Magicians Penn and Teller perform an updated version of the classic "saw the lady in half" trick that still creates an unforgettable illusion. (Penn is operating the saw; Teller is his all-too-willing victim.) Neuroscientists are adapting the methods of magic in several kinds of experiments, among them the study of how the brain responds to perceptions that seem to violate all prior experience with reality.
Image: Misha Gravenor
In Brief
- Magic tricks often work by covert misdirection, drawing the spectator’s attention away from the secret “method” that makes a trick work.
- Neuroscientists are scrutinizing magic tricks to learn how they can be put to work in experimental studies that probe aspects of consciousness not necessarily grounded in current sensory reality.
- Brain imaging shows that some regions are particularly active during certain kinds of magic tricks.
More In This Article
The spotlight shines on the magician’s assistant. The woman in the tiny white dress is a luminous beacon of beauty radiating from the stage to the audience. The Great Tomsoni announces he will change her dress from white to red. On the edge of their seats, the spectators strain to focus on the woman, burning her image deep into their retinas. Tomsoni claps his hands, and the spotlight dims ever so briefly before reflaring in a blaze of red. The woman is awash in a flood of redness.
Whoa, just a moment there! Switching color with the spotlight is not exactly what the audience had in mind. The magician stands at the side of the stage, looking pleased at his little joke. Yes, he admits, it was a cheap trick; his favorite kind, he explains devilishly. But you have to agree, he did turn her dress red—along with the rest of her. Please, indulge him and direct your attention once more to his beautiful assistant as he switches the lights back on for the next trick. He claps his hands, and the lights dim again; then the stage explodes in a supernova of whiteness. But wait! Her dress really has turned red. The Great Tomsoni has done it again!
This article was originally published with the title Magic and the Brain.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
20 Comments
Add CommentSome studies have indicated that there is a consciousness field in the universe,akin to the philosopher`s concept of a universal mind,that induces cognitive consciousness through phenomenology,even as it exists as a metaphysical entity,at a metacognitve level or even as pure consciousness in the sense of absence. The structure of the human brain ,particularly the right-left brain asymmetry as it relates to various brain regions has been found to be important in meta cognitive coding effects.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiss.sureshkumar,scientist and advisor ,niist,trivandrum
The research reported in this article is of incredibly great importance for one aspect that is not even mentioned in the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists often, quite unawares, play "sleights of mind" upon themselves. I.E., they delude themselves into becoming convinced of the full validity of an unfounded conclusion. Such occurrences, which often involve "mass delusions", have played an extremely important role in the progress of science, even to the point of sending a whole scientific field in the wrong direction.
The worst case concerns the belief, still held by very many serious scientists, in the existence of genetically predetermined individual traits of individual organisms ("instincts" in behavior. The belief in the existence of "instincts" received its most impressive "validation" when the Nobel Committee became erroneously convinced that the existence of the "instinctual honeybee "dance language" (DL), had been fully properly experimentally confirmed, even though this never happened, and never could have happened. The Nobel Committee then awarded K.v. Frisch a 1973 Nobel Prize for the discovery of the non-existent honeybee DL, and the Prize was, not surprisingly, shared by K. Lorenz & N. Tinbergen, the 2 co-founders of a misguided general approach, (based on the belief in the existence of "instincts"), to behavioral biology.
I have just dealt with this issue at far greater, though by no means exhaustive length, in a recent comment , in TheScientist online, about the book "The Superorganism" by Holldobler & Wilson.
The research reported in this article is of incredibly great importance for one aspect that is not even mentioned in the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists often, quite unawares, play "sleights of mind" upon themselves. I.E., they delude themselves into becoming convinced of the full validity of an unfounded conclusion. Such occurrences, which often involve "mass delusions", have played an extremely important role in the progress of science, even to the point of sending a whole scientific field in the wrong direction.
