In canon, we've seen instances where ordinary non-living and inanimate objects (such as a goblet) are transfigured into living things (such as a mouse).

It brings up questions like:

-How can a newly-transfigured mouse with no prior experience or memories or instincts (which are genetic), and no prior sentience at all, function?

-When you transfigure the mouse back into the goblet, is it ethically wrong? (i.e. are you killing it?)

-Is the mouse 'living'?


How does the creation of life with magic work?

 

I've pointed out before that the transfiguring something from sentient to non-sentient clashes with ethics, and vice versa makes philosophy shit itself. The answer: JK's knowledge of philosophy is right up there with her knowledge of thermodynamics.

 

I've always thought of transfiguring as a way of imbuing an object with all the outward properties of another object (outward meaning material, which would include mass/shape/density/pretty much what of it we can observe), not making the object into something else. For example, a goblet transfigured into a mouse would look like a mouse, act like a mouse, but won't be a mouse. If that makes any sense.

For example, if you turn a boulder into a human, he/she would fail the Touring Test. It won't be intelligent or self-conscious, but it'll act as much like a human as the caster's magic can make it.

Going back to the earlier example, it's the caster's magic making the goblet look/act like a mouse, and probably how it behaves depends on how the caster thinks a mouse should behave. After all, we've seen a Patronus walk around, and they aren't made of much.

Yeah, I just crammed a little of AI shit into the discussion. But that's how I'd justify it in anything I'd write. It's just easier to ignore all of that shit, though.

 

So transfiguration is just a really good illusion?

But we know that in Potterverse, some form of transfiguration has to exist. For instance, the Philosopher's Stone exists and aside from extending life, also turns metal into gold.

 

And that's alchemy, not transfiguration. Alchemy, like chemistry, is concerned with changing the metal from one to another. It's permanent. Not like a transfiguration, which shouldn't be active after the wizard/witch is dead.

Which is, in fact, another point in favour of my theory. Transfiguration isn't permanent, it only remains active until the wizard dies, at best. If transfiguration really changed one thing into another, like goblet to mouse, then the mouse would stay a mouse even after the caster died. And, in fact, you'd need to transfigure it again to get back a goblet. A countercurse, like we've seen can be cast on animagi, won't do the job.

So what the object had been, its history if you will, stays with the object. Once tha spall breaks, the object (or creature) reverts back to its original state, the one it should be in.

Sounds like illusion, doesn't it? Only one deep enough to fool every sense, including taste and touch, not jut the eye.

Edit: Also note how alchemy, which deals with permanent change, deals with pure metals. One pure substance, wholly changing to another. Not like a goblet changing to a mouse, at all.

 

Alchemy isn't like chemistry at all. Alchemy involves, among other things, elements of mysticism and spirituality. Also known as magic. When iron is changed to gold, it's also done through magic. Thus, magic can change on thing into something else entirely, which is sort of the premiss for transfiguration.

Oh, and the stuff about purity and whatnot doesn't make sense in the context of this argument. Changing from one pure substance to another pure one is still changing it.

My canon knowledge is a bit rusty. Where does it say that?



On a side note, when Malfoy is transfigured into a ferret, is he still a sentient human being but with the sensual perception of an animal? Or does he possess the mental ability of a ferret? In either case, the illusion is more than just applicable to the outside world. It also changes the thing being transfigured, which means that in the goblet --> mouse problem, something had to have happened to the goblet itself to change it. It's not a great big illusion where the goblet is still a goblet.

 

I never said Alchemy is chemistry. You also missed my entire point. o_o

Your arguments:

1. Alchemy involves magic.

2. Therefore magic can change one substance into another.

3. Therefore transfiguration changes one substance into another. Since, you know, magic is magic. Much like sound energy is light energy is mechanical energy.

4. I particularly love this one:

Let's see mine.

1. I agree that alchemy involves magic. It's really kind of obvious, since, y'know, wizards practice it and no muggle scientist has ever found a way to change base metals into Gold.

2. Therefore, magic can change one substance to another.

Of course. No problems there.

Only, think about how many wizards have achieved the feat Flamel had. Centuries of work had gone into making a single Philosopher's Stone. And we know of only one wizard who has ever achieved it, so we can reasonably assume that few have achieved such mastery in magical history.

Therefore, we can come to this:

3. Changing one thing to another through magic is difficult.

... So difficult, in fact, that even Voldemort had to go steal a Philosopher's Stine, instead of trying to make it himself.

4. We know that: Transfiguration changes one thing to another on a daily basis.

In fact, a reasonably competent wizard (like Cedric in his 7th year) can transfigure a rock into a dog.

A fucking rock.

