Well I feel bad for you then. I think it’s there though. You’re not going to always recognize magic.
I’m curious: You’re not an artist I muust assume? What do you rely on when you need to be creative or break new ground?
Analogy: say there is a house of cards sitting on a floor. Then an anvil is dropped on it, completely covering all the now-flattened cards.
There’s a difference between saying “we can’t know the exact structure of that house of cards before that anvil fell on it, because there’s no film of it being made and the maker doesn’t remember” and saying “we can’t know the exact structure of that house of cards before that anvil fell on it, because the spirit underlying the Universe has a plan concerning this incident that we can never understand.”
It’s certainly true that there’s plenty about both the physical universe and our experiences as conscious beings in that universe, that we don’t now understand.
But it’s one thing to say 'we can make progress in the creation of tools and techniques that will gradually help us understand these things–and even understand better the nature of uncertainty and chaos’*—and quite another to say 'we can never understand these things because the spirit of the universe/God/fairies/Ultimate Intelligence/what-have-you has decreed that this is not for us to know.’
- On the Uncertainty Principle: even if we can’t measure both the position and velocity of a particular particle at a particular moment, that doesn’t mean that the particle doesn’t have both position and velocity. That we affect what we’re trying to measure is inarguable. But it doesn’t imply that we can’t continue to amass knowledge.
Similarly, Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is more about our inability to make rules for a system that are all both provable and true, than it is about our ability to continue to amass knowledge and find the answers to questions. It’s about one particular system of thought (admittedly, one with important and far-reaching implications) that does have an inherent limitation (namely, the problem with constructing rules that are all both true and provable). But this doesn’t represent a limitation placed by any spirit or entity; it’s just the way systems of axioms work.
You won’t find any scientifically literate person who’d claim that either the Uncertainty Principle or the Incompleteness Theorem preclude or undermine a physicalist view of reality.
Don’t jump to conclusions; I was merely clarifying The Other Waldo Pepper’s point on his behalf.
But actually, I am a painter, musician, and writer. I’m not sure I consider intuition or artistic inspiration examples of magical thinking, though.
Yeah I probably would rather have a thread on the difference between those two. I think I’ve said all I can say here.
I doubt that many people do.
We’re all entitled to make up our own definitions–but we can’t expect that those with whom we try to communicate will understand our made-up definitions.
The claim that “magical thinking” is synonymous with “creativity” makes about as much sense as would a claim that “entrepreneurial thinking” is synonymous with “deception.”
Though a particular person thinking entrepreneurially (!) might happen to be practicing deception, that hardly constitutes evidence that “deception” is the same thing as “entrepreneurial thinking.” And using one of the terms and expecting others to understand that the other term is actually what’s meant, and that that the user thinks the terms mean the same thing, is a recipe for confusion.
Not quite the same…because intuition really does work. It just doesn’t work dependably. We all get hunches, and rather often these hunches have some validity. But that’s mostly because the unconscious is taking in sensory data that we aren’t consciously aware of.
e.g., you’re in a forest, and start to feel kinda creepy. It might take a little time before you realize, consciously, that the birds have all fallen silent, but your unconscious mind picked up on that, and started sending you “creepy” vibes.
Magical thinking is more divorced from real evidence of any sort. It’s saying, “The number thirteen is unlucky, because…” Because? Because uncle Jack told you so when you were seven, and you never questioned it. Anyone who takes the effort to study the matter will find that the number thirteen is not unlucky. But that’s the problem with magical thinking: large numbers of people don’t take that effort to debunk it.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Logical thinking is “if I practice hard at the guitar, I can get better at playing it”.
Magical thinking is “I don’t need to find a real job because when I’m a rock star, I’ll be a millionaire”.
Same goes for business. As a project manager, I have to deal with the logical thinking of how fast my team can work, check that work and deliver results of sufficient quality to satisfy the client.
Sadly, sales and upper management tend to indulge in magical thinking that their bullshit sales estimate is even remotely possible.
Heh. Yeah. And I suppose there’s an overlap of that magical thinking with both Hope, and with the uncertain science of Persuasion (if management can persuade the staff that the estimate is possible, the staff might work in such a way that it becomes possible. You know, by working 336-hour weeks and such. 
)
So the definition of magical thinking cannot allow for a positive meaning. And you are on a thread to discuss it for what reason?
This is some real pedestrian thought. Not a lot of nuance or profundity.
There has been no end of improviasation on this theme that you are secure in your logic and can’t stand intrusions. After a while it’s just tedious.
Sure, I’ll bite. What’s your non-pedestrian, nuanced, and profound perspective? Apart from “magical thinking isn’t a bad thing.”
You wouldn’t want to be at the skeptic end of the spectrum anyway. “To be totally ‘unmagical’ is very unhealthy,” says Peter Brugger, head of neuropsychology at University Hospital Zurich. He has data, for example, strongly linking lack of magical ideation to anhedonia, the inability to experience pleasure. “Students who are ‘not magical’ don’t typically enjoy going to parties and so on,” he says. He’s also found that there’s a key chemical involved in magical thinking. Dopamine, a neurotransmitter that the brain uses to tag experiences as meaningful, floods the brains of schizophrenics, who see significance in everything, but merely trickles in many depressives, who struggle to find value in everyday life. In one experiment, paranormal believers (who are high in dopamine) were more prone than nonbelievers to spot nonexistent faces when looking at jumbled images and also were less likely to miss the faces when they really were there. Everyone spotted more faces when given dopamine-boosting drugs. Brugger argues that the ability to see patterns and make loose associations enhances creativity and also serves a practical function: “If you’re on the grassland, it’s always better to assume that a tiger is there.”
