Alright, I've made this so that we can migrate the discussions of the nature of magic (intelligent or otherwise) out of the muggle vs wizard thread.


Anyways, this thread is basically to discuss magic, spells, and the mechanics behind them. While we don't know a lot about the mechanics, we can infer stuff based on how the spells are seen to function. So people can post spells or other magical occurences from the books, the context that they occured in, and we can discuss it and use it to establish the upper and lower limits of a spell and whatnot.

This way, it will let us actually debate properly and not just through wild accusations at one another. Well that and it's for my brain, which is threatening to ooze out my ears if I read another "magic is magic, it's beyond our comprehension, and you can do anything with it regardless of this giant stack of evidence to the contrary"

 

When does this happen exactly? That'll be a good first example that we can analytically discuss.

No. You seem to be suggesting that Squibs have only minuscule amounts of power. However, the difference in magical power in HP does not work that way. You either have it (Wizard) or you don't (Muggle).

Maybe we'll finally see this huge stack of evidence that has been repeatedly claimed?

 

The thing with neville was hypothetical. The giant stack of evidence refers to every time somone casts a 'perfect' spell and it fails to do what it's supposed to. If magic really were the be all and end all, there would be nothing wizards couldn't do. If moldyshorts wanted to kill every muggle on the planet, all he'd have to do is waggle his wand and it'd be done, and no one could stop him because it's magic.

Except for the fact that he hasn't, which means there must be some sort of limitation on it.

In any case, I might talk more about this in the morning, when I'm not so nearly dead. Of course in the morning I might not be so nearly annoyed about it. Bleh.

EDIT: Um, I never said that muggles are muggles because they have less magical power then wizards. I said that there were different levels of magical power among wizards. Squibs obviously have some level of magic, or else they'd be muggles. But they aren't muggles, and /that/ is /very/ clear.

Another thing is that when people talk about dumbledor it's always "the most powerful wizard this, the most powerful wizard that". If magic was solely dependent on skilled, dumbledor wouldn't be such a big deal. Indeed, if it were solely dependent on skill, then dumbledor wouldn't be "the most powerful wizard this or that" he'd be "the most skilled wizard"

So little things like that.

Also, let's talk about the so called 'perfect' spells. Like, oh, the stunner. In the other thread, someone mentioned that the perfectly cast stunner would stun anything regardless of defence, physical properties, or indeed anything. Because it's 'magic'.

Except that the so called perfect stunner doesn't seem to work on dragons, except in great quantities. Now this is a major point. Why do 'lots' of 'perfect' stunners work on dragons when a single one doesn't?

If you ascribe to the idea that magic is skill only, then this is a giant ass plothole. By all rights, following the idea of skill only and perfectly cast spells, a single stunner should take out a dragon regardless of size or immunity to magic because "it's magic, it has no limits, blah blah bullshit". Quite frankly the part that gets me the most angry is the continued "magic has no limits rah rah fight da power" stuff. When clearly magic /does/ have limits.



Oh look, you've dragged me to type more. Well screw this, I'm going to sleep.

 

Die. Now.

Also, Taure is going to either tear you a new asshole or provide a link to his magical theory thread.

 

Wall of text coming up...almost 4000 words. TL;DR - I win.

On skill as the only determinant of magical power:

More examples of canon evidence, where the word skill is used interchangeably with magical power:

Thanks to Palver for finding those quotes.

My ideas on Spellcasting:

My ideas on what magic is itself:

These are the ideas I hold as my base assumptions when I debate any HP topic, to greater and lesser degrees. I'm pretty unmoving on the skill is power theory, but spellcasting theory I'm flexible on.


Responding to Kerrus' posts in this thread:

Except that every time we've seen a perfect spell (once in the entire HP series) it has succeeded. This is Harry fixing his Holly wand at the end of DH.

I would disagree with this. If they've both cast perfect spells, then you're saying that they're spellcasting abilities are equal. So, under this situation where you have changed Neville's skill to be equal to that of Dumbledore's, yes, I find nothing unlikely about it. There is no reason for Dumbledore's spell to be greater than Neville's. The only reason why we find this absurd is because we know from canon that Neville's skill isn't equal to Dumbledore's, or anywhere near.

