Just as some people can "swim" by floundering about in the water.

I would say that the movement of the legs and arms constitute swimming in its entirety and so are more than just tools, but nonetheless...

"where does the ability to do magic come from"

This isn't really the question you are asking. The question you are asking is where does magic itself come from. And there is no reason to think that this necessarily has anything to do with the wizard. For instance, one idea already stated is that the magic could be in the world itself, and the wizard has the ability to manipulate it into spells, most often via a wand, which itself could be a source of magic.

As I've said, there is an assumption here that magic is like an appliance that needs power to run. You have a spell, you input energy, and a result is caused. I do not agree with this assumption. I would say that a wizard is not a magical battery powering his wand. Magic is not physics. Nor is it maths. JKR has said on her website that the fundamental nature of magic is not scientific. A wizard is simply a person who has the ability - skill - to do magic.

To use the music analogy:

A musician is one who has the skill to play music. But this is not to say that he is somehow drawing music from within himself and channeling it into the world. Nor is it to say that the musician manipulates some kind of natural musical force that is in the world. The musician simply creates the music himself. If you wish to simplify it, you could say that the musician is the source of the music. But he is not drawing in some quantifiable or locatable source of music - it is being created by him. His ideas, his pattern of thought, his decisions, his emotions, and so on.

So it is with magic.

If you wanted to go even further with the analogy you could say that the instrument is like the wand, a composed piece of music like a spell, and perhaps even that the voice is accidental magic.

I'm sorry, who made the thread now? The thread is to discuss the essay I posted in the OP - an essay about what separates one wizard from another.

 

Sorry, I read that and thought the argument was based around it.... Clearly I was wrong.

On other views, you are actually convincing me here... I can really see a logic that I either refused to see or was blind to before. Thank you for the insight. Would you mind if I explored this slightly in my fic? I am still using the idea of a 'core', but it would be interesting to combine both ideas and see where it goes. I would clearly label it as stemming from this discussion, and any references to anything you have said would be marked.

 

Since I consider this system canon, I lay no claim to it...anyone can use it. It'll be interesting to see how you combine it with magical cores.

 

A circular argument based upon a priori assumptions. Alright for theories but it will remain a theory as such.

If you were going to continue to claim this theory then I would drop all reference to powerful wizards from your theory. There would be skillful wizards who are able to produce powerful magic. This is more in line with the magic = music line of thinking. Those able to produce powerful music are merely those who are most skillful. Those with innate music talent will be more skillful than those who do not.

There are problems with this argument though. The cave scene in HBP as mentioned. The infinity+1 argument doesn't really hold. To use noise for example. If you are playing music at 120dB and something making 30db is in the background you do not get 150db. Essentually you don't hear the 30db sound at all even though it is there. The boat, or the way it was designed, could have simply been overwhelmed by Dumbledore's magic. If you had two sounds at 30db, however, you would be able to hear both and distinguish between them.

Longer lives being due to magical power is hard to test. However, it is not disproved by Dumbledore dying when he did because he was killed by a curse. Not natural causes.

The potion's affects upon Dumbledore are also called into question. He was able to summon the flame whip but unable to apparate. If his skill had declined I doubt he would have had a problem with apperation. If it were slowly declining then he should not have been able to cast a silent petrifying spell at Harry.

Comparing magic to golf seems to work. Tiger Woods is arguably the best golfer in the world. However, he doesn't have the longest drive. He does have an above average drive though which makes golf much easier for him. Someone who could only drive a ball 150yrds will have a very difficult time beating tiger woods. However someone with a 450yrd drive might be able to beat him some of the time, especially on a hole where there is water for 400 yards.

Another example is a boxer vs. a martial arts specialist. The boxer may win simply due to his power but the martial arts specialist may win because he makes use of the power availible to him better.

Magical Exhaustion isn't supported by cannon but it isn't disproved either. The two moments with the highest amount of magical display last 2 minutes, maybe. Hardly enough time for exhaustion to develop.

