not expected to receive the exact same result in particular over repeated trials. Multiple trials which are producing loosley correlated "successes" is good. It generally means one is on the right track. This is because "in-general" is all that would be expected with this style of magic. If the result matches the particular desire repeatedly, too-good-to-be-true is a rational consideration. "Is something messing with me?" is a good question to ask.

All of that said, this is a form of magic which is using a "recipe". It is not the same as working with angels, or demons, or spirits. That's diifferent, but, there is some crossover.

 

[Roma]

If you investigate magic as if it were science, the best you get is a 'small but significant effect'.

Generally with material plane science we know quite a lot about how and when to do experiments. And we explain away things that don't work: e.g. gravitational anomalies

Etheric science is harder as can be seen in quantum physics where a wave-particle does not decide where to go or what to be until measured/interacted. Entanglement is only slowly being untangled for use as instant communications across the galaxy.

Some magic deals with etheric elementals. Also there is a Russian ballet school known for teaching how to jump and stay up for a fraction of a second too long.

Astral plane science has been studied for a while as applied to humans e.g. selling to a human that does not need/want it. As applied to non-humans, astral plane science is starting to converge with magic dealing with nature spirits.

Women, more than men, like talking to the nature spirit of their motor vehicle. My ex found her Honda cooperative in finding parks, navigating in strange areas and even stalling to avoid a probably fatal accident.

Mental plane science is developing slowly but some physicists learn from mental experiments e.g. Einstein. I may have proposed some mental experiments on this forum.

Heart science is quite a way off, partly because men are more mental than women.

In my experience, magic works pretty well when not self-centered and based on right relationship with the greater system.

Once I was told that the money I had was more exact than I could imagine. Four years and two countries later, I finally had $10 left until I was paid in the job I had finally found - and I remembered what I had been told.

 

[Robert Ramsay]

I used to think that opine was a kind of weasel until I discovered Smirnoff.

Post automatically merged: Nov 21, 2023

Etheric science is harder as can be seen in quantum physics where a wave-particle does not decide where to go or what to be until measured/interacted. Entanglement is only slowly being untangled for use as instant communications across the galaxy.

I'm not going to comment on the ether, but quantum physics, I can explain. If a quantum phenomenon has two possible outcomes, they are blurred for us until we 'measure' them. What actually happens is that there are two sets of timelines, one for each of the two possible outcomes. When we 'measure', we discover which of those two timeline sets we have ended up in. The wave/particle has not decided anything. We have chosen to select an outcome for that quantum thing, and we get one.

What is normally referred to as 'the collapse of the wave function' is the moment when all the possible timeline sets drop out to leave us in a single timeline with respect to the thing we are measuring.

Bad news on galactic communications, I'm afraid. You only know that you have linked up with the correct message after you have confirmed it via ordinary (sublight) communications. Otherwise you could be in two completely divergent timelines receiving different messages. Even the most successful experiments in telepathy drop to zero if there is no correlation between source and destination afterwards.

 

[Roma]

We have chosen to select an outcome for that quantum thing, and we get one.

A machine/detector operates just as well as a human in forcing an outcome

Post automatically merged: Nov 21, 2023

is the moment when all the possible timeline sets drop out to leave us in a single timeline

Gosh! How do you know that?

I rarely see timelines being deleted. Occasionally I see terminated timelines, but normally a repair team of various species turns up to deal with improper connections

 

[DiLoco_DelEted]

To test for placebos or whatnot and galactic communications, my idea on the sigils of the infernal possibly being a electronics transmitter, or alchemical solution process, the same might be said for angelic sigils.
Could a breadboard and Arduino and or a ham radio be of use in testing the idea? Inorganic chemistry education kits likewise may be useful for testing.

 

[Robert Ramsay]

A machine/detector operates just as well as a human in forcing an outcome

This is true, but eventually a human has to see the result, and that is the moment where the timeline switches for them.

Gosh! How do you know that?

I rarely see timelines being deleted. Occasionally I see terminated timelines, but normally a repair team of various species turns up to deal with improper connections

I have not explained myself sufficiently. Timelines are not deleted. Each timeline is a 4D block a la Einstein/Minkowski. The multiverse is made up of a mind-bogglingly large number of these timelines branching and interweaving. We are inside the timelines, so we don't normally see them stretching off into the past and the future.

