Is there a justification for the nonempiricism of magic?

[waffles]

To make what I was trying to say in my first post incredibly simple:

 

1. Believing something makes your reality reflect and embody that belief.

2. When this happens on a large scale with many people, it creates a "belief field" where that belief is a very stable reality therein.

3. The VAST majority of people in our modern culture believe magic is impossible, and therefore

4. It will never, ever be "proven" in any scientific way because the incredible majority of people that believe it is impossible MANIFESTS that it is impossible.

 

With this belief structure, of COURSE it will never be proven. Not in our culture. Not like this.

No. Nonononono.

There are so many things wrong with this. If magic is impossible because everyone thinks it is, then doesn't that make magic impossible?

But by far the most important point is you're saying that when lots of people believe something it becomes true.

• The vast majority of people are theist, and this has been true for millennia. Why has theistic evidence never scientifically manifested?
  
• Why do paradigm shifts in science happen? If everyone believes something scientifically, then how can such a theory be proven wrong?
  

and so on. Unless you are simply saying that it's hard to convince people, which isn't really true if you show them.

 

I'd like to remind you that historically, people did believe in magic. Look at Roman beliefs on the supernatural; what were common cultural beliefs then would now definitely be considered 'magic'. By your reasoning, this means that magic was possible then. So, how did this change? How was it that everyone was convinced that magic was impossible when it wasn't?

 

I'd also like to ask you why you believe in a 'belief field'. Where is your justification for such a theory?

 

EDIT: Oh, and one more thing. If no-one believes in this 'belief field' stuff, then how could it exist? If it did then it would be 'believed' out of existence, no?

[dillionchurchill]

 

Shouldn't that knowledge still be verifiable empirically? By surveying groups of people and separating them in to groups of those whose belive in magic and those who don't, or finding scientists who believe in magic to preform the expirements, &c.

 

 

Ah, yes! But wouldn't this produce evidence that directly contradicts our culture's belief system? The EXISTENCE of that evidence itself contradicts the incredibly concrete rules the masses create. Widespread belief that it is impossible to prove magic prevents any of that evidence from ever being produced. This is why it seems that magic only works "when no one's looking."

 

Which is why I say, magic was very likely scientifically provable back in ancient Tibet, or other like-minded cultures.

 

 

If reality is belief based, surely it would benefit those who believe it is to spread that knowledge?

 

 

It would, and we surely try. We tend not to be welcomed.

 

 

If the expirements were preformed within an entire group that believed they would work, wouldn't they then be repeatable?

 

 

Not if they in any way produced evidence that would directly clash with the immoveable belief barrier our society created. Reality has molded to their beliefs to prevent any such evidence from existing.

 

 

Thankyou for your responses all of you, they were thought-provoking.

 

 

Likewise! Thank you for asking. Contrary to what most tend to assume about meta-practitioners, I'm always open to be scrutinized.

[dillionchurchill]

If magic is impossible because everyone thinks it is, then doesn't that make magic impossible.

 

Yes it does, actually. WITHIN that sphere of belief.

 

 

you're saying that when lots of people believe something it becomes true.

 

It becomes true WITHIN that frame of reference. There ARE limitations to this effect, of course. Reality DOES have to remain coherent, after all.

 

 

The vast majority of people are theist, and this has been true for millennia. Why has theistic evidence never scientifically manifested?

 

 

One of the defining principles OF thiestic beliefs is that GOD works out of sight and in the background. That he is a force within all things. And, in fact, I would actually argue that when a culture believes in something like that then their experiences and the random-chance events around them begin to align to support it. The placebo effect has many great implications here as well. You hear of thiests praying for mental peace, only to be soon overtaken by a sense of divine care and calm.

 

In their reality, within their belief-sphere, it has become true.

 

It could most certainly also be argued that over time the concept of a God-being has been energized so strong that it is a real, conscious entity and force. I have no opinion on this either way, personally.

 

 

Why do paradigm shifts in science happen? If everyone believes something scientifically, then how can such a theory be proven wrong?

