It's just a coincidence!!!

[-Fran-]

By the way, when this happened, as I sat in my car listening to the end of the song, it dawned on me that my work colleague (Maureen) may have played a rather elaborate trick on me. After all, Maureen was the one who made the off-the-wall comment about "the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald", and she and my wife knew each other. So, I reasoned, perhaps she deliberately threw out that comment, then called my wife to ask her to tell me when I arrived home that we needed milk for dinner. Under that scenario, Maureen would have come to my home prior to my arrival and waited until I arrived. She then would sneak into my car, turn off the car radio, and position herself behind the front seat with a tape of "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" that she had recorded from a prior radio broadcast. As soon as I entered the car and started it (it was winter, and so I wouldn't have seen someone positioned behind the front seat because it was dark outside), Maureen would then activate the tape so that the first words I would hear would be "the Edmund Fitzgerald". I took that possibility seriously enough that I got out of my car and opened the back door on the driver's side to make sure that Maureen wasn't hiding there. But she wasn't, and neither did she phone in a request to any radio station to play that song. I later asked her what caused her to make the comment she did, and she said it was just something that popped into her head. (Another point is that I was not looking at a map of the Great Lakes, but rather of the Mediterranean.)

Belief in synchronicity creates paranoia

 

[-Fran-]

One of the things I dislike about Synchronicity is that it is useless. As an acausal explanation, it doesn't allow for prediction or novel connections. One of the amazing things about scientific exploration is the ability to make novel connections - connections that otherwise would never occur to us. Synchronicity is simply boring and unimaginative.

Linda

I've been thinking similar things. Not about the novel connections, but about the uselessness of synchronicity - albeit on a personal level.

'So, you're a person who believes in this, a coincidence happens to you, you are awed and stunned and convinced of a higher meaning in the event... But there it stops. You can never know what paranormal phenomena caused it, you can never know what the meaning actually is, and what you are supposed to do with it.'

So, it seems to me that even on a subjective personal level it's totally useless. Unless people feel that it's good for them to be ridicuously awed over nothing on a more or less regular basis

 

[Rodney]

So it isn't synchronicity if the connection is obvious, but as long as you don't investigate for a connection, or an incomplete investigation is not revealing, it can be called a synchronicity?

In my opinion, an analysis should always be done to determine, as best as possible, how unlikely the coincidence was. In some cases, the analysis will reveal that the coincidence was actually fairly likely; in other cases, mind-bogglingly unlikely; in other cases, indeterminate.

Can you tell that I find the "as long as I don't know any better, I can believe what I want" approach to knowledge particularly distasteful?
Linda

But if you look at the facts objectively, it doesn't have to be that way.

 

[Rodney]

from edgarcayce.org:

so, recovering from cancer treatment.

Okay, fair enough. What I was trying to say is that Cayce recommended almonds to prevent cancer, not to treat it. Would you agree that was an appropriate recommendation?

 

[Rodney]

Belief in synchronicity creates paranoia

No, it's just that, in some cases, a seemingly mind-boggling coincidence has a logical explanation. However, that does not seem to be the case with my Edmund Fitzgerald coincidence.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Okay, fair enough. What I was trying to say is that Cayce recommended almonds to prevent cancer, not to treat it. Would you agree that was an appropriate recommendation?

And this was supposed to be in refutation of Carroll's essay on coincidence.

It's not. Sounds like you're changing the topic.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I've been thinking similar things. Not about the novel connections, but about the uselessness of synchronicity - albeit on a personal level.

'So, you're a person who believes in this, a coincidence happens to you, you are awed and stunned and convinced of a higher meaning in the event... But there it stops. You can never know what paranormal phenomena caused it, you can never know what the meaning actually is, and what you are supposed to do with it.'

So, it seems to me that even on a subjective personal level it's totally useless. Unless people feel that it's good for them to be ridicuously awed over nothing on a more or less regular basis

I'm sure the universe was trying to warn Rodney against trying to pilot a heavily-laden iron ore ship across Lake Superior when the storms of November come early.

Either that, or it was advising him to go buy a Gordon Lightfoot record.

How can you call that "useless"?!

 

[Rodney]

I've been thinking similar things. Not about the novel connections, but about the uselessness of synchronicity - albeit on a personal level.

'So, you're a person who believes in this, a coincidence happens to you, you are awed and stunned and convinced of a higher meaning in the event... But there it stops. You can never know what paranormal phenomena caused it, you can never know what the meaning actually is, and what you are supposed to do with it.'