The worst case concerns the belief, still held by very many serious scientists, in the existence of genetically predetermined individual traits of individual organisms ("instincts" in behavior. The belief in the existence of "instincts" received its most impressive "validation" when the Nobel Committee became erroneously convinced that the existence of the "instinctual honeybee "dance language" (DL), had been fully properly experimentally confirmed, even though this never happened, and never could have happened. The Nobel Committee then awarded K.v. Frisch a 1973 Nobel Prize for the discovery of the non-existent honeybee DL, and the Prize was, not surprisingly, shared by K. Lorenz & N. Tinbergen, the 2 co-founders of a misguided general approach, (based on the belief in the existence of "instincts"), to behavioral biology.
I have just dealt with this issue at far greater, though by no means exhaustive length, in a recent comment , in TheScientist online, about the book "The Superorganism" by Holldobler & Wilson.
The underlying assumption of this is that the point of magic, the whole purpose, is to trick people. That is like saying the whole purpose of a dance is to move your muscles in challenging ways without losing balance, or that the purpose of singing is to vibrate your vocal chords at precisely-controlled frequencies. It is an absolutely integral requirement, but it sort of misses the point. The point is to give the observer an emotional experience of transcendent mystery, a feeling of wonder and joy. At the same time magic has deep and important subtexts: it illustrates that things are not always what they seem, that there are things we can experience without understanding them, that we can be deceived without being aware of it, that things which seem irretrievably broken can be restored, that problems which seem to have no solution can nevertheless be solved, that life is full of surprises.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have the highest respect for neuroscience: I have a PhD in related field (Cognitive Science). However, while experimental scenarios which capture and replicate some of the simple perceptual phenomena exploited by magicians are a fruitful way for neuroscientists to get more funding and publish more papers, they unfortunately miss the greater point. Tricks defraud the onlooker. Magic shares teh experience of mystery. Tricks are about the props. Magic is about life.
Understanding the neuroscience behind Stage Magic and performed illusions will also help in understanding of the desire behind people, as a whole, believing in Pseudoscience, Superstition and Religion. Scientists aren't immune to tricks and cons of cold reading psychics, spoon benders, quack physicians and the like that attempt to play off this interesting human quirk. It has been said that the more intelligent you are the more you fall for the tricks and can get taken up by paranormal claims.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is best to be aware of our cognitive limitations and apply sound critical thinking principles to daily life so we don't get caught up in some supernatural mumbo jumbo. Occam's razor tells us that the theory with the least amount of assumptions is usually correct. These Magicians and Illusionists show this principle very clearly.
I read with great interest your comments about the hypothesis on honeybee dance language. I also looked on Gooogle for additional material authored by you and realized that you do not accept that hypothesis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI did not know that item was still in discussion. I am not a scientist but like very much to read on scientific matters and I try to keep an open -but still scientific- mind. So I searched also for the dance language theme and found an interesting article which adds an advanced technology (harmonic radar) proof to that hypothesis (I do not know how scientifically reliable the source is).
If you are not informed on that material, you can consult it at this reference:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050512114116.htm
There is much in common in our views. I think the performance of magic can remind us to maintain a certain level of skepticism about our perception reality. For example, many of us have some tendency towards the cognitive distortions that often accompany depression.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion
Magic can be defined as the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo a large extent, every one is a magician in his own right, it is only a matter of degree. From time immemorial, the powerful smartly continue to manipulate and fool their subjects through magic in the form of supernatural events or even miracles.
After all, most of us still play the part of fools in the gigantic global stage of illusion, thus unwittingly allowing magicians of all kinds to flourish.
(Tan Boon Tee, btt1943@yahoo.com)
I notice that suresh10in was not so bold as to actually indicate a single one of those "studies [that] have indicated that there is a consciousness field in the universe,akin to the philosopher`s concept of a universal mind".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe also forgot to mention any philosophers who espouse such an idea.
Many people believe that we see with our eyes. This is to forget that the brain recreates a virtual image of what all our senses detect, using thousands of millions of 'pixels'. That is to say all that we experience is illusion. Luckily our brains generally create an acceptable image of what is around us. But magic indeed reminds us of a home truth : We are easily fooled! And transes, LSD and Schizophrenia are never that far away if we doubt....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe emotional context is surely what is also present when an illusionist is performing for an audience. We are deceived, not just because of neuroscience, but because, in the context of the darkened theater or when sitting in front of the television, we want to be deceived. The factor of our own emotional expectation is as much of an environment in which the illusionist operates as the ways in which brain imaging activity work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe true magic happening right before our eyes is life itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWonderful, inexplicable and may be the only true magic minus trick and stage hands.