 

 

Because of course, beliefs do in fact shift, and there is in fact an underlying set of mechanisms and rules that drive our universe. There is always a constant flow of differing outlooks, and people become convinced of one thing or another throughout their lives.

 

And of course, there IS a set of laws built into our world that sustains it. However, one of them is our consciousness. Life is much more like a dream than we lead ourselves to believe. Dream worlds have laws, but ultimately they rely and revolve around the dreamer.

 

Lucid dreaming is actually a perfect analogy. Have you ever been in a dream, and started to gain consciousness, only to struggle to maintain it? While attempting to control your dream, you may feel your subconsciousness sort of wrestle with your control, and you may thus fall quickly back into your dream, having lost consciousness again.

 

Our reality holds a set of fundamental laws. We are always discovering new ones, and those ARE real. But there are also times when our belief systems alter or shift the ways those laws operate.

 

Our modern scientific understanding of the world does little to exclude the idea of a universal consciousness, and even less to exclude the possibility that our experience of reality is a dreamlike illusion within that consciousness. In fact, to me, those ideas would do alot to explain the... unique nature of relativity and quantum physics that we observe once we view particles usually foreign to our conscious observation.

 

Our dream holds laws, but they bend. Metaphysics practitioners do not claim that the world is inherently lawless. We claim the laws get bendy, depending on who's looking at them. And belief, it seems, is largely the key.

 

Somebody will discover that. Hell, they have before. When it stops being squashed by sensationalist media and close-minded scientists, perhaps we will see that revolution. Belief doesn't change the underlying laws of the world.

 

But it changes the laws we create FOR OURSELVES. Humans have the natural ability to communicate mind to mind. I believe that. We don't see it happening because our beliefs as a culture prevent us from observing it.

 

Good luck trying to make a nation fly by convincing it gravity is a myth, though.

 

 

By your reasoning, this means that magic was possible then.

 

 

Yup, I believe it was. Still tough, but far easier than it is today.

 

So, how did this change?

 

Well it's not like it was openly accepted. Those recorded as having been magicians were incredibly feared. Society tended to keep far away from them. And they tended to keep themselves far away from society.

 

Is it really so hard to believe that they died off? And that eventually people started believing all those stories were stupid, much like you do?

 

Belief is a powerful force, but beliefs change, and that's how humanity works.

 

 

I'd also like to ask you why you believe in a 'belief field'. Where is your justification for such a theory?

 

 

Because I know believing in something has made that thing true to me. I've seen this force many times, and it's astonishing to watch how believing something can begin to make it true for those AROUND you as well.

 

I've seen these principles repeatedly in my life, in the lives of those around me, and in the metaphysical resources I've consumed in my curiosity for such things. But you've already heard me reference David Wilcock's The Source Field Investigations. That book's been incredible for me.

 

 

If no-one believes in this 'belief field' stuff, then how could it exist?

 

 

Because as I've said from the start, reality is built around conscious entities' awareness. And that's that. It's one of the fundamentals of this world. Perhaps more fundamental than gravity. As I've said, we can't change certain laws. But certain others... get bendy.

[waffles]

Because of course, beliefs do in fact shift, [...] though.

You missed my point. It wasn't "Give me a pseudo-scientific explanation", it was "If a prevailing viewpoint is true through belief, then how is it disproved?"

If most people thought that the heavens revolved around the earth, then why could Copernicus look and see that this wasn't the case? Why was this so widely accepted theory not true in that case? And so on with every other widely accepted scientific theory that has been proven wrong.

 

There was one thing I had to pick out, though.

 

But it changes the laws we create FOR OURSELVES. Humans have the natural ability to communicate mind to mind. I believe that. We don't see it happening because our beliefs as a culture prevent us from observing it.

Are you having a laugh? Are you now telling me that this whole 'belief field' stuff was just a stupid way of dressing up confirmation bias?

 

 

 

Well it's not like it was openly accepted. Those recorded as having been magicians were incredibly feared. Society tended to keep far away from them. And they tended to keep themselves far away from society.