No. Magic itself is limitless, by its very definition.

Wizards however, are limited by their skill, which is why Voldemort was not able to cast that "Kill everyone on the planet" spell.

No. No no no no no no. I'm fucking fed up of repeating this argument over and over again because people can't keep up.

SQUIBS. ARE. MUGGLES.

We're told in the books that a Squib is the opposite to a Muggleborn - someone with no magic (a Muggle) born to magical parents. They're only given a different name to Muggles because of their birth.

And before you try to fucking talk about Arabella Fig seeing the Dementors when Muggle's can't: she lied in that courtroom, JKR said on her website, and it was pretty clear from the story itself that she was lying (big and with cloaks).

Please start spelling Dumbledore correctly.

Your logic is so flawed I don't know where to begin. This is what your argument looks like when set out in non-rambling form:

1. We accept for the sake of argument that magical power is determined solely by magical skill.

2. The term skill is therefore interchangeable with the term magical power.

3. Dumbledore is often called a powerful wizard.

And then you draw your false conclusion:

C: Therefore the "skill is power" idea is wrong, since if that were true then he would be referred to as a skilled wizard, not a powerful wizard.

The conclusion is clearly contradicting one of the premises: #2.

The real conclusion you should be drawing is this:

C: Therefore whenever people say Dumbledore is a powerful wizard, they are saying the same thing as calling him a skilled wizard.

Again, we've never seen a perfect stunner cast against a dragon. I would say that a single perfect stunner would work against a dragon.

 

We don't know a lot about Dragons to actually figure this out, But maybe Dragon hide has something like, defensive properties on each scale, if that were the case, then it would explain why it would take many 'perfect' stunners to take down the Dragon. This would not explain what would happen, if 10 wizards stunned the same place at the same time.

On the squibs note, Would squibs be affected by muggle repelling wards?

Do wizards need to be physically there to cast a spell? By being there, as in the wizard is in the area the spell is cast, e.g A spell cast on a house must have a wizard standing in front of it, to cast the spell.

EDIT: my bad, wrong person, sorry Taure.

 

You've quoted Kerrus and said that it was me. Please change it.

I would say yes.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Clarify?

 

This is what I get for staying the hell up late and letting myself ramble.

I will agree with the majority of your points. Your arguements are clean and concise and rather well written. However, I still feel that there is such a thing as inborn magical power. However, I'm not saying it's some static 'lolmagicalcore' thing. I personally rather liked your analogy on magic as a muscle.


That said, there are issues with your piano analogy, which you could do to fix.

The first one, is this:

Oh, my dear they are. People without "Inner Piano Playing Skill"?

Muggles.

See, what you've gone and done is said "The only difference between a good piano player and a bad one is that there are assosiated factors contributing to their skill. .. Except for all these people over here who can't learn the piano due to lacking the skill entirely, and even if they possess the right mindset and all the associated factors to learn the piano, they are still unable to."

Yeah....

What I would put forth is that there is such a thing as magical power and there is such a thing as magical skill. You yourself seem to condensed all the possible factors under the label of "Magical Skill" and I can understand that. But let's take a gander, gander.

This... This is an impressive list. But there again, are some issues.


The first issue I have is that your list is rather redundant. I would suggest a condensed version that deals with what I'll call 'Main Sequence' modifiers and then on a separate line, lesser modifiers.

Intelligence. Intelligence with regards to magic is key, as it essentially relates ability to process the world around you, and interpret all the senses and stimuli, and then process it. It also represents your ability to learn, to a degree.

I would therefore posit that Intelligence is one of the three Main Sequence traits that contribute to magical skill.


Knowledge. This? This is kind of vague and grand and not at all suited for your purposes. What kind of knowledge? The knowledge of the mechanics of spells? The knoweldge of many different spells? Historical knowledge? hell, we could factor experience under knowledge, or even practice.

