ProNihil

I was brought to a state of irritation lately upon pondering Aleister Crowley's definition of magic, i.e. "Magic is the art and science of causing change to occur in accordance with will." Now I have not been formerly trained in philosophy but according to that definition, then the act of me picking up a pencil is magic.

Here is where it really starts to get me though. "Something" inside of me decided that it would be a good idea to pick up that pencil. This something is oft referred to as a chemical process, or a bunch of electrical impulses. Anyway, in order for my hand to reach out and grasp the pencil, there must be some kind of cause and effect relationships going on, in that the physical is being manipulated by the mental. Sooo, could not the physical apart from my physical body be manipulated by the mental? i.e. levitation of objects etc. As far as I know, the universe basically consists of this "stuff" that I will call for the purpose of this conversation, "ether." I would believe this ether to be the lowest common denominator of what "is" or basically what everything in existance is made of. If everything in existance including me is made of the same stuff and it is all "touching" and interacting, then why should it be impossible for me to move the cup without touching it as opposed to physically manipulating it, which, given the context of my question here would not be so different at all?

If any of you recognize what the hell I am talking about and have some vocabulary that I am not aware of, then please tell me where I could find it. Thanks.

Philosoft

You have a conditional proposition, the antecedent of which has not been proven. Your idea assumes the separate existence of mental "force" or a mental "realm" where thoughts can interact with matter. Currently there is no reason to prefer this view over a reductionist one that treats thoughts as complex organisations of matter.

ProNihil

Philosoft, that is something that I have never heard of before. Would you please tell me where I can further learn about this particular "reductionist" view. Does it need to be within a specific genere or can I just go and get a book on reductionism?

Philosoft

Your words smell vaguely of sarcasm, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. "Reductionism" is, in this context, the notion that all events can be explained as material things and fundametal forces or as relationships between and patterns of material things and fundamental forces. Thus, a reductionist view of mind/body would propose that all phenomena we attribute to the actions of the "mind" are, at their simplest, interactions between matter and force; there is no separate "mind" substance that itself interacts with matter and force.

ProNihil

Uh, truly, I have no idea why my last post would have sounded sarcastic. I did say previously that I had no philosophical training. Anyway, thank you for the benefiet of the doubt and the subsequent breakdown.

p.s.- I have noticed that some people on these forums have taken it upon themselves to be blatently rude to other posters in an obvious attempt to subconsciously justify their obvious mental and "other" shortcomings. I decided to join this forum because I saw some actually intelligent people posting around here. I do hope that the overall continuity of these discussion groups holds to that path instead of becoming an outlet for those predisposed to such embarassing displays of ridiculous insecurity.

Philosoft

Consider my suspicion unwarranted, ProNihil and accept my apology. As a regular II poster, and especially as a moderator, it is in my best interest to facilitate civil debate and discussion. However, sometimes that doesn't keep me from being suspicious and trying to head off arguments at the pass, so to speak. But I now find, after many experiences, that 'benefit-of-the-doubt' is usually the best initial course-of-action.

That said, this forum tends to attract quite accomplished philosophical minds; the level of discourse is often several notches above the proverbial "Philosophy 101." If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask, and we, mods and users alike, will do our level best to help you understand.

ProNihil

Done

Thanks for your explanation of the reductionist viewpoint. In the spirit of conversation, I will have to digest what you wrote concerning reductionism for a day or so before I am ready to respond with something worthwile.:banghead:
Cheers

sweep

reductionism: you could start by looking at cells. For instance, we explain violent behaviour by reference to a singular hormonal event- testosterone. In some cases reductionism helps our understanding, as when for instance we see a man with androgen insensitivity develop the external appearance of a fully grown woman, except with male gonads!

Looking at will, I tend to think of consciousness as a large community working as a whole. Each part can't be conscious alone, but together, it forms a byproduct called consciousness, which has often, in the past been seen as mind; as though mind is separate from the body. Therefor we have dualism.

jpbrooks

It indeed may be the case that brain processes have a direct effect on the environment apart from the effects on the environment caused by the brain's effect on the muscles of the body.
But (and I'm certainly no Crowleyan scholar) I'm not sure that adherents of Thelema (Crowley's belief system) make a significant distinction, as far as "magic(k)" is concerned, between moving objects around without touching them and moving them around in the conventional manner. In other words, (and again, I am not extremely well read on Crowley and thus could be mistaken on this point) Crowley did not narrowly define "magic(k)" as "telekinesis". His focus seemed to be on "psychology"
rather than on Quantum Physics, though he probably would have found the latter interesting.

ProNihil

Upon thinking about the above, I ran into some immediate problems with regards to why a reductionist view should take precedence over my "mental force" view. I am going to call it the "mental force" view simply because I have no idea what the proper philosophical term for it is.

What is seems to me that your answer did not address is where exactly (and this is where I should have worded my original question more carefully) the "will" or personal determinism fits in. The very idea of reductionism as posited above, would indicate that complex "organisations" of matter are inherently, well, organised, which leaves out the possibility of individual creativity.

Now, to kind of refute what I just said, but at the same time back up (I hope) my "ether" theory, I will say that the view that the universe is made up of all of the same stuff is seemingly non-contradictory to reductionism as it would indeed allow these complex organisations of matter to form and mutate into other thoughts etc. AND even have direct correlation through whatever means (which is what I am attempting to discover) to the manipulation of other organisations of matter, though not through the ways in which we percieve them with our normal day to day senses.

I am working by the way through the Atheism Web page so that in the future I can post more appropriatly put together propositions. At the same time, I appreciate, once again any feedback because it helps with my personal studies on these subject matters.