How do you guys explain really bizarre cases of synchronicity?

[Rodney]

Actually, I don't think that "the universe has meaning," out there to be found.

I'm still trying to figure out how you explain the sequence of events. To me, there are two basic possibilities here: (1) Finding the teapot under your house was a coincidence with no additional meaning; (2) Finding the teapot under your house was a synchronicity with significant additional meaning. You seem to be suggesting that there is a third possibility, but I can't figure out what that is.

 

[Moochie]

I might as well tell my tale here (loosely repeated here from the first thread I ever started on this Forum). This event happened back in the early nineties. My daughter and I started talking about a movie one evening, which we had both seen a number of years earlier. We could remember the plot, but not the name. It started to become annoying.

So I grabbed a movie guide, not Leonard Maltin's, another one, sitting next to me, (no coinicidence there - it is always on a coffee table sitting next to me), and said I will find it. I closed my eyes, opened the book, pointed, and then looked at where I had pointed. Yep, you have got it - it was the movie we were both thinking and talking about.

Odds of around 15,000 to 1, so not too bad for a first try. Never been able to repeat it since though, although I have never fogotten the name of the movie since then (and neither has she - we still occasionally joke about my "paranormal" event) - One Night Stand, set in the Sydney Opera House with a group of teenagers the night an Atomic War starts.

Norm

Bloody hell, now there's a coincidence -- I have Maltin plus two others on the coffee table in front of me. It's their permanent home, along with a bunch of other reading matter, various remotes, and a small cushion upon which rest my weary feet after a hard day's yakka.


M.

 

[cyborg]

Yes, but we're wired to do it for a reason.

Yes. The reason being that it is Good Enough TM.

And we have more subtle tools for pattern recognition than Logic and Double Blinded Experiments

In what sense are they more subtle? Logic is just logic. The whole point of the double blind experiment is that it eliminates the readily apparent defects that appear when the Good Enough reasoning systems fail to be Good Enough.

Either one accepts that the brain's interpretations of reality are prone to be incorrect due to any number of assumptions or failures in the reasoning procedures or one does not.

If one accepts that the brain's interpretations of reality are not pefect then praytell why exactly when these imperfections manifest themselves in a gross way is it to be taken as anything other than an first-person observation of these mechanisms "throwing exceptions" under stress? Software failures aren't indicative of anything other than a need for futher debugging.

... not all of life can be treated as a logic problem or a scientific experiment.

Why not?

 

[Teapots Happen]

I'm still trying to figure out how you explain the sequence of events. To me, there are two basic possibilities here: (1) Finding the teapot under your house was a coincidence with no additional meaning; (2) Finding the teapot under your house was a synchronicity with significant additional meaning. You seem to be suggesting that there is a third possibility, but I can't figure out what that is.

I guess this stems from confusion over what it means for a coincidence to be "meaningful."

I was talking about meaning in the subjective sense - how personal meaning is made. But you are thinking of it in terms of "either mere coincidence or meaningful coincidence" - as in, if the coincidence had a cause other than random chance, it was 'meaningful.' (right?) As in, it "meant something because it indicated something about how the world works" perhaps?

I do think that it was not random chance that led to the sequence of events, but I do not know - and expect I never will know - what the underlying forces or causes were.

Because the synchronicity came on the heels of my mystical experience, and directly from my following intuition as mandated by said experience, I tend to think that the other content of the LSD trip/mystical experience is likely relevant to the synchronicity - that everything is the same thing in a fundamental way, and that it is all incredibly interconnected in ways that we do not - and perhaps cannot - understand.

I am as a result open to more Eastern/deist/taoist/pantheist views about a 'god' existing, but I don't actively hold any such belief, which is why I am still an atheist - I lack god belief (weak atheism), although I no longer actively deny the possibility that a deity of some kind could exist (strong atheism). Hope this clears up your original question, about how I can believe in meaning while being an atheist? Or did I just make it worse?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If you can't test for it, how do you know it doesn't exist?

You're asking the wrong question. Do you know of Sagan's invisible and undetectable dragon in the garage?