I am glad that the neuroscientist are gong in this way, I ama a magician as well a private researcher in the study of Brain and MInd, I suppose what we miss here is the difference of the response by the brain and the mind. When the lights go off and the spectator becomes partially blind for a split second its the brain thts affected, but wen the magician says that its a cheap trick, denoting that no magic happened, its the mind, and that can only happen to mind if it feels that changing clothes in split second is a magic, thats based on every individuals perception and assumption according to ther memory and recall abilities, I magicians child who has seen this all the way, or a tribesman who never knew what clothes are wouldnt be astonished.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyways Its nice to know that magic is going hand in hand with neuroscience.
This was a very informative article that gave me insight on how people can be manipulated by strangers, but more importantly, by those they call family or friends. Thank you for the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI laughed when the various tricks and responses to them were spoken about. I admit, I haven't laughed like that in quite awhile. The article was very informative and enlightening. It gave me insight on how someone can be manipulated by a stranger or family or friend. Thank you for your work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuresh, you are talking out of your rosy behind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease tell me which studies conducted by an actual scientific body (they do not count if they are from some 'holistic institute') indicate a morphological field, or as you call it, a 'consciousness field'.
I betcha (to use the elegant prose of Gov. Palin...) you can't find a single one outside of your overactive imagination.
Isn't it interesting that all of the posters responding to this article other than the "this is interesting" group assume they are right and the others that hold a different view are wrong? Yet I wonder how many are falling for the same tricks that this article describes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat article and there is so much that goes into why Magic fools us, but this is a great insight to the scientific side which goes hand in hand with the psychological aspect of the "WHY" too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just stumbled across this and it's interesting hearing scientists discuss what makes magic work. I'm a <a href="http://noelqualtercom/">close up magician</a> and I'm used to practically applying these techniques but don't fully understand them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article reminds me of a criticism I read of the "Double-blind test of astrology" by magician-scientist Shawn Carlson, published in NATURE (Vol. 318, 5 Dec. 1985 pp. 419-425). The criticism seemed to suggest that Carlson used misdirection techniques in the published article. This is in addition to the criticism that the tests were unfairly designed to begin with, making them extraordinarily harder than they needed to be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlson's stated protocol required the participating astrologers examine each natal chart they were supplied and to select the correct CPI from 3 supplied for each chart as either the 1st or 2nd choice. Yet, in his evaluation Carlson draws our attention to the 3rd choice, which was chosen no better than chance, and declares that the 1st and 2nd must also have been chosen no better than chance! The data in the article shows that the first two charts were actually chosen at a marginally significant rate.
Carlson’s 3-choice test “finding” helps confirm the illusion that another test depended on its 3 groups. The astrologers rated (scale of 1-10) the accuracy of each of the 3 CPIs supplied for each chart (110 CPIs in this test vs. 116 for the 3-choice test). Applying the three bogus categories and drawing attention to the negative slope of the 1st category, Carlson declares that the result was no better than chance. However, his data shows that when ungrouped, the 10-rating test was significant for the astrologers, better than the 3-choice test.
In a control group test, Carlson found that the volunteer students could not identify their correct chart interpretation, written by the astrologers, out of 3 supplied, yet the control group successfully chose the "correct" interpretation with a high significance, which Carlson explains as a "statistical fluctuation."
In a related test, the students ranked the accuracy (scale of 1-10) the individual paragraphs within the same astrological interpretations. This test might have clarified whether the surprising "statistical fluctuation" results had somehow gotten switched. But Carlson complained that he couldn't be guaranteed that the volunteers had followed his instructions and discarded this test without giving the results.
If read uncritically, with the bias that typical readers of NATURE have against astrology, then the reader sees exactly what he or she expects. Yet if read critically, it is another story. Was Carlson inadvertently fooling himself?
Read it: http://1.usa.gov/e2dTGc