 

[Roma]

Each timeline is a 4D block a la Einstein/Minkowski.

It is good to have a theory/hypothesis - but testing usually results in modification.

For example if time turned out not to be a dimension so much as sets of containers for evolutionary experiments

 

[Robert Ramsay]

@Robert Ramsay
Unfortunately you used the word "opine" so we will be sending units to your area of residence.

I used to think opine was a kind of weasel until I discovered Smirnoff.

Post automatically merged: Nov 21, 2023

It is good to have a theory/hypothesis - but testing usually results in modification.

For example if time turned out not to be a dimension so much as sets of containers for evolutionary experiments

Well, let me know if you come up with the experiment for that

 

[pixel_fortune]

To give an example for a better understanding: Lets say a person manages to cure themselves from all kinds of pain in 30 seconds or less, does this person genuinely capable of healing? Or is it placebo? OR, is placebo/nocebo a vital part of magickal acts?

What if the person managed to cure someone else? Is the one being cured going through placebo?

By extension, what kind of an experience would you (you only, because if someone else doesn't wanna believe you they simply won't) call an undeniable proof?

If I wanted two bucks and got that is it just happenstance? What about 2 dollars and 13 cents?

Apologies in advance if my English is confusing you guys.

Placebo does cause genuine healing

People think of its effects as "imaginary" as in the person just THINKS it's happening

But a better term is "psychogenic" - it's caused by the brain, but its effects don't stop at the brain

 

[Robert Ramsay]

Don't forget Frater Albertus and the Paracelcus Research Society for that matter...

I looked them up, but couldn't get enough info to form an opinion.

 

[DiLoco_DelEted]

"Israel Regardie and the Philosophers Stone" is a book that describes his experience and relationship with Frater Albertus. It may have closed but was in Salt Lake City UT.

Post automatically merged: Nov 22, 2023

To give an example for a better understanding: Lets say a person manages to cure themselves from all kinds of pain in 30 seconds or less, does this person genuinely capable of healing? Or is it placebo? OR, is placebo/nocebo a vital part of magickal acts?

What if the person managed to cure someone else? Is the one being cured going through placebo?

By extension, what kind of an experience would you (you only, because if someone else doesn't wanna believe you they simply won't) call an undeniable proof?

If I wanted two bucks and got that is it just happenstance? What about 2 dollars and 13 cents?

Apologies in advance if my English is confusing you guys.

I think so. Even within the Christian world, exorcisms/deliverance and faith healing are prime examples.
"The Pope's Exorcist" author I've mentioned before also wrote "Hostage to the Devil", based on true stories. The first act of exorcism 8s to test for delusions and or mental health illnesses/disorders. Following that 8s testing if they are possessed not at all, partially or fully. There have been false positives in terms of exorcisms. That's the final test after an exorcism.
Katherine Kuhlman had a knack within the Charismatic church for faith healing. A lady had a sore back or leg issue and received healing from Kuhlman. Days later she (the healed) fell and broke her back.

 

[Robert Ramsay]

"Israel Regardie and the Philosophers Stone" is a book that describes his experience and relationship with Frater Albertus. It may have closed but was in Salt Lake City UT.

Someone kindly posted the link and I bought the book on Amazon. I feel it would be hypocritical of me to tell everyone to buy my book and then steal someone else's

 

[Elementriloquist]

If magic was repeatable in this reliable kind of way it would have been accepted as part of physics long ago.

No, because the people who have access to magic would never allow it to become common knowledge, nor would they allow knowledge of the best training methods to become common knowledge. I don't see it as a coincidence that all the modern day dominant religions are against practicing the occult, and in the old days they killed such individuals off. You don't need to hide power when you can just make everyone afraid to even try it.

How do you expect magic to become as well known and studied as physics when it already starts off with the handicaps of:
1. Being practiced in secrecy and only having it's knowledge spread among a select few (very few know of it and how to properly practice)
2. Being persecuted by the dominant religious factions and society as a whole (very few are willing to practice due to fear and/or belief)
3. Being treated as fake and not worth experimenting with in the modern era (very few people believe it's even possible)

The reason many magic acts are 'one offs' is to try and cheat this 8% limit.