I cited the Merriam-Webster definition, which requires "the coincidental occurrence of events and especially psychic events (as similar thoughts in widely separated persons or a mental image of an unexpected event before it happens) that seem related but are not explained by conventional mechanisms of causality."

Then there is no such thing by definition, because all of these events can be described by causality. (You get an outcome on a roll of a die by rolling the die. You get an outcome of a sequence of 5 cards caused by dealing out the 5 cards.)

For something to be "not explained by conventional mechanisms of causality" you'd need something like levitation or other paranormal/supernatural events.

The argument that an event is an example of "synchronicity" because it is an extremely low probability event ignores the fact that given enough chances, low probability events are guaranteed to happen. It also ignores the fact that low probability events that aren't deemed examples of "synchronicity" aren't any less significant.

That's not the way synchronicity works. Coincidences come out of the blue, rather than being predicted. Again, by your logic, no matter how staggering the actual odds are of two or more events happening in a synchronous fashion, that proves nothing, and so there is no way that synchronicity can ever be demonstrated.

That's right, because, according to the definition you provided an example of synchronicity would have to be something "not explained by conventional mechanisms of causality". So if we examine the causes and find these events to be mundane, all you have left is the fact that the event is low probability. As I've shown, the law of really large numbers guarantees that improbable events are certain to happen. It's just your mind imposing significance and meaning to a random event--much like seeing a pattern in a water stain or some such.

 

[Teapots Happen]

reasoning systems ... failures in the reasoning procedures ... mechanisms throwing exceptions ... Software failures ... futher debugging.

heh, you ARE a cyborg, aren't you?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't think such a distinction needs to be made.

But you made exactly that distinction when you said:

I did not hallucinate the teapots while on LSD - I had a 'mystical experience' (not merely a happy one - please look up the term since I cannot add links to posts), which left me with the notion that the world was profoundly interconnected and essentially magical - and that in such a reality, intuition was a useful guide that I should learn to pay attention to.

So either it is a drug induced hallucination or a mystical experience. My question stands, how do you distinguish the two? If you can distinguish between the two, then why do you deny it's one and is the other?

If you visit the state mental hospital, you'll see people with very severe delusions. Do you think there is some reality in the universe that they perceive that the rest of us don't? Or do you think they're delusional?

If you accept that they are delusional, how do you know you are not?

____________

Yes, but we're wired to do it for a reason.

Yes. The reason being that it is Good Enough TM.

Or, in more formal terms, natural selection doesn't select against Type I errors.

I would go beyond that, though. As animals living in highly complex social groups, we evolved the capacity and tendency to infer intention, meaning or significance. The Type I error related to that (inferring intention or significance or meaning to random events) is a byproduct of the fact that having that capacity and tendency is very important.

Type II errors, on the other hand, can be fatal, and natural selection has very nearly eliminated the tendency to miss the inference of intention or meaning or pattern when it is there. It has done so at the cost of tolerating the commission of Type I errors.

But being wired to avoid Type II errors at the cost of making Type I errors doesn't mean that those aren't errors. In other words, it doesn't mean that because we perceiving intention, meaning, or significance in random events that it isn't erroneous.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm still trying to figure out how you explain the sequence of events. To me, there are two basic possibilities here: (1) Finding the teapot under your house was a coincidence with no additional meaning; (2) Finding the teapot under your house was a synchronicity with significant additional meaning. You seem to be suggesting that there is a third possibility, but I can't figure out what that is.

I'm please to report that I agree with you on this point, Rodney. I think Teapots Happen is being inconsistent with his use of terms. He says he doesn't believe there is inherent significance in randomly coincidental events, but he claims significance in some randomly coincidental events.

ETA: And he is at the same time saying he doesn't think these events are randomly caused but have some hidden, deeper underlying cause (which you and I would say, is in fact "inherent significance").

I would agree with Teapots Happen that any meaning we ascribe to such events are meanings that we personally bring to them, and not meaning that is actually inherent in the events. Which is to say, I don't think there is such a thing as synchronicity (or mystical experiences)--rather they are simply the mind imposing meaning on something inherently meaningless, again much like the phenomenon of pareidolia.