Why don't you check your facts on that one. In fact, let me do it for you. This article says

In the ancient post-hellenistic world of the Greeks and Romans (the Greco-Roman world), the public and private rituals associated with religion are accepted by historians and archaeologists to have been a part of everyday life. 

Magic was culturally pervasive in the ancient world. Rewrite your statements to reflect that.

 

 

Because I know believing in something has made that thing true to me. I've seen this force many times, and it's astonishing to watch how believing something can begin to make it true for those AROUND you as well.

Yeah, that really is just confirmation bias and liberal interpretation.

 

 

Because as I've said from the start, reality is built around conscious entities' awareness. And that's that. It's one of the fundamentals of this world. Perhaps more fundamental than gravity. As I've said, we can't change certain laws. But certain others... get bendy.

Alright, I'm just going to stop this here.

What? What? 

You simply cannot say that this is a fundamental law of nature any more than I can say "It rains chocolate sprinkles every thousand years" is a fundamental law of nature. It is a completely baseless statement that ignores centuries of scientific progress. There are fundamental aspects of reality, but they are not 'consciousness'. That's a biological phenomenon. The first 12 or so billion years of the universe's existence were lived happily without it. It could easily have never evolved at all, or evolved completely differently. And then you call it a fundamental of the universe? Do you even know what 'fundamental' means? Do you even know what 'universe' means, for that matter?

[dillionchurchill]

Here's where your misunderstandings of where I stand lie:

 

It is my BELIEF, [that is, I take it on the faith through extension of the concepts that I have experienced personally and EMPIRICALLY] that reality as we know it is an illusion crafted around our consciousnesses. The physical world isn't physical. It's a "holographic" representation of energies we feel and experience as dreamers all connected in one grand consciousness.

 

If a prevailing viewpoint is true through belief, then how is it disproved?

 

Apparently it was not clear to you that the point I was making was that there are rules that keep our combined dream "grounded". Our reality is malleable, but there ARE laws. If people believe that the Earth is the center of the solar system, how does this effect them? Well, of course they view the everything as revolving around them, having established this belief because of the fact that they believed God was far more concerned about humanity than about the other planets. The belief in an Earth-Centered world WAS "manifested" to them. It WAS their reality. BUT, the world still has substance and laws, so of course it can be discovered and proven false, as it indeed was.

 

Are you now telling me that this whole 'belief field' stuff was just a stupid way of dressing up confirmation bias?

 

But of course! My point from the start is that reality is a fabricated illusion, with laws in place so that we can all share a coherent world. There is no difference between believing something to be true and it really being true if all of reality is an illusion.

 

If all of your world is a dream, what is the difference at all from there being a pristine illusion of the sun rotating around you, and the PERCEPTION that it is rotating around you?

 

In my belief system, which was the point of examination in the first place, I contend that there is no difference between experiencing something as true and accepting something as true. That flows from MY BELIEFS about reality. Which also, flow from the evidence that I have experienced personally [and canNOT prove] that reality is more subjective than objective. That its rules can and do bend surrounding our emotions and beliefs.

 

Magic was culturally pervasive in the ancient world. Rewrite your statements to reflect that.

 

What about around the moments when magic died out? Why do you think it died out from mainstream belief? If there was a period of time in which people transitioned from believing in magic to not believing in magic, then that period of time was EXACTLY how I described it. You asked how people stopped believing in magic if it was true. I told you that there was an obvious transition period when people STOPPED accepting it, and thus practitioners of it stopped being open about it. And now you tell me that that's false because "magic was culturally pervasive in the ancient world"? I don't at all understand your reasoning. My statements were:

 

1. Magicians were open about performing magic at one point.

2. People stopped accepting it.

3. Magicians stopped being open about magic.

4. People stopped believing since they stopped seeing it.

 

All of these things are true. What exactly were you trying to invalidate by saying that "magic was culturally pervasive in the ancient world?"

 

Yeah, that really is just confirmation bias and liberal interpretation.

 

Yes. Yes. Exactly. The part that you're missing is that I contend that what you confirm reflects upon your reality in deeper ways than just the psychological. Because I contend that reality is an illusion.

 

What? What?