Personally, while I feel that your so named 'knowledge' contributes to the formation and casting of a spell, it is again, not the be and end all of casting. Indeed, I wouldn't even list it as a main sequence trait...

But it really needs a bit of work in clarification, so I'll do that now.


I would suggest that the term not be 'knowledge' just in general, but be a more specific term. Since we are refering to spells, let us add 'Spell' to the front of the term.

So "Spell Knowledge"

Except what is spell knowledge? Knowledge of spells? Let's compare someone like Hermione to, oh, Harry or Voldemort. While she's by no means a squib, there are power differences. If Knowleldge was one of the main contributers, it, coupled with intelligence would be god like. But then, who's to say it wouldn't be? We didn't see much of Hermione being God Like, but we didn't see much of her in an environment where she wasn't under constant pressure of DOOM DOOM DOOM

But I'm getting off topic now. What I would posit, is this. Spell knowledge, like your so named "magical skill" is actually the result of several factors, and the whole thing is staggered, so while there are some factors that contribute to the end result, they do so by contributing to something else that contributes to the end result.

Indeed, for Spell Knowledge, I would say that this trait covers things such as 'Technique' and 'practice', both of which fall under memory, which it itself is the cornerstone of what we call 'knowledge'. The other cornerstone, surprisingly (or not) is intelligences. So the two are linked, but I would rather say that Intelligence is the higher trait, and knowledge a supporting trait.


Well that part is done. Onwards.


And by Onwards, I mean I'm going to post and put the rest of it later. Anyways, I would like to again apologize for my conduct last night (this morning? mebbe) I was tired, full of caffeine, and full of sugar. Not the best of combinations.

Anyways, again, I /do/ like your theory, but I still have issues with it, issues I think we could at the very least come to a sort of agreement on. Your theory doesn't cover every instance, though it is remarkable.

Tomorrow (and by that I mean whenever I feel like posting again) I'll.... Hmm. I'll either finish this ^ stuff, or talk about the Muscle Analogy and the associative physical factors that contribute to spell effectiveness.

Anyways, the next part of this would basically be me listing instinct, creativity, improvisation, and that under a single title, and mark it as the second Main Sequence trait that directly contributes to what we think of Magical Skill.

But then I'll probably go piss you off when I
list things like Emotional power as things related to magical power.

But that's all later. I really don't mean any hard feelings, and I apologize to you.

Oz is still a git, but that's to be expected I guess.

 

Of course you have to remember that Hermione is academically intelligent, but there are other forms of intelligence. We see her lacking in certain areas, like when she takes Umbridge to the centaurs and nearly ends up screwing everything up.



Oh... And can someone capitalise the 't' in the thread title. It is pissing me off no end.

Also never refer to Voldemort as moldyshorts ever again, if you do, at least capitalise the name.

 

Sure thing. Mostly the reason I mock the guy is as a villain he's somewhat lackluster. So I mock him. But yeah, sorry, capitalization and all that.

He-who-has-no-fashion-sense...

 

OK, so highly skilled Wordless magic is, in an odd way, like the accidental magic that children will do in an emotional situation. Neville bounced when thrown out of a window, (although he had nearly drowned when dropped in the cross-current.) Clearly, panic in a lethal situation isn't necessarily enough of a trigger. Once he started at Hogwarts, Neville's problems were caused by a lack of confidence in his abilities, and by using an incompatible focus.

 

Hm? Maybe I'm understanding you wrong, but Nonverbal magic is completely different than Accidental magic. Nonverbal is basically purposeful magic, but not spoken. Not having to be spoken is a similarity, but not nearly as big as the difference between Accidental magic and non-accidental magic. Also panic is probably needed in Accidental magic, as otherwise no wizard would ever get a papercut.

 

But Harry Apparated to the roof of his primary school - Hogwarts students are taught that Apparating requires clear visualization and a lot of control. He was trying to avoid getting beaten up by Dudley - but I doubt he really feared the boys would kill him. I'm also quite sure that he had never been up there before - so he couldn't visualize it.
He turned a teacher's hair blue. I don't remember the provocation, but that sounds more like pique than fear or rage.
He was irritated but not enraged at Dudley when he vanished the glass on the snake cage in the zoo.
He was furious at Aunt Marge because of her insults about his mother. Still, it would have been easier to make her choke than to inflate her like a balloon.
Harry's accidental magic seems pretty controlled to me.

