Psionics vs Magic

[David Johnston2]

Is there a difference? Maybe not. The word magic can apply to a pretty wide variety of effects with pretty divergent models for what produces them. It could refer to a system for manipulating things by symbolic representation, or an aetheric fluid that responds to human thoughts, or the art of communicating with invisible supernatural entities to ask them for help or bargain with it,

But generally speaking what all definitions of magic (that exclude sleight of hand pretenses) include the word "supernatural" whereas "psi" is conceptualized as fundamentally natural.

But what's the difference? I mean does "supernatural" even mean anything? Supernatural is less of a thing than it is an attitude. To say that something is "supernatural" is to suggest that at the least, it would lead to a lot more head scratching on the part of scientists when confronted with it. Psionics is conceived of as a "natural" thing, something that can be studied and eventually reverse engineered.

So one of the distinguishing features between psionics and magic, is that if its psionics, then...with sufficient R&D, you can build a machine that does psionics even if you are yourself, not endowed with any psionic abilities.

[fifiste]

Some magic systems share the "inner power" aspect with psi, but many does not.
That seems to be one od the main distinctions for me. Magic can come from manipulating the mana fo the enviroment, as favour of spirits, blessing from gods etc.
Psi is just your own mental strength and skill (just 9000+).

In my games I would divide them thusly.

[rust]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

..with sufficient R&D, you can build a machine that does psionics even if you are yourself, not endowed with any psionic abilities.

There are a couple of stories where machines and even electronic devices
are used to power magic, from the water wheels in Thieves' World to the
computer in The Silicon Mage.

But generally speaking what all definitions of magic (that exclude sleight of hand pretenses) include the word "supernatural" whereas "psi" is conceptualized as fundamentally natural.

This depends on the culture. An animist would tell you that spirit magic is
not only fundamentally natural, it is the essence of nature.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Is there a difference?

Kind of. Psi is a specific *kind* of magic. Like alchemy or shamanism or diabolism it carries some specific expectations about props (none, though many authors add gemstone foci for some reason), sources (internal and birthright, though spirit animals and power granting catalysts aren't unusual subversions, strangely for something "scientific" it's actually a lot rarer to subvert the birthright part and allow anybody to learn it), and power levels (limited by human energy, though this is frequently ignored or bypassed with "spiritual" energies that don't scale with physics at all)

So one of the distinguishing features between psionics and magic, is that if its psionics, then...with sufficient R&D, you can build a machine that does psionics even if you are yourself, not endowed with any psionic abilities.

More the reverse really. Magical tools that do things for non-magicians are absolutely standard story elements after all. Psi is actually more likely than magic to have some sort of mysterious life force element to it that prevents you from doing this.

[ericthered]

You make the comment magic may be as much an attitude as anything else. I would say this is the general difference between magic and psi.

Magic tends to follow arbitrary rules and sneer at scientific principles. Its often seen as an opposite of technology. While there are exceptions, they usually involve sticking the magic on the tech, not the other way around. Magic also has a HUGE range of possible power sources, from mystic runes to this stuff called mana to demons and spirits granting powers.

Psi tends to have a fairly consistent source: mind powers. Chanting strange words, symbols, or motions are rarely part of it. The also have psuedo-scientific effects: There are no laws of sympathy, energy tends to stay as energy, and the effects speak for themselves, rather than being acompanied by smoke and mirrors.

[William]

A related idea here is the distinction between magic and miracle, or as D&D puts it, divine and arcane casters. After all, much of what we refer to as attempts at magic, in sources of grimoires and such, were considered religious activities by their users. GURPS destroys the distinction entirely, of course, unless a GM cares to reinstate it.

Psi, magic and miracle all fill similar literary niches. Moses turned a stick to a snake with God's power, but Pharoah's magicians were able to do the same thing. The only reason we don't typically see a psion doing that is that we've imposed literary forms that limit the expected effects possible through psi. (He might be able to produce the illusion thereof, however.) Psionics and magic can both levitate or teleport things; a shaman telling a spirit to fetch water for him might regard himself as involved in an exercise of divine power.

