How do you guys explain really bizarre cases of synchronicity?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Perhaps the mystical experience is defined by the willingness of the observer.
Its the noticing, or having one's attention inexplicably drawn to an event or series of events that otherwise would slip by without fanfare. The de-ja-vu experience is completely about a feeling; one that is ephemeral and difficult to describe.

Again, couldn't you say the same thing about someone seeing the Virgin Mary in a water stain? It's all about the willingness of the observer.

There's nothing really there. No intention of the universe; no synchronizing with the universe.

By the way, I reject that this is at all "inexplicable" (as in "one's attention inexplicably drawn to an event"). I've pointed out repeatedly that our minds evolved the capacity and tendency to infer intention, see meaning, recognize patterns, even when none exists. Natural selection selects against Type II errors at the cost of allowing Type I errors.

 

[Starthinker]

Then would you agree that there is nothing inherently meaningful or significant about the event?

That is, by your take, synchronicity is nothing more than a sort of pareidolia--seeing a pattern where none exists, or, as I prefer to call it a Type I error (a false positive)?

ETA: That is, believing that random events means you are "in synch with the universe" is about the same as seeing Jesus in the random marks on a tortilla. The marks or events are meaningless. Meaning is (wrongly) imposed by the human mind, which as I've pointed out has evolved to have the capacity and tendency to infer intention and significance even when it's not there.

If I am reading your question right, you are asking me if flipping 1000 heads in a row is synchronicity. No, it isn't. Synchronicity isn't about how far the odds are or what the event is, it's about an emotional response to a series of coincidences. It isn't about the odds, the event (flipping coins), or how unlikely something is, it's about how the observer FEELS about it.

Think about finding a penny on the sidewalk, it's only a 1/2 chance that it will be heads, not the millions to one it would take to "flip heads 1000 times in a row". It's equal odds. One person may find nothing unusual about and pass it by but to someone else it may elicit an emotional response and he gets a feeling of synchronicity. It had nothing to do with how great the odds are, just the emotional state of the observer.

All this talk about the odds of 1000 heads in a row have no bearing on the emotional state of the observer. Discussions about syncronicity should lean more toward psychology, not probability.

ETA, I think we are actually agreeing. Pareidolia is a human construct, seeing a pattern where none exists, discussing the odds of a face actually appearing doesn't really play into it, it's a psychological effect, and such is sychronicity. The event is insignificant, it's the person's emotional response that is significant.

ETA again: This post number is also my house number, what are the odds?

 

[Starthinker]

BTW - I see nothing wrong with the feeling of synchronicity. It's like finding a dollar on the ground and feeling good about it. Who cares what the odds are, the end result is a lift in your mood. Synchronicity is generally considered a good feeling, a feeling that you are in synch with the universe, it's like feeling you have good karma. It's not really something someone can harm themselves with so why rain on their parade?

 

[Elizabeth I]

The problem is that Rodney keeps asserting long odds as what defines some events as examples of sychronicity. I keep pointing out that the odds don't make that distinction, since all outcomes (that is all events) can be seen as equally improbable. I find it easier to do this with thought experiments (like considering different results of tossing a fair coin).

Fromdownunder tried to show that his writing a post on the forum can be seen as an extremely improbable event--as improbable as anything offered as an example of synchronicity. The trouble with using real-world examples like this is that Rodney doesn't think that the odds against such an event are astronomical. That's why I like a clean thought experiment like tossing a coin. We can then calculate and use real numbers.

I'm arguing that either events are inherently meaningful, or they are not. If they are not, then what people call "synchronicity" is nothing more than imposing meaning, seeing a pattern where none exists, much like pareidolia.

I think Rodney's problem (and I apologize in advance for putting words in his mouth) is that he doesn't believe that the 1,000-heads-in-a-row result is just as likely, or unlikely, as any other. Intuitively, it doesn't "feel" right, as I can attest, being a mathematically challenged person. When people explain odds and so forth to me, I can understand it, but it still "feels" like a pattern like 1,000 heads in a row should be less likely than a more "random" result. Of course, the fact is that until a coin toss happens, any potential result is just as random as any other.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If I am reading your question right, you are asking me if flipping 1000 heads in a row is synchronicity. No, it isn't. Synchronicity isn't about how far the odds are or what the event is, it's about an emotional response to a series of coincidences.

Rodney disagrees with you. He insists that the low probability of an event is in part what makes it "synchronicity".

And in fact many people who believe in synchronicity (or being in synch with the universe, as you phrased it, which isn't far off from The Secret nonsense) will support their case by asking, "What are the odds of meeting someone I know when I'm out of the country?" or whatever the event is. But they don't listen when it is explained to them that the odds aren't that long when you consider how many possible chances there are for an arbitrarily defined "amazing" event.

I understand that you aren't making the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, but Rodney most certainly is.

All this talk about the odds of 1000 heads in a row have no bearing on the emotional state of the observer. Discussions about syncronicity should lean more toward psychology, not probability.