With lots of elements and compound in it.

Changed into a fucking dog.

With lots and lots of organic elements and compounds in it, and arranged in such a way that it can live, breathe, and go distract a fucking Dragon.

... Yeah, you'd think he could wave his wand and change a lump of iron into pure gold, wouldn't you?

... No? Yeah, I thought not.

Therefore, we have only one possible conclusion.

5. Transfiguration does not change something into something else in the same way alchemy does. The magics used are not of the same type. And alchemy, with respect to Transfiguration, is a whole lotta more complex.

Corollary: Whether alchemy can change something into something else, while undoubtedly containing fascinating insights into the capabilities of magic, is not pertinent to a discussion about transfiguration.

That was my point regarding your alchemy example. o_o

Edit:

Since spells cast by wizards (like Dumbledore's binding charm on Harry in HBP) dissipate once they die, I'd assume normal transfiguration spells, too, would be gone in a similar manner.

If you don't agree, fine. In that case you'd have to abandon your p[osition about transfiguration capable of changing one thing into another, though. For example, if somebody can permanently transfigure a knut into a galleon, the wizarding economy would pretty much be non-existent. The only way we can avoid that is to assume one of these:

1. Transfiguration can't change things entirely from one to another.

In favor of this: as I said, the existence of counter-curses.

If wizards really can change one thing to another, then once the change part is done, there should be no magic left in the object. But the fact that counter-curses can break the spell suggest strongly that transfiguration changes the object and holds it in that state, and the object would revert back to original once the spell is broken. Doesn't sound like an entire change, does it?

This, in fact, brings us to the other assumption:

2. Transfiguration isn't permanent.

Personally, I think both 1 & 2 are correct, instead of only one of them. Transfiguration would be too powerful, and probably considered Dark Arts, otherwise.

 

What if when you Transfigured something into something else, you are limited by your knowledge and perception on the object.

So if you transfigure a stick into a mouse you know what the mouse looks like and how it should act, if not from first hand experince through some other means.

hence it looks like a mouse, sounds like a mouse, smells like a mouse and acts like a mouse.

 

You’re right. I don’t think that he could wave his wand and change a lump of iron into pure gold. Rowling made it very clear that there were cardinal rules in magic preventing the transfiguration of or conjuring of money (which translates into gold) and food.

The fact that it’s impossible to conjur or transfigure gold makes perfect sense. After all, why else would alchemy exist? But as a difficult field designed to circumvent these laws of magic. This also addresses your concern about the wizarding economy- it works because you can’t create gold.


Now, the purpose of the thread wasn’t actually about what transfiguration is, but I guess I do have to define it first.

I think that in transfiguration, a change actually occurs, that powered by magic, the goblet actually becomes a mouse. This point, evidently, is where we differ. You argue that the goblet is manipulated to seem like a mouse through magic.

I also think that the magic has to be available in a constant stream or the object would revert back. Thus, transfigurations aren’t permanent and the Weasleys can’t transfigure nice clothes because they just don’t have the power to keep the change permanent. This also explains why in transfiguration class, they always change the transfigured objects back- because they just don’t have the power to maintain it. The implication from this is that a skilled and powerful wizard (like Dumbledore) would be able to make better and longer transfigurations than a class of first years.

To make this clearer, you can use the analogy of melting an ice cube outside in the winter time. In order to change the ice cube in water, you have to provide heat. But heat isn’t an endless supply, so once you take it away, the cube reverts back to ice. That’s kind of how I see transfiguration working- changing the object away from its natural form by using a stream of magical energy (the heat, so to speak) to make and maintain the change. Once you take that source of energy away, the object reverts back to its former and most stable form.

Anyway, since my conception of transfiguration provides for the actual change of the object, this makes the ethical and mechanistic considerations of creating life with magic relevant.

 

I thought these were laws of magic, and inherent in magic itself.

Not being able to conjure/transfigure something food would also make perfect sense according to my theory, since transfiguration isn't permanent and only a very thorough illusion (albeit one that could be said to temporarily fool the reality itself, considering the changed mass and everything). Therefore conjured/transfigured food won't be nourishing to any extent. Similarly, a simple counter-curse would take care of conjured/transfigured gold.

I guess my point is that you can conjure/transfigure a gold galleon, only it won't be gold for very long.

According to this, the ethical questions do not arise, since the goblet transfigured into a mouse would still be a goblet 'at heart'. Same for the reverse.

 

*shrugs*

We have different definitions of transfiguration, and by implication different conclusions.

Unless there's some sort of 'crucial experiment' to decide one way or another, it's impossible to discuss the topic without agreement on what transfiguration is.