Until JKR decides that she needs more media attention and explains magic in some crackpot way we will never have a definitive answer to this question. There simply isn't enough information in cannon.

I just don't think that you can make the claim that skill = power. Potential might be a better word because it is a combination of the two. You need skill to make use of your power.

 

This is, admittedly, something of a necrobump, but Lord Ravenclaw has been contacted and has approved this post. Many thanks to the resident system god for his time and permission.


Taure’s theory is intriguing, but I cannot abide by the inclusion of instinct in the set of all things forming ‘skill.’ The two are, by their very natures, antithetical; instinct is raw and unrefined – a gift of nature at its purest form – whereas skill is, simply put, learned. Skill is the summation of all conscious acts towards a goal; it does not factor in natural affinity – instinct – nor does it, I believe, factor in emotion. Skill is not in any way a function of the subconscious. Granted, emotion and instinct have impact upon all human actions – magic, theoretically, being no exception – but they are not learned behaviors.

I would put forth a different, though admittedly related, unified theory of magic. Canon HP magic is, I believe, a compilation of three things: conscious skill, subconscious intent, and innate (read genetic) magical ability.

In essence, Taure has described the aspects I would refer to as conscious skill and subconscious intent. He has described the two under the single umbrella of ‘skill,’ but my disagreement there is essentially semantic, as I believe the aspects he includes in skill should be separated into conscious and unconscious categories.

However, there are canon events which cannot be reconciled, in my opinion, with a skill-only basis for magic. Explicitly within canon, there are two major issues, (both of which have been touched upon by others in the thread): the prophecy and the existence of apparently genetic magical traits. Implicitly, the existence of muggles leads towards a similar conclusion, but, as there is no explicit canon to this end, I fully expect that portion of my argument to be at least partially discarded.

The prophecy, specifically the ‘mark him as his equal’ bit, has come up in a few posts; it has been pointed out that Harry is not equal in intelligence, creativity, knowledge, mental focus, or any other aspect of Taure’s definition of ‘skill’ with regards to Voldemort. Somewhere in the thread – my apologies, as for the life of me I can’t find the damn post again – it was postulated that Harry and Voldemort are equals only in a vague, philosophical sense. Canon tends to show otherwise; even taking the prophetic ‘equal’ to mean a philosophical ‘equal and opposite’ in the struggle between good and evil, the proposed equality falls through. Harry shows a far greater ability to hate than Voldemort to love. There is no canon event that shows Voldemort with any positive emotion, and it is tacitly implied that Voldemort lacks the ability to love entirely. Harry, on the other hand, shows anger, jealousy, and even outright hatred regarding the Dursleys, Draco, Snape, and any other person who is generally an asshole to him. That is a perfectly understandable, perfectly human response, but Voldemort does not show an equal and opposite ability with positive emotions, thus suggesting that the prophecy does not refer to philosophical equality. As the prophecy obviously does not refer to equality in skill or philosophical equality, another form must be present. Age alone disqualifies physical equality, thus mental (conscious skill), emotional (unconscious intent), and physical equality are ruled out. The logical assumption seems to then be magical equality, which necessitates the existence of some form of innate magic.

Genetic traits seem pretty self-explanatory with regards to their impact on a skill-only theory of magic. If a trait is genetic, it has a basis in the physical body of the wizard, thus leading to greater natural ability in some wizards over others. There is significant evidence in canon of genetic traits, so I fail to see how this can be reconciled. Parseltongue is pretty clearly genetic given that (excepting Harry) it appears only in the Slytherin line. It is implied to some extent that one must be born with the ability to become an animagus, but, given that all four marauders had the ability, I’m not sure if that implication has been read too far into by fanon, or if it actually is genetic. Metamorphism, however, is explicitly stated in canon to be a talent that one is born with, and, therefore, it must be genetic.