You simply cannot say that this is a fundamental law of nature any more than I can say "It rains chocolate sprinkles every thousand years" is a fundamental law of nature.

 

ಠ_ಠ ... Are you serious?

 

... If you ask a Christian what he believes about the world he will tell you he believes God is a fundamental truth from which reality comes. He will tell you God is more fundamental than gravity.

 

The concept of reality being based around awareness is my belief, and I BELIEVE that it is more fundamental than the laws this world is based upon. Gravity is a part of this dream, but what is more fundamental is that we ARE dreaming. That's my BELIEF.

 

...Do I have to say that after every single sentence? Yes people, I was asked what my beliefs were and thus the things I say herein are my beliefs.

 

There are fundamental aspects of reality, but they are not 'consciousness'. That's a biological phenomenon. The first 12 or so billion years of the universe's existence were lived happily without it. It could easily have never evolved at all, or evolved completely differently.

 

Youuuuuu don't like thinking outside of that box, do you? It shows.

 

YES, that would be correct if you assumed beyond a shadow of a doubt for no reason other than that it appeals to you that this is exactly how the world developed. If this neat tidy concept of evolution in this manner is what you define everything else off of and take as determined fact, then you're right.

 

But walk with me on this one.

 

I am a creationist, though far from religious. You assume a variety of non-falsifiable facts about the universe. For instance, you assume that consciousness came to life as a result of incredible amounts of time allowing chance to sort things out. That's fine. But OBVIOUSLY, judging the validity of MY conclusions based on YOUR premises makes no sense unless we share the same premises.

 

Let's say, hypothetically, I have a dream. In this dream, I find myself in a mystical land called Caelondia. I get to talking to a man about his world. He tells me Caelondia is millions of years old. Can I tell him it isn't? After all, Caelondia is a world my mind showed me when I began dreaming. It did not exist before my dream, and won't after I come out of the dream. At least, there's no reason to assume it does.

 

So I tell this man he is wrong! I tell this man I'm dreaming. I tell him that Caelondia is a dream. That it didn't exist before the dream. That it won't exist after.

 

And he tells me that I'm wrong, because Caelondian scientists have proven that Caelondia is millions of years old.

 

I believe that consciousness is the POINT of this reality. I believe that consciousness is the fundamental fabric of this world, because this world is a dream. Scientists having proved by carbon-dating or similar such technologies that the Earth is older than recorded consciousness does nothing at all against these ideas.

 

People in a dream world aren't gonna find in carbon-dating that the dream world is 30 seconds old. This world was created as a near-perfect illusion to simulate life, much like dreams are. Because of course I believe it IS a dream.

 

I believe these things because to me, this reality makes far more sense to me under these assumptions, based upon what I have observed.

 

Your premise for disproving what I have said is that consciousness is a biological phenomenon that evolved over great amounts of time. What does that argument have anything to do with me if I disagree with your premise entirely?

 

My premises are very different, clearly. This is all, as asked, how I justify my beliefs in magic. If you're questioning a completely different viewpoint on the entirety of reality, I have no idea why you'd assume I hold the same premises as you.

[Sands]

Reading that hurts. Give me back my wasted time.

[waffles]

Oh, okay. I'm sorry, it's just that when you said

I'm always open to be scrutinized.

what I thought you meant was "I'll defend my beliefs". But apparently it's more "I'll talk as long as you're soft, because suddenly

 

It is my BELIEF

In my belief system

That flows from MY BELIEFS

and canNOT prove

my belief, and I BELIEVE

That's my BELIEF.

 

Guess what? I could also follow every statement with "that's my belief", but I don't need to because that's implied. It doesn't matter if it's your belief or not; I can challenge it, and was doing so. I asked you about your basis for this theory, but apparently all the evidence comes from some things that you have seen yourself but can't prove or even mention for whatever reason. I cannot argue with this because whenever I ask "Why do you think this?" you will simply say "Because I saw it myself but can't prove it to you" which is basically the answer to OP's question.

 

Nevertheless, I'll pick out a few things.