The 8% "it only works sometimes" spiel only sounds like an excuse to me, and I think it's more likely that whatever happened was a coincidence rather than a "one-off" instance of magic.

Also, please pay attention to this part:
I don't think you realize that 8% is actually still too high of a success rate for a "one-off", because a 5% chance has a 1 in 20 probability (if you tried to do something 20 times it would work at least 1 time).

An 8% chance is even better odds with a 1 in 12 probability (if you tried to do something 12 times it would work at least 1 time).

With 1 in 12 odds, the success rate should never be a "one-off" since you only have to do a ritual 12 times to get a successful result. Even if you only did it once per month, that means you could get a life changing result atleast once every year.

The actual rate must be something like 0.08% if it's a "one-off"

 

[Robert Ramsay]

No, because the people who have access to magic would never allow it to become common knowledge, nor would they allow knowledge of the best training methods to become common knowledge. I don't see it as a coincidence that all the modern day dominant religions are against practicing the occult, and in the old days they killed such individuals off. You don't need to hide power when you can just make everyone afraid to even try it.

How do you expect magic to become as well known and studied as physics when it already starts off with the handicaps of:
1. Being practiced in secrecy and only having it's knowledge spread among a select few (very few know of it and how to properly practice)
2. Being persecuted by the dominant religious factions and society as a whole (very few are willing to practice due to fear and/or belief)
3. Being treated as fake and not worth experimenting with in the modern era (very few people believe it's even possible)


The 8% "it only works sometimes" spiel only sounds like an excuse to me, and I think it's more likely that whatever happened was a coincidence rather than a "one-off" instance of magic.

Also, please pay attention to this part:
I don't think you realize that 8% is actually still too high of a success rate for a "one-off", because a 5% chance has a 1 in 20 probability (if you tried to do something 20 times it would work at least 1 time).

An 8% chance is even better odds with a 1 in 12 probability (if you tried to do something 12 times it would work at least 1 time).

With 1 in 12 odds, the success rate should never be a "one-off" since you only have to do a ritual 12 times to get a successful result. Even if you only did it once per month, that means you could get a life changing result atleast once every year.

The actual rate must be something like 0.08% if it's a "one-off"

One of the main reasons it's practiced in secrecy, is because everybody who knows about it is in a position to affect it, and their effects are unlikely to be anything other than noise to your signal.

The 8% refers to doing repeated experiments of a large enough number to be considered enough to plot a decent graph The more experiments you do, the more your results will, at best, converge under 8%. This is not connected with what success rate you will get if you do it once.

I know I haven't explained myself incredibly well, and for that, I'm sorry.

 

[Elementriloquist]

Well..... maybe it's not that simple. What you've described in your post is a recipe like baking a cake. And there is magic that operates in a recipe format, but the cake that's produced is not particular, it's general.

Perhaps one of the most fundemental principles working with "magic" is "as it is below, so it is above". In this principle, "below" is this place, "here-and-now", a realm of distinction. Distinction means "particular". In the here-and-now, there is:

1. particular this
2. particular that
3. particular other
4. particular causes
5. particular effects
6. particular events ( particular moments flowing in a particular order in a particular timeline )

The here-and-now is all about "particular". ( generally speaking. )

If one could completely escape from the here-and-now, what would be observed is a continous process of refining here-and-now from a general stock of raw-material via a series of contractions. Going back to the principle "As it is below, so it is above", the "above" is a realm which is more general than "below" which is more particular.

"As it is below, so it is above" is actually incomplete in this context. In "magic" ( or drawing down a miracle ) the principle needs to be expressed as a full-circle. "As it is below, so it is above AND As it is above, so it is below". Full circle.

If "below" is particular, and "above" is general, then, the casting, the recipe, the ritual, whatever it is, is happening in particular, in the here-and-now. Then this results in a general effect "above". In turn this general effect "above" is the cause for a particular result "below", in the here-and-now, but, the particular result at the end of the chain is passing through a medium of generalization which is defocused.