So, it seems to me that even on a subjective personal level it's totally useless. Unless people feel that it's good for them to be ridicuously awed over nothing on a more or less regular basis

What about this story:

In his article Synchronicity, An Acausal Connecting Principle, Carl G. Jung gives an example which has, over time, become famous: "A young woman I was treating had, at a critical moment, a dream in which she was given a golden scarab. While she was telling me this dream I sat with my back to the closed window. Suddenly I heard a noise behind me, like a gentle tapping. I turned round and saw a flying insect knocking against the window-pane from outside. I opened the window and caught the creature in the air as it flew in. It was the nearest analogy to a golden scarab that one finds in our latitudes, a scarabaeid beetle, the common rose-chafer (Cetonia aurata), which contrary to its usual habits had evidently felt an urge to get into a dark room at this particular moment." [Coll. Works, vol. 8, § 843]

Jung continues "The meaningful connection is obvious enough ... in view of the approximate identity of the chief objects (the scarab and the beetle)." [CW, vol. 8, § 845] He then notices that the treatment of this patient would be at first very difficult because she was caught up in a certain rationalism and the possibility of the irrational phenomena would be completely refused. She, therefore, would need a change of perspective whereby her consciousness could open with respect to the irrational. Such a transformation of consciousness is almost exclusively represented by symbols of rebirth. Jung writes: "The scarab is a classic example of a rebirth symbol. The ancient Egyptian Book of What Is in the Netherworld describes how the dead sun-god changes himself at the tenth station into Khepri, the scarab, and then, at the twelfth station, mounts the barge which carries the rejuvenated sun-god into the morning sky." [CW, vol. 8, § 845]

The meaning of this synchronicity consists in the fact that Jung's patient was in a shocking manner pointed to the insight, that in her, symbolically speaking, a rebirth myth was constellated that we interpret psychologically as a transformation of consciousness. This experience caused a deep affect and this again effected that she now could open up with reference to the irrational and could recognize the reality of the world of the unconscious.

See http://www.psychovision.ch/synw/scarab_synchronicity_Jung.htm

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Belief in synchronicity creates paranoia

The other way around is also true.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Speaking of seeing significance where there is none, have you seen the Strindberg & Helium flash video about Iron and Sulphur?

http://strindbergandhelium.com/iron.html

One of your countrymen, Fran!

 

[-Fran-]

I'm sure the universe was trying to warn Rodney against trying to pilot a heavily-laden iron ore ship across Lake Superior when the storms of November come early.

Either that, or it was advising him to go buy a Gordon Lightfoot record.

How can you call that "useless"?!

LOL

Of course!! How can I have been that stupid

The other way around is also true.

That's also true. I am really stupid tonight

 

[-Fran-]

Speaking of seeing significance where there is none, have you seen the Strindberg & Helium flash video about Iron and Sulphur?


http://strindbergandhelium.com/iron.html

What was that!

But the Helium molecule was cute

One of your countrymen, Fran!

I apologize

Strindberg was never my favorite. He was woo, even for his time, he was a misogynist and his books, that we were forced to read in school, was mindnumbingly boring

 

[Rodney]

And this was supposed to be in refutation of Carroll's essay on coincidence.

It's not. Sounds like you're changing the topic.

I would think that a true skeptic would wonder how Cayce knew that almonds could help prevent at least some forms of cancer. However, as to Carroll's essay, it is mostly glittering generalities plus the shooting down of one strawman. For example, Carroll asserts:

"On the other hand, you might say that the odds of something happening are a million to one. Such odds might strike you as being so large as to rule out chance or coincidence. However, with over 6 billion people on earth, a million to one shot will occur frequently. Say the odds are a million to one that when a person has a dream of an airplane crash, there is an airplane crash the next day. With 6 billion people having an average of 250 dream themes each per night (Hines, 50), there should be about 1.5 million people a day who have dreams that seem clairvoyant. The number is actually likely to be larger, since we tend to dream about things that legitimately concern or worry us, and the data of dreams is usually vague or ambiguous, allowing a wide range of events to count as fulfilling our dreams."

The fundamental problem with the above is that it assumes that throwing out large numbers obviates the need for a specific analysis of individual coincidences. But even here, Carroll illogically tilts the numbers. For example, how many people do you know that remember even one dream theme per night, on average? And do you think it's fair to multiply the entire population of earth -- including infants that can't speak -- by 250 dream themes? And, if he is going to throw out numbers, how about some actual statistics on how many people annually dream about airplane crashes relatives to the annual number of crashes; or for that matter, actual statistics about dreams on any subject relative to their occurrences, so that meaningful analyses can be done?

Now, later in his essay, Carroll does take on some of the farfetched 9/11 coincidences, but why doesn't he take on something a tad more difficult, such as the Émile Deschamps plum pudding coincidences, if he is confident that there is no such thing as synchronicity?