 

 

Apparently it was not clear to you that the point I was making was that there are rules that keep our combined dream "grounded". Our reality is malleable, but there ARE laws. If people believe that the Earth is the center of the solar system, how does this effect them? Well, of course they view the everything as revolving around them, having established this belief because of the fact that they believed God was far more concerned about humanity than about the other planets. The belief in an Earth-Centered world WAS "manifested" to them. It WAS their reality. BUT, the world still has substance and laws, so of course it can be discovered and proven false, as it indeed was.

Right, so the laws of physics that prevent magic (pretty much all of them) are changeable but the other (same) laws that govern celestial motion and/or every other scientific theory aren't?

 

 

What about around the moments when magic died out? Why do you think it died out from mainstream belief? If there was a period of time in which people transitioned from believing in magic to not believing in magic, then that period of time was EXACTLY how I described it. You asked how people stopped believing in magic if it was true. I told you that there was an obvious transition period when people STOPPED accepting it, and thus practitioners of it stopped being open about it. And now you tell me that that's false because "magic was culturally pervasive in the ancient world"? I don't at all understand your reasoning. My statements were:

 

1. Magicians were open about performing magic at one point.

2. People stopped accepting it.

3. Magicians stopped being open about magic.

4. People stopped believing since they stopped seeing it.

 

All of these things are true. What exactly were you trying to invalidate by saying that "magic was culturally pervasive in the ancient world?"

 

Oh, I'm sorry. Maybe you missed the part where I said

check your facts

because I don't think you checked them. See, there are two flaws in your argument, about points 1 and 2.

Point 1. It wasn't "magicians", it was "a lot of common people who performed or partook in magic rituals". It was common for people to do it.

Point 2. There is no "people stopped accepting it". You are insane if you think that's acceptable. My whole point here is how people could have stopped accepting it.

 

 

 

... If you ask a Christian what he believes about the world he will tell you he believes God is a fundamental truth from which reality comes. He will tell you God is more fundamental than gravity.

 

The concept of reality being based around awareness is my belief, and I BELIEVE that it is more fundamental than the laws this world is based upon. Gravity is a part of this dream, but what is more fundamental is that we ARE dreaming. That's my BELIEF.

 

...Do I have to say that after every single sentence? Yes people, I was asked what my beliefs were and thus the things I say herein are my beliefs.

So what? I don't care about Christians and their theistic views. Surprise! They're not scientifically acceptable either! You can't just say "Well I BELIEVE it so there" because you miss things like evidence, important things very much so.

 

 

And the rest. Chronology won't serve me here.

 

If you're questioning a completely different viewpoint on the entirety of reality, I have no idea why you'd assume I hold the same premises as you.

Well, I'm so sorry. I didn't realise that I was expected to work out your world view from what you'd given me.

You have to tell people if your view on reality differs vastly from the commonly accepted one and it's relevant.

 

 

And he tells me that I'm wrong, because Caelondian scientists have proven that Caelondia is millions of years old.

You didn't deliver your point here, so I'll finish it for you.

"And then I change the dream because it is my dream, and when the dream people see this they get very angry but I have most definitely proved their science wrong".

 

Here's the problem with your dream metaphor. You know that you are dreaming in it (apparently). Unless you are to claim that you 'woke up' from this life and then came back later with the knowledge that it is a dream, they differ here. And that's the key point. This world could be a dream. It could also be a simulation, a world existing in someone else's imagination, a world existing on the side of a chocolate sprinkle in a vastly larger universe, and so on. Why doesn't anyone test this?

You're the one giving me non-falsifiable statements. I can't disprove your dream hypothesis. I can, however, refuse to accept it on the grounds that you have no evidence, because scientific method.

 

 

I am a creationist, though far from religious.

May I ask what evidence you have based this upon?

 

 

People in a dream world aren't gonna find in carbon-dating that the dream world is 30 seconds old. This world was created as a near-perfect illusion to simulate life, much like dreams are. Because of course I believe it IS a dream.

Have you ever actually dreamed? Because it seems to me that you haven't.

