Bill

I don't think so?

A puzzle is a problem that challenges them to find a solution but a good trick shows them there is no explanation but magic. In effect we, by eliminating all possible solutions, are proving it is not a puzzle.
We are showing them something that has no answer. That is not a puzzle as puzzle a has a knowable answer.

And, a puzzle that has no solution is still a puzzle. And, of course, the magic we do always really does have a solution (at least the magic I do does!), although as Steve Brooks wrote in the first post, we don't give enough information for laymen to have much of a chance of figuring it out.

And, how does a spectator know it has no answer if they don't try to answer it?

Now, since some people have probably not read my last post, I wrote, "We should not present puzzles. However, there is a puzzle in our presentations." Please read my entire last post to put that sentence in context. There are several ways to misinterpret that.

Why wouldn't a spectator be amazed at the coin vanish I described in my last post, where I put my hand in my pocket? What is the process their mind goes through that prevents them from being amazed? Now, even with nothing to find, people will search. Then, when they fail, some will exclaim, "No Way!" How have they determined there is no way?

And, why does a magician have to disprove methods, such as moving a hoop over a levitating person? If people aren't analyzing, that wouldn't be necessary. They'd be amazed without such disproving.

As Whit Haydn wrote, magic is a proof with a false premise. People follow the proof to the inescapable impossible conclusion. That is analysis.

Because you have not eliminated the possibility of the coin being left in pocket obviously.

If you had put your hand in two pockets, it would be just a puzzle, trying to figure which pocket it was in.

A spectator does not try answer it, because we have covered all the answers.

They see your hand go in the pocket and they think “Hi Hi, he has left that coin in his pocket that is the solution, he is not a magician! he must think I am daft!

Because you showed them there was no way when you were doing the trick!


To prove it’s not a puzzle. Puzzles do not amaze people.


Next question!

A quick counterargument before breakfast here...


By setting up straw man explanations, your audience may feel you are showing off how clever you are.

If you know the answer, they can too, hence you are claiming some sort of superiority.

If you really wanted to "prove" the coin is gone you could take out a metal detector, prove it works and then make the coin disappear and let them go looking. And even then... be prepared for a request to "prove it" with a full body strip search... and still they will find ways you could have done it.

I.E. it don't work like that. I believe the goal is not to rationally prove anything and instead to appeal to their "other" way of thinking.

The word ****yze is intentionally misspelled in this post to avoid the issue you see in this sentence.

Tommy wrote:

You ignored part of my last post. A "puzzle" does not require a solution. Look it up in the dictionary. Of course, it's not a good puzzle if there is no solution.

Let's come to agree on the meanings of the terms we use, or we won't be able to understand each other.

However, I agree, magic is not presented as a puzzle. It's presented as something supernatural. The term supernatural need not refer to a deity.

I disagree that some people don't anolyze how magic is done. It's obvious they do. The proof is that I have heard laypeople trying to explain possible methods during the intermissions of magic shows, and these were great magicians performing

Since people know that magicians use deception, it's natural for some people to speculate. Magicians only deceive themselves if they think this never occurs. It occurs even for the greatest magicians performing the best presentations.

It is necessary for people to anolyze or they could not be amazed!

To realize something is impossible, you have to know what is possible! It's only by the filtering action of our minds that we realize an effect is astonishing.

Tommy wrote:

I wanted you to answer the questions I asked from the spectator's view in terms of their cognitive process. I was asking "how" they knew there was no solution in the cases you describe.

If spectators blindly accept some things as magic without anolyzing, but they anolyze other thing and realize how they occur, how then do they decide what to anolyze? Why don't they just assume anything is magic and not anolyze anything. Where do the explanations in our heads come from? The answer is that we anolyze all the time, and it's only when the anolysis fails that we recognized something as a constraint violation, and if other conditions are present, we experience magic.

The strongest example I gave is the necessity to use a hoop when a person is being levitated. The fact that the magician has to eliminate possibilities shows that people anolyze. Otherwise, they wouldn't even be aware of those other possibilities that the magician has to eliminate.

And, in the case of a typical levitation, many people will not be amazed until after the hoop is passed over the floating person. And yet, the hoop passing over them is not the effect. If people were not anolyzing then the hoop would not be necessary. They would just accept the floating person as magic.

And, in the case of magic where the possibilities are all eliminated before the effect, people think, "He could not have done that, he could not have done another thing, he could not have done the third thing... No way!"