Because of this, the result at the end of the chain ( below ---> above ----> below / particular ---> general ---> particular ) will only be loosely connected to the original cause. The chain of cause and effect is passing through a layer of abstraction before producing the result in the here-and-now. The cause ( recipe, ritual, casting, incantation, whatever ) is particular. The result that is produced is particular. But the cause is passing through a cloud or a field of many possibilities which is "general". This generalization is what produces the variance of effect. The variance is not a fault condition. It is expected.

Why assume "this is how magic works" instead of assuming "this is the only way we know how to do magic today because a lot of knowledge was lost to history, and we don't know how to do it properly anymore".

Magic is not spoken about as if it's a casino game in old occult writings like we speak about it today in modern times. It's spoken about very plainly as something that works in very specific (particular) ways. You would think something as important as the rate of failure would be a common thing on writings like the Greek Magical Papyri or other old writings, yet I've never seen or heard of anything like that.

If I do a ritual to get rid of a headache (a ridiculous example but follow along), and I end up getting killed the next day (which technically gets rid of the headache because I'm dead), I would not think that was the result of "magic", I would think that I was just unlucky. Or the alternative would be to think of it as "magic" but not seeing myself as a "magician" because I don't know how to control that power.

If someone just walks into a lab and starts mixing random chemicals, we wouldn't call them a "chemist" and we wouldn't call what they are doing "chemistry". To me it's the same thing with magic. If you can't get specific/particular results, why even consider yourself an "occultist" or "magician" or "mage" etc. Why even call what you're doing "magic" when it's really just playing around with unseen forces, gambling and hoping you get a general result that is significant enough to warrant you labeling it as "magic".

If I walk into a lab, blindfold myself, grab random containers of chemicals, mix them together, and I somehow create a substance that would solve the worlds energy crisis, that wouldn't make me a chemist, and that wouldn't make what I did chemistry, and despite receiving praise and accolades for its discovery, nobody recognized in that field would consider me a chemist or what I did chemistry. I simply got lucky, and there would be no reason to see it any other way.

If I can only make something happen once, there is no reason outside of ego to go out of my way and classify it as magic. I could more easily just classify it as a coincidence and quit while I'm ahead, as it's probably not going to work again anyways based on how you guys describe magic. It essentially still functions as just a mere coincidence even if it as magic, so there's no reason for me to treat it as anything but a coincidence.

Post automatically merged: Nov 22, 2023

One of the main reasons it's practiced in secrecy, is because everybody who knows about it is in a position to affect it, and their effects are unlikely to be anything other than noise to your signal.

I honestly don't believe that after centuries of practice and passing down knowledge that methods to circumvent these limitations haven't already been discovered. In the same way that humans innovate and progress with respect to technology, we likely did the same thing with magic. Maybe us common folk aren't privy to this knowledge, but I'm sure it's out there.

I think it's practiced in secret because if everyone can do magic, magic is no longer magic. It's about hoarding power. In the same way that in the past, peasants couldn't afford books to learn to read and it was mostly nobles and royals that were educated. Just as education and books are common today, maybe in the far future magic and knowledge on how to do it properly will be equally as common.

The 8% refers to doing repeated experiments of a large enough number to be considered enough to plot a decent graph

It kinda sounds like you are moving the goal post and using a personal definition of 8%.

Even if you say you have to do the ritual 1000 times, 8% would mean it would work 80 times among your 1000 attempts. An 8% chance is an 8% chance no matter how you structure it.

It's more like you are just saying - "Nobody would attempt it 1000 times to see if it works that way, and that's why it looks like a one-off"

But probability doesn't work like that. Your response is like telling me something works 50% of the time but you have to do it 10000 times and it will always fail the first 5000 times lol. No, if it has a 50% chance, like flipping a coin, I should get heads at least once in every 2 coin tossess, at most 1 in 4. It's not gonna take 50 coin tosses of tails for me to then get 1 coin toss of heads, it doesn't work like that.

Either way this is all just speculation, I'm going to have to prove or disprove all of this to myself anyways, so it doesn't really matter.