The existence of muggles leads, albeit in a more abstract manner, to the same conclusion: that the power of a wizard is based in some way upon a limited reserve of magic. Muggles cannot access magic whatsoever in canon. There is some fanon that goes around mentioning muggles performing extraordinary feats of strength by virtue of magic via emotion and instinct, but that is, so far as I know, a fanon invention. If, as in canon, muggles have no access whatsoever to magic, then it lends credence to the theory that wizards are somehow physically different, the logical manner being the existence of a reserve of power. If it were a matter of conscious and unconscious skill alone, it would seem that all humans would, particularly in childhood when belief, instinct, and emotion are strongest, perform acts of magic. This does not occur in canon; there is even evidence to the contrary in that muggleborns are determined by their use of magic in childhood. Even in adults, the more raw forms of Taure’s definition of ‘skill’ would appear periodically in times of stress. I imagine the fanatically religious would also have a tendency to perform magical acts by virtue of strong belief. There’s a wonderful potential for humor there, particularly in sects that view magic and witchcraft as absolutely evil. I digress though. As none of the above situations involving magical muggles occur in canon – and, if they existed, several of them probably should have – it leads me to believe in a physical difference in wizards, which, again, would logically be a magical reserve.

The differences in apparent power between wizards would then be a combination of Taure’s theory – the combination of conscious and unconscious skill – with the existence of a physical difference enabling access to differing amounts of raw magic. Wizards blessed with both a large reserve and great skill, such as Dumbledore and Voldemort, would be the most powerful. Canon Harry would then be Voldemort’s equal regarding the access to raw magic, but Harry’s woeful stupidity in canon results in the apparent inequality between the two. Hermione, while more intelligent than most, would have a lesser reserve, thus placing her, as in canon, at or slightly above Harry’s level. It irks me to no end to have to say that. Ron, who has the intelligence of your average brick, and, at best, an average reserve, is thus much lower on the overall scale of power.

I do not discount Taure’s theory in full –indeed, it seems to make up basically 2/3 of my own – but it does leave holes, and I believe the inclusion of some form of innate magic closes them. By all means though, feel free to find the holes in my theory and point them out; I have no doubt they’re in here somewhere.

 

Unless you practice something until it becomes a part of your subconscious?

 

This is just playing around with definitions. I used a special definition of skill for my argument - one that is not entirely synonymous with the normal use of the word. My definition was "all of those things that effect spell casting".

Concerning natural affinity, I will say what I said earlier. Saying that someone has a natural affinity at something is not something separate from all other factors. If we say someone has a natural affinity for swimming, what we're in effect saying is a shortened version of saying that they have good strength, coordination and cardio-vascular fitness. Someone who we say has a natural affinity for music is in fact just another way of saying that they have a good sense of rhythm, pitch discernment, coordination and so forth.

These things are mostly environmental factors, but there are some genetic factors also. The extent of this depends on your view of the nature vs.nurture debate.

Most of all, "natural affinity" is already taken into account by my definition of skill and my theory in general:

I disagree with this, which is what your argument appears to be primarily based upon. Yes, I support the view that "equal and opposite" is a more philosophical point, indicating that Harry and Voldemort are equal and opposite people in the struggle between good and evil.

I fail to see what their ability to feel various emotions has to do with this. Yes, Harry can feel anger more than Voldemort can feel love - what has this got to do with their equal and opposite-ness? The point is that they're opposites in terms of position, in terms of their life philosophy, in terms of their outlook, not in terms of emotional range.

Because they do not have the magic gene while wizards do.

 

Addressing the issue of Hermione being less "skilled" than Dumbledore or Riddle: She's interested in EVERYTHING, and wants to learn all that is knowable. Riddle and Dumbledore are specialists: Dumbledore was groundbreaking in Transfiguration, while Riddle spent nearly his entire existence trying to achieve immortality.

AD became unbeatable in battle (as distinguished from mere duelling) by developing and perfecting combat transfigurations - fast offensive use of transfiguration spells. Those spells allowed flexibility in combat. They are excellent in defense as well as offense and give many options for protecting others. Transfiguration also makes ordinary life easier and more comfortable.

