>>6134
>You need to understand the "nature" of things and not their function.
Does not the function of things directly reflect their nature in verb-form? Verbs tend to be easier to test and analyze than nouns, so using function as a roadmap to spirit seems logical.
>For some reason you think "manipulating the spirit" is easier than manipulating the physical form.
Because spirit seems to be a cause and physicality seems to be an effect. Making an alteration in the spirit causes a cascading physical effect later on, always. I have not once seen a physical cause with a spiritual effect. I have seen physical rituals but these appear to merely be reflections of an active spiritual action. Tangibility is a noun that results in coalesced verbs; therefore in order to manipulate the noun, the component verbs should be altered.
>What is even gold to you…
>The alchemy is from lead to gold and not with copper anyways.
Well I chose gold and copper because they have the same number of valence shell electrons, but something like oxygen into sulfur would be just as desirable. The goal is not merely the acquisition of wealth, for this can already be achieved through known magical methods. It is a furtherance of understanding and mastery in regards to the nature and operation of the physical sphere.
>Materializing real gold from the thin air is almost more easy than transmuting it from copper
Thought into matter vs matter into matter. What is thought made of? Atoms might be made of thought. If such is the case, both operations seem very similar in technique.