 

[-Fran-]

What about this story:

In his article Synchronicity, An Acausal Connecting Principle, Carl G. Jung gives an example which has, over time, become famous: "A young woman I was treating had, at a critical moment, a dream in which she was given a golden scarab. While she was telling me this dream I sat with my back to the closed window. Suddenly I heard a noise behind me, like a gentle tapping. I turned round and saw a flying insect knocking against the window-pane from outside. I opened the window and caught the creature in the air as it flew in. It was the nearest analogy to a golden scarab that one finds in our latitudes, a scarabaeid beetle, the common rose-chafer (Cetonia aurata), which contrary to its usual habits had evidently felt an urge to get into a dark room at this particular moment." [Coll. Works, vol. 8, § 843]

Jung continues "The meaningful connection is obvious enough ... in view of the approximate identity of the chief objects (the scarab and the beetle)." [CW, vol. 8, § 845] He then notices that the treatment of this patient would be at first very difficult because she was caught up in a certain rationalism and the possibility of the irrational phenomena would be completely refused. She, therefore, would need a change of perspective whereby her consciousness could open with respect to the irrational. Such a transformation of consciousness is almost exclusively represented by symbols of rebirth. Jung writes: "The scarab is a classic example of a rebirth symbol. The ancient Egyptian Book of What Is in the Netherworld describes how the dead sun-god changes himself at the tenth station into Khepri, the scarab, and then, at the twelfth station, mounts the barge which carries the rejuvenated sun-god into the morning sky." [CW, vol. 8, § 845]

The meaning of this synchronicity consists in the fact that Jung's patient was in a shocking manner pointed to the insight, that in her, symbolically speaking, a rebirth myth was constellated that we interpret psychologically as a transformation of consciousness. This experience caused a deep affect and this again effected that she now could open up with reference to the irrational and could recognize the reality of the world of the unconscious.

See http://www.psychovision.ch/synw/scarab_synchronicity_Jung.htm

What about that story?

Well, first of all I think it's appalling that Jung was ever allowed near patients! But those were the times I guess. But it's still really kind of disturbing to read how he revelled in having broken down a woman's rational thinking and "opened her up to the irrational."

That he actually saw this as a problem:
"He then notices that the treatment of this patient would be at first very difficult because she was caught up in a certain rationalism and the possibility of the irrational phenomena would be completely refused."

But I guess it was totally logic, from his point of view, to get rid of that sane thinking so that she would be more perceptible to his alarmingly idiotic and shamefully unscientific ideas. You know what annoys me about people like Jung and Freud? They were so damn smug about their own ideas. The ideas were valid simply because they arose in their brilliant minds, and their patients (especially in the case of women it seems) were just instruments for their ideas. Appalling!

As to the meaningfullness of this story. So, she dreamt of a golden scarab, and then an insect comes into the room (yeah, insects are rare ). The insect in question was not, in fact, either a scarab, or golden. If there is really something meaningful who "steers" these events wouldn't it have been better if that vague something would actually have "sent" a REAL scarab? I don't demand it to be golden since such does not exist. But why just a remote relative to a scarab, why not a real one? It isn't impossible, it could have escaped from some bug collecter or something.

Well, OK, for Jung it is enough that the insect could be, in some way, connected to the scarab in the dream, albeit with a bit of a stretch. Then he connects it with an old Egyptian myth, as if that is the only possible interpretation, and the only symbolic value that has ever been given to a scarab, ever!! What if another African people had a completely different idea about what a scarab symbolizes? Then it could just as well have been a totally different meaning to the dream, couldn't it? But Jung considers himself a sufficient authority of scarab symbolism, and the ancient Egyptians were as well, it seems, so for him the interpretation was obvious. He uses this as a basis to manipulate a patient's mind and psyche with? Totally irresponsible!!

And then... Then we have only Jung's thoughts to give all this any sort of meaning at all, and only his description of how he broke down the woman's logic thinking and more or less forced her to realize this, very vague at that, meaning.

What do I think of this story? I think that, apart from that it does absolutely not prove that synchronicity is meaningfull, even on a subjective level, it is a disgusting story!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The fundamental problem with the above is that it assumes that throwing out large numbers obviates the need for a specific analysis of individual coincidences.

What does "specific analysis" mean in this context?

If you have an event that is expected by chance to occur, and it occurs, what other explanation is required?

You're trying to read significance in where there is none.

When that one-in-a-million event happens to you, it feels unusual. Just because something is unlikely does not make it significant. Low probability events happen all the time.

As I mentioned, there are so many hands of poker being played these days that several Royal Flushes are dealt out every hour. I play quite a lot, but I can vividly remember both occasions

The reason I keep pointing out that your definitions of what events would count are so fuzzy is that you can quickly increase the number of candidate events. The net you cast is so broad that it would be far more remarkable if you didn't find these sorts of coincidences.

