Conversation

Adam Strandberg

7

168

1,041

You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more

Replying to

that's really not how it works though, ask any practitioner

2

1

You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more

You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more

Replying to

technically speaking, using the dog's hair (better would be a tooth, or its blood) is invoking sympathetic magic as trope in a story where you make the dog pay a debt - that absolutely is a mechanism that's consistent in a magical worldview

5:44 PM · Dec 21, 2021Twitter Web App

Replying to

and

using ill-understood chains of causality is how we do most things, including ones with explanations in materialistic world views, you don't get down to an atoms-and-forces level of understanding when you lift a cup of coffee to your lips

1

1

Replying to

and

"working with ontologically simple primitives" describes most of what we do, it's too wide a definition

1

1

Show replies