Seances: Magick versus Psychic

So, I have been doing psychic type seances for quite awhile and I know there are a huge number of ways to do them otherwise, such as using magickal techniques. A friend of mind brought this up and I was wondering if anyone could give me the main difference in the techniques, apart from the use of magickal items in the process. I am really interested in learning more about magick as a whole as well...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can't really help you with the techniques but I can help you with magick as a whole. It's a psychological satisfier where people pretend to influence events and physical phenomena with thought and ritual. It can be healthy and fun but it comes with a disclaimer that it's "pretend". Hope that helps.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One technique is to give yourself totally to fantasy and delusion, accepting whatever comes your way during the seance or trance.

Another technique is to completely lie and deceive, giving the illusion that you're doing a seance or using "magick" (of course, the inclusion of the "k" implies it's "real" <wink>).

The former has the effect of coming across as genuine, though many will just take you as nutty or crazy.

The latter will seem complete and detailed and if the illusion is well-planned, you can be very convincing (you might even be able to make a buck or two). However, if the lie is discovered, you'll be despised. The best course of action is to pretend to be deluded and to truly believe that you're psychic at this point -watch any videos of Uri Geller or John Edward to get the idea.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

lol, Skin you couldn't resist could ya'

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Nope

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You had to say 'Uri Geller' didn't you? I'm going to have to dig out the Soundgarden and listen to 'Spoon Man' now!

 

I don't know too much about these things, but I applaud your asking- I wouldn't pay so much attention to all the naysayers here; yes, there are frauds who just want to take your money, but I personally believe that there's much more then that. My father once said, [true] magic is science not yet known. Many things that were once attributed to magic have now entered the realm of science and the realm of science is definitely expanding. Good luck in your search for what you would like to know- the truth is out there

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If you assert that you have been doing "psychic seances" for some time, you're almost certainly either a fraud or deluded.

 

To Wingmaker,

I would take a close look at this statement. The person is trying to lump people who are far more knowledable into a group called "naysayers"... in effect sending the message that "ignorance is a good thing"... and it's clearly not.

The person continues to say that he acknowledges fraud but accepts without evidence that somehow there is something beyond the fraud with a strong implication that the something is real.

In essence he is telling you to be stupid... which is harmful advice.

I would agree. I hope you realize that Wingmaker is not talking about magic but rather magick (using thought and ritual to alter reality). The only science involved here is psychology.

But if you encourage people to be stupid, then they will be discouraged from truth.

 

Prove it.

 

The caveat was 'almost certainly'. Anyway, the proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim to prove their claim, not for the sane to debunk it. You woowoos nearly always get that wrong for some reason.

 

Ah. The old comeback for the woo-woo. The burden of "proof" is not upon me. I'm not making the claim. If, however, there were verifiable examples -empirical data- which show "psychic seances" to be matters of fact, then we would be having quite a different discussion.

Alas, there is not. Not a single "psychic" or conductor of "seances" has every empirically demonstrated his/her claims to be true. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that those who make such nonsense claims are almost certainly lying or deluded. Are you making the claim that such things are true? I just want to know which camp to put you in.

 

I meant for you to prove it with that it was 'almost certainly' the case.

I believe we have different views on what constitutes extraordinary claims and sanity.

 

No, I'm not. I'm trying to lump people who naysay into a group called 'naysayers'

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Whether they're knowledgeable or not in these areas remains to be seen as far as I'm concerned.

I heartily disagree with what you believe I am 'in effect' saying.

I certainly agree that there is more to magic then fraud- is that what you were implying I believed?

Again, I heartily disagree with your conclusion there.

Glad we agree on something

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

I wasn't aware that there was a difference between magic and magick. Good to know.

Atleast you put the 'if' in there...

 

This is the claim you made:

phlogistician understood this; apparently you didn't.

I never said there were verifiable examples which show psychic seances to be a matter of fact.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of its lack. I'll give you an example- a man finds that a building has collapsed; he concludes that the building was brought down by fires. He never tests for explosives. He then says that anyone who says that explosives may have been used is lying or deluded. My advice- perhaps he should test for explosives himself before going off with his views on the subject.

 

The more knowledgeable part was demonstrated by contrasting these two responses. A naysayer is generically someone whom opposes something no matter what. This being a science site, non-science is going to be opposed fiercely, and you can look at any college science curriculum and observe that there are no magick science courses. To be able to oppose non-science requires a level of education/knowledge that allows a person to quickly recognize what is and isn't science. Both Skinwalker and phlogistician posess this level of education and knowledge both academically and professionally. So you are effectively lumping the knowledgeable people into the naysayer group.