ETA: I disagree with Teapots in his conclusion that coincident events that have an underlying cause are not inherently significant. That is, if there is an underlying cause, then there is inherent significance to the events coinciding. I think he's trying to have it both ways--there being an underlying cause, but no inherent significance, which makes no sense.

 

[Teapots Happen]

But you made exactly that distinction when you said: "I did not hallucinate the teapots while on LSD - I had a 'mystical experience' which left me with the notion that the world was profoundly interconnected and essentially magical - and that in such a reality, intuition was a useful guide that I should learn to pay attention to."

No, I didn't. My drug/mystical experience had zero teapot content, was all I was pointing out. (It did have "pay attention to intuition" content, however - which I feel was more-than-hallucinatory, given the startling experience I subsequently had when trying to follow that notion.)

So either it is a drug induced hallucination or a mystical experience. My question stands, how do you distinguish the two?

Again - there is no contradiction to having a 'mystical experience' triggered by drugs:

themystica.com/mystica/articles/m/mystical_experiences.html

The mystical experience I had remains such regardless of whether or not you choose to consider it a "drug induced hallucination" or not.

If you accept that they are delusional, how do you know you are not?

I don't know, and neither do you. (I am happy for you that you think you do, however! Enjoy it!)

 

[Teapots Happen]

I think Teapots Happen is being inconsistent with his use of terms. He says he doesn't believe there is inherent significance in randomly coincidental events, but he claims significance in some randomly coincidental events.

ETA: And he is at the same time saying he doesn't think these events are randomly caused but have some hidden, deeper underlying cause (which you and I would say, is in fact "inherent significance").

ETA: I disagree with Teapots in his conclusion that coincident events that have an underlying cause are not inherently significant. That is, if there is an underlying cause, then there is inherent significance to the events coinciding. I think he's trying to have it both ways--there being an underlying cause, but no inherent significance, which makes no sense.

"Caused" does not equal "significant" does not equal "meaningful."

(Hell, just look at Jung's definition of "synchronicity" - coincidences that are both "acausal" and "meaningful.")

Again, we have some definition confusion, with how the word "meaning" is being used.

 

[cyborg]

Again, we have some definition confusion, with how the word "meaning" is being used.

I don't think anyone is confused about it; you are saying (or seem to be) that the meaning is objective and we are saying it is subjective.

 

[Maia]

If you visit the state mental hospital, you'll see people with very severe delusions. Do you think there is some reality in the universe that they perceive that the rest of us don't? Or do you think they're delusional?

.

I've worked with people who have severe and persistent mental illnesses, and actually, I do think they perceive a reality that others generally do not-- but it's the reality perceived by those who have to live with lifelong illnesses which are horribly stigmatized by our society. They long for normal lives with a passion and a poignancy that can be heartbreaking (well, that's where professional boundaries come in...) I'll never forget the group therapy class I led where everyone talked about their most cherished wishes; one way or another, everybody had the same one, and it was "to be normal."

So if you go (and we DO try to encourage people to call it the psychatric hospital), don't just visit-- volunteer. That's where you'll find meaning without having to worry about teapots.

That being said, I think I know a way that everyone would be convinced of the existence of synchronicity. Picture it: you're walking down a dark, eerie path on the edge of town in the middle of the night. A strange gypsy woman from a mysterious encampment stops you and tells you that you just came from a surprise birthday for your friend Heather. Astonished, you tell her that it's true. She tells you that you're wearing Heather's jacket and that there's a Powerball ticket in the pocket (all true). She tells you the exact numbers (still true.) THEN, she tells you that the Powerball ticket is going to win tomorrow, which it does. Would this be enough?

 

[cyborg]

Would this be enough?

Enough to burn the witch, yes.

 

[Rodney]

THEN, she tells you that the Powerball ticket is going to win tomorrow, which it does. Would this be enough?

Along those lines, see http://www.snopes.com/luck/lottery/dreamwin.asp. If that happened to you, would that be enough?