They do not just blindly think, "No way." There is one exception with regard to visual magic, but that too involves a search of visual memory for corresponding patterns.

That’s why if I show a ball in my hand, and it suddenly vanished, people will be amazed. But, if the spherical object in my hand is a bubble, and it suddenly vanishes, there will be no amazement. The underlying mechanisms that separate those incidents are integral to the experience of magic.

Jonathan Townsend wrote:

I agree Jonathan. That's the goal. Depending on the presentation and effect, it is more or less possible to completely prevent the audience from anolyzing. We cannot just completely bury most people's intellects all of the time, and the hoop example above is just one example of that. If we could just mesmerize them, we wouldn't need the hoop at all, because they'd never question that is was real magic. However, most people do, thus the hoop is necessary.

Great magicians have momentarily prevented me from bothering to think about how the effects they performed were done. Great magicians have kept me from returning to think of that by the flow of their show, or an emotionally moving presentation. I felt the magic, so I didn't care how it was done.

Finally, and this is a completely separate point than anything above, if a magician imagines that no significant percentage of their audience will not be trying to figure out what the do after the show, then they are deceiving themselves.

Every time we try to prove, they laugh a little harder and longer. Really.
All you can prove is that you are clever and they may not enjoy it.

If you can get them to want to believe, they will follow along nicely.

Then as long as you don't offend them by chiding them for believing they will stay in that frame of mind.

Jonathan, I agree.

One of my points was that people do question their assumptions, but not all of them. They blindly accept some, which is why magic works. If they didn't question anything, they wouldn't be thinking, and thus wouldn't be able to recognize a constraint violation. That is necessary, but not sufficient for magic.

It was not my point to suggest we should present magic as a proof. However, the "proof" is a necessary part of any magic presentation.

Your point about them "wanting to believe" is key. First they have to like the magician or else they won't want him or her to succeed. After that, the bar is lowered considerably for what is necessary. If they don't like the magician, then he might do something astonishing, but they probably won't care. And, they could be motivated to dissasemble everything to destroy what the magician is attempting to create.

What is a Puzzle?

http://www.scottkim.com/thinkinggames/wh......dex.html

I happen to disagree with the most base interpretation of those words.

If you are playing the part of a magician, and you have your character "do magic", that usually suffices as 'cause' for the audience, which is only interested in the results of the process. From there its more a matter of not breaking that theatrical momentum with inapropriate actions, distractions and out-of-context props.

For example, before pulling a rabbit from a hat, you can "prove" the hat empty by holding it, then flipping it in your hands so by your actions and the motion of the hat they can "see" with their minds eye that the hat is empty. Even if using a spring rabbit it's how you handle the thing that "proves" its living reality. Right, more acting. If you give the thing to an assistant, do so as if it were a living thing and have them treat it as carefully as you do. Yeah it helps if it looks real.

In a nutshell folks, if you (your performing character) don't believe in your own magic, nothing you can do to "prove" it will be convincing. If however you get involved in the audiences pre-existing magical beliefs and follow the patterns in their magical thinking, you have some additional options (and responsibilities) available.

Tommy wrote:

The word "puzzle" has several different definitions in the Merriam Webster dictionary. Only a single definition of that word as a noun even implies that there is a correct answer and that definition isn't the one I was using in my posts. And, even that defintion doesn't require that a puzzle has a solution.

However, unless the audience actually believes we do real magic, they implicitly know there is a solution, so whether we present magic as a puzzle or not, many will wonder how we do what we do. This is obvious to anyone who has performed for any length of time! Paul Harris even had a man pull a gun on him because he wanted to know how he did a routine! So, obviously this man knew there was a solution.

And, of course we do not present our magic as if it has any solution. It's magic! However, that doesn't mean people forget what they know. At best, we can make them forget it during our performance, after that, all bets are off.

Jonathan,

I think I know what you mean, and I agree. There is no "formal" proof.

The example you refer to where handling a hat is only part of what I am referring to. When the magician finished, he would like people to believe, or at least willingly suspend their disbelief, that the rabbit (or whatever) came out of the hat. Whatever actions or context that is necessary to make people believe, or at least willingly suspend their disbelief, with regard to the magical effect, are the proof that I refer to.