So your criticism of Carroll's essay is that he overestimates the number of dreams people remember? He did give a reference for the average number of dreams per night a person has. I'm pretty sure that if I have a dream of an airplane crashing and the next day an airplane crashes, I will remember that I had the dream (as is often the case, people with "psychic" dreams don't write them down and only recall the dream after the event has happened). Do you have better information?

Let's say it is only one dream per night. That means the one in a million dream (the one that coincides with reality in the next day) will occur to some 6,000 people each night.

Again, do you rule out a dream that happens on Tuesday night which coincides with an event that happens on Thursday? If not, then the numbers have just doubled.

And that the 9/11 stuff is a straw man? Funny, the 9/11 nuts think that your stuff is the more easily debunked notion.

 

[fls]

In my opinion, an analysis should always be done to determine, as best as possible, how unlikely the coincidence was. In some cases, the analysis will reveal that the coincidence was actually fairly likely; in other cases, mind-bogglingly unlikely; in other cases, indeterminate.

Why should an analysis always be done? They will mostly be indeterminate. What is that going to tell you?

"Mind-bogglingly unlikely" only applies when the two things are assumed to be independent. How do you know it's not simply the case that your assumption is violated? Most of the time, that can't be ruled out with any reasonable degree of certainty.

But if you look at the facts objectively, it doesn't have to be that way.

But since when do any of you do that?

Linda

 

[fls]

What about this story:

In his article Synchronicity, An Acausal Connecting Principle, Carl G. Jung gives an example which has, over time, become famous: "A young woman I was treating had, at a critical moment, a dream in which she was given a golden scarab. While she was telling me this dream I sat with my back to the closed window. Suddenly I heard a noise behind me, like a gentle tapping. I turned round and saw a flying insect knocking against the window-pane from outside. I opened the window and caught the creature in the air as it flew in. It was the nearest analogy to a golden scarab that one finds in our latitudes, a scarabaeid beetle, the common rose-chafer (Cetonia aurata), which contrary to its usual habits had evidently felt an urge to get into a dark room at this particular moment." [Coll. Works, vol. 8, § 843]

Jung continues "The meaningful connection is obvious enough ... in view of the approximate identity of the chief objects (the scarab and the beetle)." [CW, vol. 8, § 845] He then notices that the treatment of this patient would be at first very difficult because she was caught up in a certain rationalism and the possibility of the irrational phenomena would be completely refused. She, therefore, would need a change of perspective whereby her consciousness could open with respect to the irrational. Such a transformation of consciousness is almost exclusively represented by symbols of rebirth. Jung writes: "The scarab is a classic example of a rebirth symbol. The ancient Egyptian Book of What Is in the Netherworld describes how the dead sun-god changes himself at the tenth station into Khepri, the scarab, and then, at the twelfth station, mounts the barge which carries the rejuvenated sun-god into the morning sky." [CW, vol. 8, § 845]

The meaning of this synchronicity consists in the fact that Jung's patient was in a shocking manner pointed to the insight, that in her, symbolically speaking, a rebirth myth was constellated that we interpret psychologically as a transformation of consciousness. This experience caused a deep affect and this again effected that she now could open up with reference to the irrational and could recognize the reality of the world of the unconscious.

See http://www.psychovision.ch/synw/scarab_synchronicity_Jung.htm

This is exactly what I mean. This is simply an example of making up stuff after the fact that fits with whatever meaning that occurs to the individual. Nothing novel came from making the connection. And the connection was neither sufficient or necessary to explain the occurrence. Useless.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

This is exactly what I mean. This is simply an example of making up stuff after the fact that fits with whatever meaning that occurs to the individual. Nothing novel came from making the connection. And the connection was neither sufficient or necessary to explain the occurrence. Useless.

Linda

Not useless if the patient improved, which this link says she did: " . . . Jung's patient had -- until the appearance of the beetle -- shown excessive rationality, remaining psychologically inaccessible. Once presented with the scarab, however, her demeanor improved and their sessions together grew more profitable."

Now, from your point of view, I'm sure it is impossible to show "excessive rationality", but evidently the patient believed something was wrong or she wouldn't have been seeing Jung in the first place.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Not useless if the patient improved, which this link says she did: " . . . Jung's patient had -- until the appearance of the beetle -- shown excessive rationality, remaining psychologically inaccessible. Once presented with the scarab, however, her demeanor improved and their sessions together grew more profitable."

And how do you know either the patient wouldn't have gotten better anyway (regression to the mean) or that the patient wasn't helped by something entirely unrelated?

 

[Rodney]

And how do you know either the patient wouldn't have gotten better anyway (regression to the mean) or that the patient wasn't helped by something entirely unrelated?

You can apply the same logic to any type of medical practice. Why single out Carl Jung -- why not Dr. Linda?