Psychology Today
Why don’t you tell me why you disassociate magical thinking from creativity? You’re drawing a real line in the sand.
Wanna Party
Here is some of the rest of the PT article. Does it really take a lot of thought to see that magic is present in normal lives? Or in your case 'is not…"?
Arthur C. Clarke’s assertion, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic,” comes to full fruition in cyberspace—a realm of avatars and instant messaging. And magical thinking may help us pluck the fruits of digital technology.
The mystical hunches that don’t always make sense in meat-space can make good in the datasphere. Computer viruses act even more like curses than real germs do, taking over computers and making them seem possessed. Icons work as charms that can open windows into new worlds, and simple clicks on buttons or links can have surprising and far-ranging effects. Action at a distance (for instance e-mail) works because everything is connected. In the real world, meaningful coincidences often incite unfounded suspicion about a mystical tinkerer behind the scenes. But with technology, intelligent agents really are pulling the strings—not deities but engineers and programmers. Computer hacks—solutions or tricks that sidestep normal operating procedures—are a form of coding magic. Or, as a geek might say, magic is a form of hacking nature.
Finally, as our technological gadgets become more advanced, our tendency to see agency in them—yelling at your cell phone when it “misbehaves”—may become increasingly adaptive. Inanimate objects will become more responsive, interactive, and intentional, TechGnosis author Erik Davis says, “so it will make sense to have a degree of magical thinking just to be able to deal with these devices.”
Not So Silly After All
Who are WE to say the dreamers have it wrong? Carol Nemeroff and Paul Rozin point out that many magical beliefs have gained some element of scientific validity:
Magical contagion: Germ theory has shown that we have reason to fear that something invisible and negative can be transmitted by contact. Bacteria are the new curses.
Holographic existence: The idea that the whole is contained in each of its parts is born out by biology. Every cell in your body contains all of the DNA needed to create an entire person.
Action at a distance: Can voodoo dolls and magic wands have an impact? Well, gravitational pull works at a distance. So do remote controls, through electromagnetic radiation.
Mind over matter: The placebo effect is well-documented. Just thinking that an inert pill will have a medical effect on you makes it so.
Mana: Mana is the Polynesian term for the ubiquitous concept of communicable supernatural power. There is indeed a universally applicable parcel of influence that is abstract and connects us all: money.
There’s a reason they call it “rationalization”
As Tim Minchin said, if there is any alternative medicine (that needs magical thinking to believe that it works) that is shown to work it stops being alternative and it becomes medicine.
Magical thinking can help us reach a goal, but it can not be the whole solution, eventually the magical thinking has to be confirmed to work and there is no magic needed now (and then you were lucky, your guess was more likely an educated one) or the idea has to be dropped. (You were then unlucky and the beautiful magical theory you had will have to be tossed out with no fear of any wizard disapproving you.)
Richard Feynman - Ode To A Flower
https://vimeo.com/55874553
I think child abuse or mental abuse would be much more accurate. Definitely so for fundamental religion.
Absolutely. If magic spells work then they’d be part of logical thinking. It would be logical to say “I want this girl to marry me so I’ll cast a love spell on her” if magical love spells work.
But if you have no evidence that magical love spells work, then it is not logical thinking to use them.
There is a big difference from “suspension of disbelief” and “belief.” Sure, we love going to movies to watch James Bond blow up the villain’s secret lair in a volcano somewhere. But in reality, we know it’s just special effects and a so-so actor in a tuxedo.
Magical thinking is when you stop being able to tell the difference.
Except we can see bacteria. We can raise 'em in dishes, and try out compounds that kill them.
There isn’t any evidence for curses. You’re making a comparison between two very, very different things.
The magical thinker correctly is averse to handling a tissue on which someone has wiped their nose. But the magical thinker also is averse to wearing a blue shirt because someone who had a cold was wearing blue that morning. The magical thinker doesn’t know how to discriminate between actual cause-and-effect and illusory cause-and-effect.
That’s some good logic right there!
For what it’s worth, you don’t seem to get that “logical thinking” and “magical thinking” don’t exhaust the possibilities.
Imagine I asked about using a gun to deal with an assailant versus using a knee to the groin – and then noted that there are situations where one can’t use a gun, and so, ah-ha, the answer must be a knee to the groin. How would you reply?
Well, you’d reply logically, of course. You’d note that “knee to the groin” is but one type of non-gun solution – that you could knife a guy in the belly, or smack him upside the head with a baseball bat; that you could kick him in the shins, or punch him in the face; that you could grab his throat, or gouge his eyes, and so on – and that you have all kinds of other non-gun-and-non-knee-to-the-groin options that maybe make sense: running away from him, or reasoning with him, or whatever.
And that it’s entirely possible to lead a full life – or build a whole civilization! – without kneeing any groins, even given situations where guns don’t solve everything.
That analogy’s pretty good, but let’s make it better: imagine I ask about dealing with an assailant by responding logically, or by responding magically – where “logically” includes selecting one of options I just mentioned or whatever (you can strangle or shoot, or run or talk, and so on) and “magically” is but one type of illogical (where, I dunno, you stand real still and wish real hard that your assailant will turn into a toad).
Responding logically sounds like a good move. Responding illogically also might work. Responding magically (a) is one type of illogical, and (b) sounds like a bad move.