Your message is clearly "don't listen to the naysayers". They are the knowledeable people in this case and to not listen to them is to promote ignorance. Maybe the message doesn't match your intention, in which case you can always go back and re-formulate it.

Yes and a little more. I was implying that what you believed as being "more to magic" dealt with human rituals being able to alter reality.

When you say "don't listen to the knowledeable opposition" there isn't really any other interpretation.

 

I don't think you did. I think you meant for Skinwalker to do that. But that would be bogus, as it's not up to Skin to debunk every crackpot on the Internet, there just isn't time. If this person thinks they can perform, they should do it for Randi and bag that cash.

Because you are slightly insane and believe in too much extraordinary bullshit?

 

I'm on the same page as Skinwalker, so if you think we see things differently here, the comprehension problem is yours.

 

The best-known type of magical practice is the spell, a ritualistic formula intended to bring about a specific effect. Spells are often spoken or written or physically constructed using a particular set of ingredients. The failure of a spell to work may be attributed to many causes, such as failure to follow the exact formula, general circumstances being unconducive, lack of magical ability or downright fraud.

Another well-known magical practice is divination, which seeks to reveal information about the past, present or future. Varieties of divination include: Astrology, Augury, Cartomancy, Chiromancy, Dowsing, Fortune telling, Geomancy, I Ching, Omens, Scrying and Tarot reading.

Necromancy is another practice involving the summoning of and conversation with spirits of the dead (necros). This is sometimes done simply to commune with deceased loved ones; it can also be done to gain information from the spirits, as a type of divination; or to command the aid of those spirits in accomplishing some goal, as part of casting a spell.

Varieties of magic can also be categorized by the techniques involved in their operation. One common means of categorization distinguishes between contagious magic and sympathetic magic, one or both of which may be employed in any magical work. Contagious magic involves the use of physical ingredients which were once in contact with the person or thing the practitioner intends to influence. Sympathetic magic involves the use of images or physical objects which in some way resemble the person or thing one hopes to influence; voodoo dolls are an example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(paranormal)

 

The lack of understanding -and the apparent woo-woo factor- is with you. My statement above is a conclusion to a syllogistic argument, not a claim (i.e. a premise).

The conclusions stand: there is almost certainly no reason to accept the existence of "psychics" and "seances" (based on the premises that many have made claims regarding both, none have demonstrated those claims, and no evidence is provided to show these claims to be true). Those that think they have skills in either are, necessarily, deluded or liars (based on the premises that no such claims have been shown to be true). Which are you? If you assert you are neither a liar or deluded, you must, necessarily, have evidence to support your claim.

The final conclusion is, the burden of proof lies with you and/or anyone who asserts that "psychics" and "seances" are anything more than fantasy or fraud.

I don't expect a woo-woo such as yourself, given to flights of many fancy, to accept logic or reason -instead, I expect you to create your own internal justifications and irrational reason.

Then you're in agreement that there are no good reasons to believe in either? Please... pick a side: reason or fantasy. Stick with it. Are you woo or are you not?

Your example is completely and wholly ignored. You're creating a strawman to support your overall woo-woo mentality. I think, deep down, you realize that "psychic/seance" bullshit is just that -bullshit. But to acknowledge that there is no good reason to believe in such fantasy contradicts your personal woo-woo BS in regards to conspiracy theories in general. You're a significance-junkie and a mystery-monger and thrive on woo. The strawman is this: I never stated lack of evidence is ... blah, blah, blah.

But since you bring it up, in this case it most certainly is. And here's why: Thousands of people have made claims of "psychic" powers and the ability to conduct "seances." These claims have been investigated time and time again with not a single shred of tangible evidence to support them. Indeed, most "pyschics" and "seancers" flat out refuse to be tested lest their lies and delusions be exposed. This then becomes evidence of absence when investigation reveals nothing. It would be like searching your pocket for money. After you've looked and discover you're still broke, you can't then claim that just because you haven't a cent in your wallet you can buy lunch.

Woo-woos and conspiracy nutjobs like you have been coming to SciForums for years. The difference between us and other science forums is that we don't ban you for being a woo-woo. Its more fun to mercilessly run the woo-woo into the ground with their own words.

So, are you saying there's good reason to believe in "psychic" powers and "seances" or aren't you?