When you are not lucid, everything is not consistent. I should not have to explain to you that reality doesn't make sense. It is blurry, out of focus, macroscopic, inconsistent. Lucid dreaming has the condition that you know it's a dream, so nope. Since you're not giving me much to go on, care to explain why this dream is special?

 

 

I believe these things because to me, this reality makes far more sense to me under these assumptions, based upon what I have observed.

And heaven forbid you tell us!

[Flexionsensor]

Wait... Are you saying that if I simply believe something can happen, it will? WELL SCREW THIS! I'm going outside to do a Kamehameha! Seeya on the news, suckers!

[Sands]

I'm gonna fly, aww yeah!

[dillionchurchill]

BACK TO IT AGAIN!

 

Except more succinctly this time, since this long ago spiraled into oblivion!

 

what I thought you meant was "I'll defend my beliefs". But apparently it's more "I'll talk as long as you're soft, because suddenly

 

What was I to say when you consistently barked at me for my claims that were clearly my beliefs? I say stuff without tagging it as a faith and you assault me for the science behind it. So, merely to make it clear.

 

If I wasn't open to scrutiny I would've never posted here, and I CERTAINLY wouldn't still be here.

 

but apparently all the evidence comes from some things that you have seen yourself but can't prove or even mention for whatever reason. I cannot argue with this because whenever I ask "Why do you think this?" you will simply say "Because I saw it myself but can't prove it to you" which is basically the answer to OP's question.

 

Well, try to view it from my perspective on this one. What am I to do? Tell you all a story that none of you would believe? Expect you to take it on faith that those things happened? What good would telling a single example be? Those who believe these principles don't need to hear it. Those who don't, will discard anything I say instantly.

 

All I have are my stories. I'm not here to convince anyone of anything, and I don't for a moment suffer the hallucination that any story I tell here will be held with any sort of authority. OP wanted to know how I conclude magic is legitimate, that's been answered way too much already.

 

My whole point here is how people could have stopped accepting it.

 

Both in my understanding of history, AND IN YOURS, it was once acceptable and practiced and then it wasn't. This point is irrelevant from the start, regardless of the mechanisms since we both believe it happened.

 

They're not scientifically acceptable either!

 

When I said that consciousness is a fundamental of reality, you criticized this concept as completely scientifically unsound. My point was that it is a belief of mine, and that I was not claiming in any way that it WAS scientifically founded in research. I was trying to point out that criticizing an intuition-based belief for not being scientifically proven is pointless.

 

In other words I was attempting to AGREE with you that it was unfounded, and that I was taking it on reason from my experience.

 

Here's the problem with your dream metaphor. You know that you are dreaming in it (apparently). Unless you are to claim that you 'woke up' from this life and then came back later with the knowledge that it is a dream, they differ here.

 

My point in the whole dream metaphor was merely that proving that the Earth is old does not invalidate the possibility of it being a dream.

 

This world could be a dream. It could also be a simulation, a world existing in someone else's imagination, a world existing on the side of a chocolate sprinkle in a vastly larger universe, and so on. Why doesn't anyone test this?

You're the one giving me non-falsifiable statements. I can't disprove your dream hypothesis. I can, however, refuse to accept it on the grounds that you have no evidence, because scientific method.

 

Want this whoooooole conversation in one TL;DR: "This world could be a dream." And based on my experience, that hypothesis makes more sense to me than it NOT being a dream. Because scientific method.

 

If you experienced the subjectivity of the physical world, it makes more sense that the world is subjective than objective. Occam's Razor style.

 

May I ask what evidence you have based this upon?

 

Everything I've already said, of course. Specifically that reality seems to surround consciousness.

 

Since you're not giving me much to go on, care to explain why this dream is special?

 

Because this is reality. It is the "true" dream, if you will. This dream is shared by all of us, our dreams when we sleep are just us. All of that is conjecture.

 

And heaven forbid you tell us!

 

I can only presume you would take me at my word for any story I tell you, and suddenly accept everything I've said as a possibility.

 

Why do you pretend it would matter at all for me to tell you any stories?

 

Answered on all accounts, save for those stories that I have considerable reason NOT to share. Hence, why I am not here to convince anyone of anything.