Riddle, driven by trying to avoid death, specialized in soul work and offensive combat spells. [I just had an idea!] It's possible that Riddle's research into horcruxes enhanced his skill at throwing the Avada Kedavera curse. If the AK kills by ripping the soul from the body (using a different method than Dementors) then maybe that's why he could cast the spell so efficiently. He DID cast the AK three times in a matter of minutes at age sixteen (killing the Riddle family right after Gaunt.) Four times in an afternoon seems pretty skilled to me.

My point is that AD and Riddle were the gold standard for their specializations, but Hermione was the unbeatable GENERALIST in her generation.

 

I wouldn't really say that. Dumbledore taught Transfiguration it is true, but he was also revolutionary in charms (the Bond of Blood charm) and in fact all disciplines (Madam Marshbank's comments about his NEWTs).

Same with Riddle.

I think it's better just to say that while Hermione was intelligent etc, Dumbledore and Voldemort were simply more so. Much more so.

 

As for skill theory:
Why wouldn't a squib be able to learn to cast? Filch could see magic and magickal creatures like Peeves. He wasn't magic-blind, but there wasn't the slightest hint that he could do any magic at all. The only possible magic in his life was Mrs. Norris.
A purely skill-related magic would have to include some sort of block or mental damage.

 

Same reason why Muggles can't learn - they do not possess the magic gene. As JKR says on her website: it's not a case of being "magical enough" - you either are magical or you aren't, and Squibs aren't.

As can Muggles.

 

I think I remember that muggles couldn't see Hogwarts, and there are specific charms that repel muggles but not squibs. Can muggles see ghosts?


If the only people who can see thestrals are those who "have seen death," which I presume means having actually watched someone die and being old enough to understand the implications, how is that a skill? Would someone be able to see thestrals if they had watched someone be Kissed, but not actually seen someone die? What if the observer had watched someone flatline, but then the person was brought back by CPR?

 

Well given that Mr Filch is a squib and /he/ can see hogwarts...

 

The same as Hermione's parents could see Diagon Alley once they were inside. Muggle repelling charms only seem to stop entry - once a person is inside, they're fine.

 

The genetic inheritance of magic is an idea which has always confused me. After all, each parent gives an allele- half of you gentic structure. If the two alleles agree, then there are no problems. So say two parents have black hair- both alleles will say "Give the child black hair". If one has black hair, and the other red, then the genes will conflict and the "Dominant" one will be passed on.

So this means that when it comes to magic, there are wo possible genes. "Magical" or "Not Magical". As such, the next step is to find out which is dominant. We already know which one it is- "Magical" is, as Seamus's father is a muggle and his mother is a witch and we already know that he is a wizard.

However, Squibs exist and they are the offspring of a Wizard or Witch. So if we know that the "Magical" gene is dominant, how can Squibs come about? After all, the "Non Magical" gene is recessive- which means only two people with the "Non Magical" gene in their allele can pass on the "Non-magical" gene.

Which leaves us with a problem. If the "Magical" gene is dominant, then how can a Squib who has the "Non Magical" gene be born to parents who both have a "Magical" gene.

And just so you know, my knowledge on genetics is rather limited.

 

No: one gene, two alleles: magical or non-magical. Muggleborns point to the magical allele being recessive, Squibs point to it being dominant.

There are two solutions to this problem:

1. Make it so that it's coded by multiple genes and is more complex.

2. Make it so that the magical gene follows separate rules than normal genes - a whole separate discipline of magical genetics, if you will, which works in a different way to Muggle genetics.

JKR has always referred to it as one gene, so option 1 is out. Thus, option 2 is the only explanation.

 

I have decided that I don't believe that. My justification is that JKR oversimplified to make it accessible to children. Mostly, I find the idea of a "magical" magic gene is ... inelegant. I prefer the idea that the ability to "do magic" is actually spread among several (most?) of the chromosones - the way the ability to see is not an aspect of an "eye gene," it's a complex encoding that requires lots of harmonious interaction.