 

...

On that note, I ask again: why is conjuring/transfiguring money impossible? It can't be that magic prohibits to transfigure something else to bronze or gold. After all, the dog or ferret we've seen conjured or transfigured had to have metals in their bodies. So why can't we conjure pure metals instead of resorting to a Philosopher's Stone? Won't that be easier?

But demonstrably it's not.

Therefore you aren't really changing something into something else by transfiguration, at least not permanently. It's just an illusion on a whole new level. Or maybe something else. What it is not is a real change.

The definition of Transfiguration you have just won't work in a practical world. There's no direct evidence, but we can back-calculate from what we've seen.

I'm just going the way that makes more sense.

 

One thing to note on alchemy though, is that it kind of is chemistry.
Radioactive elements like uranium, when they get rid of enough alpha particles (protons and neutrons) they can literally have the elemental composition of a completely different element, literally changing uranium into something else.
The only thing modern chemistry does not do, is provide the stability so that the element doesn't break down again and again until its useless (ie. radioactive elements usually change into other radioactive ones).
I think alchemy simply provides that balance, if an element has enough protons to lose, it could essentially become gold.
Alchemy is fantastical chemistry and is not at all like transfiguration. On a chemical basis, a bronze or copper goblet does not have all the minerals and materials necessary to make a living mouse but a mouse transfiguration it somehow makes.
We've seen Dumbledore transfigure or conjure items to block curses (I believe in DOM) so it has to be more than an illusion if it can trick magic itself.

 

I think what Mors means is that physically speaking, the goblet becomes a mouse. There's no difference between the two. But "at heart," in truth, it's still a goblet. Every part of it has changed- except its basic identity as a goblet, which, should the wizard who transfigured it die or otherwise break the spell, it would "remember" and automatically resume.

 

Mors isn't saying transfiguration is an illusion, he's saying it only holds as long and as well as the users magic and skill allows.

He's basically saying it isn't permanent. And that it isn't like Dresden transmogrification. When Malfor was turned into a ferret, he was still human, he just had the body of a ferret.

That's always the way I thought of it.

 

Mindless: exactly.

Logrusmage: I didn't mean optical illusions, but rather a temporary fooling of the reality itself regarding the identity of the transfigured object... so I think we're all on the same page, more or less. The illusion I'm talking about will fool every observation, including touch, taste, and mechanical measurement of mass. But inside, spiritually, it's still the same. Malfoy, for example, would've been a little startled at finding himself in the body of a ferret. But he wouldn't have been controlling his body easily, rather the transfiguration magic would force him a tad towards how a ferret should behave. The goblet/mouse example... well, the goblet won't be thinking of anything.

Shuujin: Yeah, radioactive elements themselves have inherently unstable nuclei. If anybody was serious about transmuting other elements into gold, they could do it in reality by bombarding heavier elements and whittling down the atomic number. The yield would be very small though, and it won't be possible on anything out of the micro-scale. But it can be done. The cost and computing power involved will be about twenty thousand shades of ridiculous, though.

... I mean, fuck, we can make antimatter these days. And Rutherford did the first transmutation more than a hundred years ago.

What you're talking, though, won't work if you want a philosopher's stone. Sure, adding/subtracting nucleons can be done, but to stabilize each of the nuclei once they reach gold -- no amount of chemistry will ever be capable of that. Not just by touching a fucking stone.

... Fuck I'm drunk. Hope I don't regret my posts tomorrow, rofl. XD

 

We can already turn lead into gold, the fact is it cost so much money it isn't even close to worth it.

Lead -> Gold has been done in a lab in Berkeley I believe. Only a few atoms and it cost shit loads of money to do.

 

Naw, that was Seaborg.

Oh, Happy Birthday, by the way.

 

@ Lyndon Eye:

It never does.

@ Mors:

Transfiguration is established to be a difficult and powerful magic. Where, though, did you get the idea that Voldemort was trying to steal the Stone for the gold?

I don't really get why you're talking about all the elements and compounds and stuff in the transfigured objects. Would an ordinary wizard (like Cedric) know or care about that stuff? No - yet he was able to transfigure the dog without much problem.

I know I'm going out on a limb here, but where in Canon does it state Transfiguring gold is impossible? After all, your 'magics are not the same type' idea doesn't make sense, because this is not some universe where there are different types of magic. There is just magic, and its many uses.

I would argue that gold can be transfigured, but that it is one of the hardest aspects of magic to master (or put another way, when you become good enough to Transfigure gold, you're good enough not to need to). After all, Voldemort managed to make a completely silver hand in GoF without apparent huge effort. Silver is not gold, but it is a precious metal, and in HP magic where the mindset of the wizard matters far more than physical laws, this strongly suggests a wizard at Dumbledore/Voldemort level might have the ability to Transfigure gold.