I can't remember any other cases of accidental magic - not even against Snape in First year. In fact, did Harry EVER do accidental magic at Hogwarts? Maybe the school has wards to suppress emotion-triggered casting.

 

He didn't Apparate necessarily, he could have just used the equivalent of a levitation spell, it was never fully clarified, IIRC.
Accidental magic isn't necessarily entirely accidental, either, I would consider the 'accidental' part to be the fact they did magic, not what the result was.

 

I would disagree. For a start, Harry was not in control of his emotions, so was not in control of the trigger for the accidental magic. This would be equivalent to going around and suddenly shouting an incantation and not having any control over it.

Secondly, Harry has no control over what the result of the accidental magic is. The magic responds to his base desires and produces a response that Harry has no control over. So this would be equivalent to going around shouting random incantations.

So accidental magic is effectively a wizard going around and when he's stressed shouting random incantations that he has no control over.

For example: Harry running away from Dudley. His fear triggered the accidental magic, not any conscious choice on Harry's part. Now, the magic acted on that fear and produced a response - getting away from Dudley. But this response could have taken many different forms.

Again, Harry with Marge. He wanted to hurt her. But he had no choice over the for that the hurt took.

I would say not. It's heavily implied that he jumped and recieved a boost - the book says he was trying to jump behind the bins but ended up on the roof.

 

Taure - a couple of points on the piano analogy.

1) Nearly every person in the world could sit down in front of a piano and learn how to play Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star. Those who can't have severe physical and/or mental disabilities that get in the way. But even then there are possible adaptations (for example, the armless man that writes/drives/eats using his toes).

But canon magic doesn't work that way. It's on/off, as you note. In piano terms, it's the difference between a person that can sit down and bang out a tune, and someone else that sits down, hits the same keys in the same order, only to have no music come out of the instrument. Why? Where's the difference?

Now, you can separate out the ability to do magic from the ability to do it well, but without any clear notion of how some are magical and some are not, it is much easier to conceive of a system of magic in which there is a powered core that is the difference between a wizard and a muggle that is just waving a wand. (btw...you criticize folks for mistakenly thinking of JKR's system in terms of what is commonly conceptualized in RPGs and other fantasy novels...maybe those other systems are so popular because they are intuitively and intellectually more satisfying?)

2) "Good" piano players can be created by practice, but "Great" piano players are born that way. I don't care how many hours or how many years a person practices playing the piano...if you weren't born a Mozart, you aren't going to be a Mozart. There has to be that something that goes beyond practice-based skills, not just in the greatest musicians, but in the greatest athletes. Your system doesn't appear to allow for that something extra.

Finally, I want to note that your dismissal of Figg's testimony in OotP is discouraging. Someone who uses examples in canon so confidently support your theories (and dismiss others), shouldn't be so willing to ignore something that is there in black and white on JKR's printed page. So JKR says after the fact that Arabella was lying? Hah! Arabella's testimony was critical not just to OotP but for the entire rest of the story (without it would Harry been exonerated? I think not). If she had been lying, it should have been noted within the novel, and an explanation for those lies provided.

But then it's back to "It's her world, so if JKR says it's so, then it must be true"....especially when her post-publish comments are needed to fix mistakes, inconsistencies, and narrative lapses.

 

The magic gene. This is where the analogy breaks down, since there isn't a piano-playing gene that allows you to play it in the first place, but it doesn't harm the argument, since an analogy is there simply for the purpose of illustrating a point to aid understanding. In this case, we have two separate issues: the issue of what determines if you can use magic or not, and the isssue of once you have the ability to use magic, how does this work? The piano playing analogy is an illustration of the latter, not the former.

I would disagree. This goes all the way back to the nature vs. nurture debate. I've seen too many identical twins who then go on to have extremely different characters to believe that genes determine as much as we say they do.