I think we (by which I mean consumers and producers of Western lit and film) imagine that psi has underlying laws in a sense similar to natural phenomena, because this is the "magic" that developed along with the spiritism tradition of the 1800s in Europe and America, refined later by would-be believers with pseudoscientific concepts that were popular in the Modernist era where it was expected that scientific progress was the proper mode of thought and the accumulation of power over the natural world. Electrical effects, for instance, fascinated early spiritualists, and hence the development of Kirlian photography.

During these times, it was easier to challenge the more dramatic claims of curses or witchery; however, mentalist effects such as claims of mind-reading, precognition, and a little sleight-of-hand telekinesis could be faked by a pro. These form the basic body of psi techniques, along with cognitive illusions that can be co-opted by the field -- if someone wants to believe, you can convince him that he has a danger sense, that he dreamed a prediction, or that he can vaguely sense people's emotions. It's similar to other standard cognitive illusions that are captured and used by proponents of magic and religion (e.g., "there is someone in the room with me" is a fairly common illusion, which is easily explained as "the presence of the Divine").

Early investigators earnestly believed that there was something to these claims, and that experimental investigation would yield the answers. Believers and proponents could earnestly build pseudoscientific explanations for psi powers as easily as a writer can insert a paragraph of technobabble, and for much the same reasons. The nod to supposedly poorly-understood but theoretically-present physical law gives psi license to appear in adventuresome science fiction where we might not otherwise normally see fantasy powers.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by ericthered

You make the comment magic may be as much an attitude as anything else. I would say this is the general difference between magic and psi.

Magic tends to follow arbitrary rules and sneer at scientific principles. Its often seen as an opposite of technology. While there are exceptions, they usually involve sticking the magic on the tech, not the other way around. Magic also has a HUGE range of possible power sources, from mystic runes to this stuff called mana to demons and spirits granting powers.

Psi tends to have a fairly consistent source: mind powers. Chanting strange words, symbols, or motions are rarely part of it. The also have psuedo-scientific effects: There are no laws of sympathy, energy tends to stay as energy, and the effects speak for themselves, rather than being acompanied by smoke and mirrors.

Real world magical systems are often more pre-scientific principles rather than sneering at scientific ones. Psi comes about during the scientific revolution and starts the sneering process, in my view.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Real world magical systems are often more pre-scientific principles rather than sneering at scientific ones. Psi comes about during the scientific revolution and starts the sneering process, in my view.

I agree with Flyn;most real world magical systems involve 'pre scientific principles.'

It’s a mistake to dismiss ‘magic’ as by nature being arbitrary and without rules. In most cultures, magic most certainly does have rules. The rules are simply different than the rules proposed by natural scientists. Magic systems are part of the way cultures understand and attempt to control or navigate the physical, social, and metaphysical realms.

“Psionics” comes much later than the Scientific Revolution, though. The concept has antecedents in some cultures, but it was constructed or at least defined and named in the 20th Century.

The 'Scientific Revolution' in Early Modern Europe was actually a time of intense interest in magic. Many scientists and scholars studied magical systems. Newton is a good example, but there are many more besides. The line between 'magic' and 'science' wasn't clear until the 18th Century.
One could argue that ‘scholarly magic’ in Europe was in good part a failed (?) scientific attempt to contact and gain knowledge or technology from intelligent alien life forms.

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Psionics is an SF concept involving supposedly natural, if sometimes poorly understood, phenomena. Magic is a fantasy concept. Effects are usually achievable by either means.

"Psionics (used as a term for psychic abilities) in fiction appear in almost as many varieties as magic does, and are often deeply entwined with many related paranormal or science fiction phenomena.

It is often used to endow science fictional characters with abilities, which, if they were called "magic", would make the story fantasy.[7] Psionics usually appear in science fiction or contemporary settings, although it is sometimes seen in medieval fantasy as well (mostly in role-playing games), sometimes with both magic and psionics existing side by side as two distinct phenomena." (Emphasis mine).

--- Wikipedia

Hans

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by malloyd

More the reverse really. Magical tools that do things for non-magicians are absolutely standard story elements after all.

I used "created by" not "used by".