Realize: The Philosopher's Stone is a tool that allows an average wizard to do with a minimum of effort that which a highly skilled one can do after decades of studying (Immortality, conjuring gold). Guess what? We have seen another example of this type in Canon. The Elder Wand is a tool that allows an average wizard to do with a minimum of effort that which a highly skilled one can do after decades of studying (flawless spellcasting). See the parallels?

The most hilarious thing about the idea that you can't Transfigure gold by magic: we know it can be done.

I expect someone will come along with a Canon quote that completely demolishes this idea.

Conjured food cannot nourish because it does not last (a topic for another thread), and Transfigured food is taken care of by authorial fiat.

"Magics used are not of the same type" - huh? Throughout canon, we have been given the names of different applications of magic: Charms, Transfigurations, Conjurations, Vanishings, Hexes, Curses, Enchantments, etc. However, the idea that there are different 'types' (flavors, textures, whatever) of magic is completely unsupported. If someone were to say that a Shield spell could not Conjure something, I would say yes, because the spells were cast to do different things, not because the magic used to do them was nebulously 'different.' Supernatural effects in HP are achieved through 'the' magic, not 'a' magic. There is no Sidhe Court that uses a different brand of magic.

And your support for this comes from which page? I'll keep pointing it out: in Canon, we have heard of objects being Transfigured and being Transfigured back to their previous forms. Never have we heard about objects being unTransfigured because the 'energy flow' that was keeping them Transfigured dried up after the Transfiguring wizard died.

And counter-transfigurations are most likely just that: transfigurations that do precisely the opposite of the first transfiguration. They do not suggest a constant magical effect around the Transfigured object, merely that it is possible to transfigure an object that has already been transfigured - which would make sense if Transfiguration leaves no 'sustaining' magic around the object, just the object itself.

It is far more parsimonius to believe that Transfiguration is a one-time, permanent event than a process which has to be constantly upheld in a process hinted at nowhere in Canon.

And Transfiguration is very powerful. And to the Dark Arts: why? Just why? It seems like you're suggesting that any powerful magic should be classified as the Dark Arts.

@Dark Lord Knox:

This makes absolutely no sense. Are you suggesting that Diggory had knowledge of the Transfigured dog's anatomy and physiology that any biologist would kill for? Perhaps you would reply he only had a knowledge of the basics like the bones, and the complicated bits like cells, tissue, DNA, etc. is taken care of by the magic? If that's the case, why can't the magic take care of the basic stuff - like the skeletal structure.

@Mindless:

The goblet becomes a mouse, and there's no difference between the two? And again with the strange 'remembers what it was' idea. Here's a different one: what if the mouse is actually no longer a goblet but a mouse, and will stay a mouse, and will die a mouse, and is different completely from a goblet, and does not have nightmares about existing as said goblet?

@Mors again:

So it is a mouse...

But spiritually, its a goblet.

A Human-to-anything Transfiguration cannot be used to support the theory that objects 'remember' what they were and retain a 'spiritual' connection to that form because of one of the fundamental truths of the HP universe: humans have verified souls. Thus, human-to-animal transfiguration must take into account a way of protecting this soul (assuming transfering to a non-human body would destroy the soul) or else this type of transfiguration would be murder. So yes - Malfoy's soul remembered being human, but as neither a goblet nor a mouse has a soul, there would be no basis for a 'spiritual' connection to the past form.

Actually it has been fun. Hope you don't feel too bad afterwords.

@The original point of the thread:

Because the magic takes care of the genetics, and in HP, (mundane) animal sentience is merely a matter of organics.

Keeping in mind my previous point about souls, no, it is not ethically wrong because it does not have one that transfiguring would destroy. Unless you would consider souless animals, basically organic computers, to have rights, but that's subjective.

The mouse is indeed living by the status of the HP 'verse.

To illustrate my point about souls, consider this example. An accomplished wizard should have little difficulty in Transfiguring a human body out of something (doesn't matter what). However, this body would be merely that - essentially, a hunk of meat, a plant, a living cadaver, because Transfiguration cannot replicate souls. It would breath, might even defecate/urinate if you force-fed it, but would not be capable of any intelligent thought. The mouse or dog, however, operate off of instincts and have no souls, so a transfigured 'lower animals' would be indistinguishable from a natural member of its species.

 

Nefar: Ok my Idea is kinda dumb. But it was just a theory as to tranfiguration, and theorys are meant to be proven wrong, Right? or is that something else, Damn science class has slipped my mind.