There is a subtler difference though. When JKR says something and it directly contradicts the text, I'll take the text. But when she says something that is backed up by and expands upon the text, then I'll take that as canon. In this case, JKR saying that Figg couldn't see the Dementors is supported by the passage. She describes them very badly, to the point where the court looks like it will throw out her testimony. It's only when she describes their effects that they believe her.

 

Okay, so we agree to disagree on the Mozart bit, and the "magic gene" is an on/off switch. But this analogy itself seems off.
Genes produce physical variations within individuals. What is the physical difference that allows a wizard to cast a spell, when a muggle using the exact same incantation, wand, and wand movement doesn't get any results?

So what do you do when text directly contradicts text, and JKR swoops in with a lame explanation to try to resolve the issue at a book reading after the fact?

+++
But on to a separate question.

Within a system of magic in which skill = power, and practice enhances skill, every witch and wizard should have on Day 1 the same magical potential, and the same opportunities to excel at one branch of magic or the other (because they all have this magic gene). It’s the choices that they make after Day 1 (e.g. where to go to school, what to practice, and how much effort to devote to that practice) that lead to differences in skills and abilities within the wizard population.

And when is Day 1? The first trip to Ollivander’s would be a good touchstone. But what happens when Harry makes that trip to get his first wand? We learn that “the wand chooses the wizard.” It is also made clear that certain wands and certain wand components are best for certain types of magic, and that some wands are more powerful than others.

Why?

What do the different wands “see” as they decide whether or not to choose a particular witch or wizard? Under your system, the wands would need divination skills, and predict what the young witch or wizard would be interested in studying/practicing, and how much effort that they’d put into it. So the witch that will one day devote herself to Charms work would get a wand good for Charms. Except that the very act of a “Charms” wand selecting a certain witch or wizard would influence that decision.

I suppose that children within magical families could be predisposed to one branch of magic or another, based on what their parents do, and what they've seen. But then the wands would need Legimens skills, and act more or less like the Sorting Hat without the stupid songs.

Again, that "wrong" system of magic that is based on magical cores would be much easier to reconcile with these canon events. If a child has a magical core, and that core is unique in the details, there would be something physical for the wands to match up with.


So, Taure, how do wands choose the wizard? What makes one wand grow warm in an untrained 11-year old’s hand, and another sit there limp?

 

canon, I really, really hate to defend Taure's whole argument, but I'm afraid I have to. Taure's argument /does/ allow for people to be born a Mozart in that the factors that contribute to the skill with which they manipulate reality can come into alignment to produce someone who as enough /natural/ talent to be Mozart.

However, Taure's argument breaks down with regards to power, which apparently doesn't actually exist, magic just comes from nothing.... Which I really don't agree on.

The /reason/ I think Taure has specified that there's no power reserve or energy they use is because he's (she's?) gotten stuck on the idea of classical RPGs where everyone casts spells at the same skill (for their level) but some people have larger energy reserves, and Taure feels this doesn't allow to explain for people like Dumbledore or Death-Pants.

Or at least that's how I interpret it. Of course, I don't exactly agree that the energy just comes from nowhere, and the only contributing factor is skill. Rather, I would use the big fat guy analogy.

Some people are born to be fat. Some people aren't. Their physical disposition, their immunoresponse system, and, hell, their metabolism support one end of the spectrum, the other, or somewhere in between. I would posit that it is similar for those with the magic gene. But rather then saying "Dumbledore was born with a giant reserve of magic" I would continue the Big Fat Guy analogy by saying "Dumbledore was NOT born with a giant reserve of magic. Rather, he was born with a.... well the best term would me Energy Gathering System, I guess. So he was born with a super efficient energy gathering system, which allows for Dumbledore to bring to bear more spells and higher level material then your average wizard even if his spells aren't 'perfect'

Conversely, on the other side of the spectrum, we have Squibs. People born with the magic gene, but who's energy gathering system absolutely sucks at gathering energy. They're still magic, and they obviously retain whatever it is that muggle repelling wards recognize to distinguish them from muggles, but they can't bring enough energy to bear to form even a simple spell without phenomenal work.