If, as I believe, the ability to do magic is the result of outside influence on the genome, then it could be (more or less) lost in "junk DNA" for most humans. That would help justify the "pureblood" philosophy, as well as the occasional muggleborn. If magic got into the line by
A) divine (or infernal) intervention
B) creature inheritance
C) aliens, or whatever,
then that would explain why there aren't any magical great apes: chimps don't summon fruit, gorillas can't make light.

 

Yes, it was semantics, and I tried to make clear that my first two influences on magic roughly equated your theory in its entirity. Simply put, I prefered splitting the aspects of magic you included into two partial theories, and included them in that manner in my own total theory.

Rowling has characterized the philosophical battle between good and evil in terms of love and hate. Voldemort hates indiscriminately and cannot feel love, therefore he is evil, albeit a somewhat half-assed cartoonish evil. Harry, while his primary canon emotion may be love, retains a wider emotive range, including the polar opposite: hatred. By basing the philosophical struggle on these emotions, Rowling has made Harry and Voldemort unequal in this manner. Harry, by virtue of his emotions and his state of mind, is far less 'good' than Voldemort is 'evil.' Granted, in the world at large things are not so clear-cut, but Rowling's world does not mirror reality in this instance.

The magical gene is only a partial explanation for the inability of muggles to use magic; it leaves the question open. Does the gene allow access to ambient magic which is then used, or does it create a personal reserve of magic in the body/aura/spirit/whatever? No one knows. I maintain, however, that either way a physical basis for magical talent - such as a genetic basis - must account for the inevitable inequality in physical traits, and thus must account for unequal access to magic. I may be relying too much on legitimate genetics in this assumption rather than Rowling's Patented Pseudogenetics (buy yours today!), and, if that is the case, then I'll move my position back on this particular aspect to 'no proof either way' since the gene's specific impact is unclear.

 

Taure, I must ask that you stop misrepresenting JKR's quote on the nature of magic. You keep saying that she's said that magic is fundamentally unquantifiable, and can't be explained using any physical laws.

The fact of the matter is that the JKR quote in question says something along the lines of "Magic, at its deepest life and death level, is not scientific."

this is VASTLY different then 'magic is not scientific AT ALL' and I would ask that you stop purporting it as such.

In my own interpretation, that quote means what it says, that at the deepest levels of magic, dealing with life death and that stuff, magic isn't scientific. You can't wave a tricorder and determine scientific reasons for why Harry survived the Killing Curse, or why people can see thestrals, because those aspects of it aren't scientific. Spellcraft follows rules, or they wouldn't be able to teach it, but at the very deepest levels, yes, it isn't purely scientific, there's a very real, very potent aspect of it that is purely... well faith, spirit, and all manner of unquantifiable phenomena.

Anyways, as for the magical gene, it'd be great if we could use the multiple gene theory, but JRK has in her wonderful world of pseudogenetics declared that it is one gene ONLY.

And that's very dumb if you know anything about genetics. Then of course there's the whole recessive/dominant bit.

What I would put forward is that for determining if someone is magical or not, there is one gene. That gene is dominant, and represents an evolutionary edge that muggles lack.

HOWEVER, if that gene is present and active, then there are a bunch of other genes that determine the characteristics that we're trying to ascribe to the genetics. magical aptitude, strength (if such a thing does exist) and whatnot.

I would further surmise that rather then squibs simply being wizards without enough magic to cast spells (since apparently JKR has said they that it isn't that they don't have enough magic) that the secondary set of genes that determine the actual magical factors aside from 'is magical: yes/no?' could be a combination of dominant and recessive allowing for people who possess the magical gene that determines 'is magical: yes/no?" but that the secondary set of genes either aren't there, or aren't active.

If this was the case, then squib children AND muggleborns could be explained without having to wrangle past the 'single magical gene that is both dominant AND recessive' stuff.

Or something like that. Nowl, if you'll excuse me I'm off to see a man about a horse.

 

I think I have an alternative theory. I assume the magical gene is indeed dominant, as Rowling has said it is very resilient; Squibs could be explained by a germline mutation in the wizard parents that erased the magical gene from their respective germcell.