 

[Ziran]

Why assume "this is how magic works" instead of assuming "this is the only way we know how to do magic today because a lot of knowledge was lost to history, and we don't know how to do it properly anymore".

I was careful NOT to write that it was the ONLY way. I wrote the opposite.

Magic is not spoken about as if it's a casino game in old occult writings like we speak about it today in modern times. It's spoken about very plainly as something that works in very specific (particular) ways. You would think something as important as the rate of failure would be a common thing on writings like the Greek Magical Papyri or other old writings, yet I've never seen or heard of anything like that.

I can't comment on books I have never read. Although it's generally agreed that many books are at best mixture of fact and fancy for a variety of reasons.

If I do a ritual to get rid of a headache (a ridiculous example but follow along), and I end up getting killed the next day (which technically gets rid of the headache because I'm dead), I would not think that was the result of "magic", I would think that I was just unlucky. Or the alternative would be to think of it as "magic" but not seeing myself as a "magician" because I don't know how to control that power.

Agreed.

If someone just walks into a lab and starts mixing random chemicals, we wouldn't call them a "chemist" and we wouldn't call what they are doing "chemistry". To me it's the same thing with magic. If you can't get specific/particular results, why even consider yourself an "occultist" or "magician" or "mage" etc. Why even call what you're doing "magic" when it's really just playing around with unseen forces, gambling and hoping you get a general result that is significant enough to warrant you labeling it as "magic".

Mixing random chemicals? I didn't and wouldn't label that magic. The label occultist does not describe me. I open doors and include. Magician isn't appropriate either. If I had to label myself in one word, I would call myself a "collector".

If I walk into a lab, blindfold myself, grab random containers of chemicals, mix them together, and I somehow create a substance that would solve the worlds energy crisis, that wouldn't make me a chemist, and that wouldn't make what I did chemistry, and despite receiving praise and accolades for its discovery, nobody recognized in that field would consider me a chemist or what I did chemistry. I simply got lucky, and there would be no reason to see it any other way.

True. It's not chemisty.

If I can only make something happen once, there is no reason outside of ego to go out of my way and classify it as magic. I could more easily just classify it as a coincidence and quit while I'm ahead, as it's probably not going to work again anyways based on how you guys describe magic. It essentially still functions as just a mere coincidence even if it as magic, so there's no reason for me to treat it as anything but a coincidence.

Noted.

 

[DiLoco_DelEted]

One of the main reasons it's practiced in secrecy, is because everybody who knows about it is in a position to affect it, and their effects are unlikely to be anything other than noise to your signal.

The 8% refers to doing repeated experiments of a large enough number to be considered enough to plot a decent graph The more experiments you do, the more your results will, at best, converge under 8%. This is not connected with what success rate you will get if you do it once.

I know I haven't explained myself incredibly well, and for that, I'm sorry.

I can attest to the need to be in an isolated area for purposes of silence.
Every ignorant or overly religious person who overhears you in moments of concentration, such as in evocation, can lead to undesirable outcomes.
It was not just fear of persecution and death that the ancients practiced and lived the way they did, it was in building concentration and will, to be nearly unbreakable at the least.

 

[Xenophon]

This is true, but eventually a human has to see the result, and that is the moment where the timeline switches for them.

I have not explained myself sufficiently. Timelines are not deleted. Each timeline is a 4D block a la Einstein/Minkowski. The multiverse is made up of a mind-bogglingly large number of these timelines branching and interweaving. We are inside the timelines, so we don't normally see them stretching off into the past and the future.

Hogwarts wizards play Quidditch; forum wizards play mental Calvinball.

 

[Elementriloquist]

I was careful NOT to write that it was the ONLY way. I wrote the opposite.

What you've described in your post is a recipe like baking a cake. And there is magic that operates in a recipe format, but the cake that's produced is not particular, it's general.

Perhaps one of the most fundemental principles working with "magic" is "as it is below, so it is above". In this principle, "below" is this place, "here-and-now", a realm of distinction. Distinction means "particular". In the here-and-now, there is:

IDK, but when I read this part, it kinda seemed like you were saying the "cake" can ONLY be general and it can't be particular, but maybe I just didn't read it properly.