Hell, this would vouch and allow for things like Kwikspell. Presumably a Squib with enough training and hard work might be able to belt out a spell, or even two. But it'd be few and far between, and take a lot of work. Following the Big Fat Guy analogy, it is like, well, a big fat guy. Whereas a Dumbledore doesn't have to work at all to stay in shape, and can eat all he wants, the Big Fat Guy has to work his petunias off, just to approach the middle ground. And he has to keep on working. If magic worked the same way, it would explain how lackluster near squib wizards like Neville can move from lackluster near squib status to a powerful wizard in their own right. Through a lot of hard work. Because honestly Taure? If skill was just emotional, mental focus, and wand movements, then they wouldn't have to practice, they could just sit down, meditate, and be awesome. But by excercising both their internal reserves and their energy gathering system, they improve the both the rate at which they recover, but also the amount of sustained casting they can do.

And I mention sustained casting because since wizards would always be processing and refilling their reserves, they're unlikely to /ever/ run out of power to cast spells, unless they're firing off multiple high level spells within the space of a second or two. Hell, (and I love it when everything clicks) this would even allow for why wizards can take a few minutes of break and be ready to cast again, even if they're still physically exhausted.


EDIT: And you've made a new post, Canon. Gimme a sec to respond.


Okay. With regards to wands, I appear to be defending Taure's argument again. Thgis is the way I see it for Taure's explanation. Taure is /not/ saying that everyone has the exact same potential. Unfortunately, what he /is/ saying is shrouded in a rundabout notice-me-not charm. Essentially, all sorts of things contribute to a wizard's skill. Whether emotional inclination, personal experience heretonow, or even just inherited predispositions from your family.

I would further posit that all this influences the so called 'signiature' to your internal magical energy. Just as wands have signatures, so to would Wizards under my further expression of Taure's theory. While Ollivander tends to say "the wand chooses the wizard" I would posit that this isn't a case of the wand being sentient, and having some sort of communal chat where they debate which wizard they're going to get and shit like that. Because that's a load of pants. Rather, I would say that choosing the correct wand has to do with the magical predisposition of the wand coming into harmony with the magical predisposition of the magical child. With a harmony effect, this would allow for wands that are more or less compatible with the wizarding child, but unless they have a method to scan someone's internal magical signature (which would probably involve taking a blood sample, or getting them to perform accidental magic) it would just be trial and error until they pick up the right wand.

That's not to say that they have to go through the entire store. Though it doesn't visually look like it, Ollivander probably does sort his wands into what they're made of, and what their predispositions are. And he should know, because, hell, he made them in the first place.

 

Not really. I believe that the effect of genes are overstated, but they're still influential. Some people are more intelligent etc than others.

Everyone who has the magic gene has "access" to magic (I wouldn't usually call it access). So magically, speaking, everyone is the same. But what determines how well a person can use magic - their skill - is determined by non-magical factors (intelligence etc).

I'd disagree with this. I'd say day one is birth. From the moment a person is born, they are having experiences that shape their character, which then goes on to determine their skill and which aspects of magic they are interested in, if any.

Wands are semi-sentient. Some wands "like" some people more than others. And as I said above, I wouldn't call wand-selection day one. Even before a person knows about magic, they're developing a personality that predisposes them one way or another.

It doesn't have to be a physical difference - it could be a mental or magical one. And the simple answer to this question is that we don't know.

Not exactly. My argument against a power reserve or energy is that not only is there no evidence, it's also completely against the spirit of canon.

Firstly, for there to be a power reserve but for magical power to be determined only by skill contradicts. Since I am convinced that power = skill is canon and that this is way JKR thinks about magic, then it has to be the idea of a power reserve that goes.

Secondly, it goes against JKR's tale of choice over birth.

Thirdly, it would mean that magic could be quantifiable. Quantifiability is a mathematical and scientific concept. JKR has said that magic is not scientific. One way of putting it would be the difference between numbers and words. I view magic more like words than numbers.

No.

In addition, JKR has said on her website that you either have magic or you don't, and Squibs don't.