Finally, the word "wonder" implies a mental state where people are searching for an answer. During the mental state we call "astonishment," our brains attempting to categorize the magical experience, which involves comparing the experience with all previously acquired knowledge and experiences.

When I experience magic, my mind doesn't go blank, it races. It's a wonderful experience while I try to cope with the impossible.

Jon

While I agree that’s the right way to prove it, but the "proof" is still “necessary” no matter how you do it. Magic is not pulling a rabbit from a hat but pulling a rabbit from an hat that is seen to be an “empty” hat. I.e. If you were a real magician pulling a rabbit from your hat no one would know you had done it with magic unless they knew you pulled it from your “empty” hat.


Bill

My mistake, sorry. I was using the single one at the top of most lists.

puzzle
n 1: a particularly baffling problem that is said to have a
correct solution.

Can we get away from the word "proof" then?

How about "create a presentiment that..." instead?

If we go the theatrical route, then the little play we invite the audience in to has its frame all set and we can avoid the entire "fooled" and issues about puzzles etc.

I get your point. The cognitive aspects of what the audience experiences are completely different than what we as performers must internalize and project.

Can we also please move past the "puzzle" statement in the first post? I interpret it the way I described, but I can see the objection to viewing magic from the perspective of a curious audience member with regard to presenting magic.

What is far more valuable is the concept of assumptions in the audience. I particularly liked what AndiGladwin posted on the first page almost 5 years ago! (And, did everyone notice this topic was created when the Magic Café was started! - I wish I had been there then. I arrived around a year later).

I thought of two assumptions that nobody has mentioned so far. One is the assumption that nothing has happened when certain hand gestures or displays are done. These gestures must be totally natural in-context, of course, or they would signal that funny-business was going on, which would kill the magic.

Another assumption is that we haven't taken the time to carefully think of and/or learn how the audience will react. I can't tip the specific example I'm thinking of because it's in Michael Close's e-book Closely Guarded Secrets. Michael Close noticed that after he performed a certain routine that spectators often asked him to go one step further to restore something that had been destroyed. They assumed he couldn't, and initially they were correct. So, he devises a devious method to do what they asked.

Over time, a magician can improve his or her act to be prepared for many alternatives, while appearing to make an impromptu reaction to a request.

Any other good assumptions that audience members make that we can take advantage of?

What gestures are these?

They assume:
Any shifty looking action is a move. That things you just tell them are not true. They trust you will not stoop to camera trickery. ( could not resist that one) They, or some, assume that mind reading and so on is possible. That objects that look normal are normal such as cards. That you don’t know their personal habits and so on. That they can’t be fooled by what they know.


If we jot everything down we think they assume, then we can work out how to take advantage.

Okay... why make any shifty looking moves at all?

Because you can have fun with that and take advantage. But anyway I was just jotting down anything that came to mind that I thought they assumed, later I will think about any advantage if any.

Jonathan Townsend wrote:

There are too many to name, and most are not written down, but we all have seen them. I can't think of any I can post here without causing exposure.

My absolute favorite example of this is in Tim Ellis's "Runaround Sue" routine. He does something that is very natural in the context of his act. It never occured to me it was involved in creating an effect when I saw it.

I could also have written, audiences assume our well-justified natural moves aren't involved with creating the magic.

Tommy makes a good point about moves that are not natural too.

When watching a magic act or routine on video I watch with the sound OFF.

Then, if they get awkward or strange I start to imagine the Madonna song "Vogue" playing as the background track.

Let's just say it gets interesting to watch at times and I wind up amused.

Interesting thread...

...but I think we need to look at this word "assumption" again. Most of us have heard a friend or co-worker say something like "I didn't do this because I assumed that," and rolled our eyes at how silly the assumption was. A lot of us have also responded with "Why the &%$#@* didn't you ask?"

What's interesting to me here is that people who make assumptions generally then tend to defend those assumptions. So, not only did they take it upon themselves to believe something with no facts to support it, but they then acted as if what they believed were indeed true. For years, I've responded with "You're entitled to assume anything you want; just keep in mind that nobody is obligated to live up to your assumptions."

Anyway, where I'm going with this is that people probably tend to believe more in something they decided on their own than in something that somebody "proved" to them. In magic, I feel that sometimes "proving the box is empty" just makes people not believe it's empty. Ideally, I'd want to structure and present an effect in such a way that the audience takes it upon themselves to believe -- to assume -- it's empty. Then they can defend their own assumptions all they want!