 

[Maia]

Along those lines, see http://www.snopes.com/luck/lottery/dreamwin.asp. If that happened to you, would that be enough?

Actually, I don't think there's even anything the least bit coincidental about that. The woman who won actually said that she'd already bought the original ticket before she dreamed about winning the lottery (!!!) That's why she bought the second ticket. There's nothing unusual about someone else then hitting the lottery the same week and having to share it. (Why did this get onto Snopes at all?? Are they seriously slipping?) Now, if someone posted "dream lottery numbers" and then won Powerball with them the next day... okay, I'd be impressed.

 

[Careyp74]

Along those lines, see http://www.snopes.com/luck/lottery/dreamwin.asp. If that happened to you, would that be enough?

if that did happen to me, I would look for the piece of paper that I wrote down the dream on, before purchasing the tickets. If I couldn't find one, I would have said, "Durn, me brain's playin tricks on me agin." and enjoyed the winnings.

Please don't make Joe repeat himself again. If I hear him say Texas Sharpshooter again...... Just get the point already.

The only thing Snopes was able to verify in that story was that there actually was a winner who bought two tickets, and she CLAIMED it came to her in a dream. This was all told after she won, and was probably ecstatic over the win, and not thinking clearly. Who did she tell about the dream before buying the tickets?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

"Caused" does not equal "significant" does not equal "meaningful."

I disagree, at least as these terms are being used in this context.

If two events happen that have a common cause (or one is the cause of the other or some such relationship), then the coincidence (or correlation) IS inherently meaningful and significant.

Hell, just look at Jung's definition of "synchronicity" - coincidences that are both "acausal" and "meaningful."

Again, I've responded to this. None of these are events without causes. They're just events without a common cause or any connection but coincidence. The law of really big numbers assures us that low probability events (such as the random coincidence of unrelated events) are expected to occur all the time given enough chances. If you claim there is meaning or significance inherent in these events, you are indeed claiming some sort of connection (or common cause).

So, if there is no connection between the events, then how are they "meaningful"?

For example, if you introduce substance B to solution A, you get a reaction that results in solution C, there is a correlation of adding the substance to observing the reaction. If this were "mere coincidence", then there is no meaning or significance to adding B and getting the reaction. They just happened to occur one after the other. The correlation is insignificant (or not meaningful). If, however, adding B caused the reaction, we would say it's a significant or meaningful correlation (in which case, you could predict that reaction and get it to happen repeatedly under similar conditions).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Along those lines, see http://www.snopes.com/luck/lottery/dreamwin.asp. If that happened to you, would that be enough?

Rodney, I know I asked you to read this essay months (if not years) ago:

http://www.skepdic.com/lawofnumbers.html

I suspect you haven't yet, since it explains why such an unusual-sounding event (a woman twice dreaming the winning lottery numbers) is expected when you consider how many people have dreams, how many people play the lottery, etc.

And this is taking the woman's story at face value, without suggesting that her memory might be flawed.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

if that did happen to me, I would look for the piece of paper that I wrote down the dream on, before purchasing the tickets. If I couldn't find one, I would have said, "Durn, me brain's playin tricks on me agin." and enjoyed the winnings.

Please don't make Joe repeat himself again. If I hear him say Texas Sharpshooter again...... Just get the point already.

That, and the "law of truly large numbers"! And this broken record (wrt Rodney) has been playing for many months, I'm afraid.

The only thing Snopes was able to verify in that story was that there actually was a winner who bought two tickets, and she CLAIMED it came to her in a dream. This was all told after she won, and was probably ecstatic over the win, and not thinking clearly. Who did she tell about the dream before buying the tickets?

I wonder too how often the woman in the story bought one ticket and then bought a second ticket with the same number before the drawing. It might be something she frequently does.

 

[Belz...]

There are plenty of examples of meaningful coincidences occurring, and I have experienced them myself. In one case, even a highly skeptical friend had to admit that there was probably something paranormal going on.

He's not "highly" skeptical, then,

Some things are too timely and specific for me to dismiss as mere coincidence

How do you determine if they are "too" timely ?