ETA, I think we are actually agreeing. Pareidolia is a human construct, seeing a pattern where none exists, discussing the odds of a face actually appearing doesn't really play into it, it's a psychological effect, and such is sychronicity. The event is insignificant, it's the person's emotional response that is significant.

So what's the point of denying that it's a mere coincidence and insisting that it's an example of synchronicity? (That's how the term is used. It implies an inherent meaningfulness in the event because it's a low probability event. Then you have people like Rodney claiming that because it's low probability, it's impossible that it could happen by chance.)

I partially agree with your statement, "Discussions about syncronicity should lean more toward psychology, not probability." I think it's better explained, as I have repeatedly, but the fact that we evolved as intelligent animals living in very complex social groups. The mental capacity and tendency to see patterns, to infer intention, etc. has a distinct adaptive advantage. It comes at the costs of the tendency to make Type I errors. I don't know if you consider that to be a "psychological" explanation; I'd prefer to call it the biological explanation--or perhaps the natural selection explanation.
___________

I think Rodney's problem (and I apologize in advance for putting words in his mouth) is that he doesn't believe that the 1,000-heads-in-a-row result is just as likely, or unlikely, as any other. Intuitively, it doesn't "feel" right, as I can attest, being a mathematically challenged person. When people explain odds and so forth to me, I can understand it, but it still "feels" like a pattern like 1,000 heads in a row should be less likely than a more "random" result. Of course, the fact is that until a coin toss happens, any potential result is just as random as any other.

How about the following (something I described earlier in this thread), which might be more accessible without knowing the maths.

Imagine dealing out Ten, Jack, Queen, King and Ace of clubs from a well shuffled (randomized) regular deck of cards. The odds of getting that hand are less than 1 in 2.5 million.

Now imagine dealing out 3 of clubs, J of diamonds, 5 of clubs, 3 of hears and 7 of spades. The odds of dealing out that exact hand are also less than 1 in 2.5 million.

So clearly, the improbability of an event is not what makes it significant and meaningful. It's something about the perceived pattern.

Or better yet, consider Fromdownunder's example: think how improbable it was for all the events from his conception until a couple of days ago that led up to his posting on this forum. The odds are staggering! Yet few people claim such a mundane event is "synchronicity". Why?

I say it's because synchronicity is just another Type I error--it's based on seeing a pattern or intention (even if the "intention" is just something impersonal like "karma" or "being in tune with the vibrations of the universe" or whatever). I've explained why the human mind does this--basically it's the cost of avoiding Type II errors.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

BTW - I see nothing wrong with the feeling of synchronicity. It's like finding a dollar on the ground and feeling good about it. Who cares what the odds are, the end result is a lift in your mood. Synchronicity is generally considered a good feeling, a feeling that you are in synch with the universe, it's like feeling you have good karma. It's not really something someone can harm themselves with so why rain on their parade?

I don't think synchronicity is an emotion. Most people who use the term, use it as an alternative explanation to an apparently patterned (or intentional or meaningful or significant), low probability event rather than the mundane explanation of a mere coincidence.

As such, it's more a claim or an explanation than an emotion.

The feeling one gets when finding a dollar bill is usually labeled something like "happy" or "glad". (I know of counselors who want their clients to focus on their feelings but frequently get a member of a couple who says something like, "I feel like she's not listening to me"--which isn't a feeling at all, but a conclusion. They will frequently limit the choices to "mad" "glad" "sad" or "afraid" to eliminate the tendency to label thoughts as feelings.)

 

[Maia]

Perhaps the mystical experience is defined by the willingness of the observer.
Its the noticing, or having one's attention inexplicably drawn to an event or series of events that otherwise would slip by without fanfare. The de-ja-vu experience is completely about a feeling; one that is ephemeral and difficult to describe.

The sum-total game is a mystical experience to me, when I'm feeling in tune. Its a good feeling, but not prone to cultivation. A state of wonder can't be sustained (imho) if one feels inclined to capture and label its individual small verifications.

Even god, (for lack of better terminology) will avoid a relationship founded on grasping and holding. A better analogy for the subtle thing i shouldn't be trying to expose is in regards to observing wildlife:

You need to nearly pretend you aren't watching; that its no big deal. Delicate relationships are best served by not gawking; not photographing; being willing to accept the unusual and beautiful as everyday stuff.

To teapot if he's lurking:
That is my objection to your example. By exposing it in court, it may avoid you in the future.

Its very difficult to let something rare and beautiful happen without feeling the need to tell someone...which is akin to a betrayal of sorts.

I had to read the ongoing thread up to this point because of the entire working-60-hours-this-week thing, so... now being caught up....

I can see what you mean, although I might put it differently, and in a way I actually mean the opposite. People seem to need to justify internal/emotional mystical experiences by linking them to something external: a "series of events", "synchronicity", something "paranormal", God sitting around up in heaven answering prayers for the true believers, the will of the universe, the stars, the cards, the crystals, etc. I'm reminded of something that John Shelby Spong wrote in his latest book (but then, doesn't everything remind me of something Spong wrote?): that so many people seem to feel that human life can only have meaning if it's been planned out or designed by the above-mentioned parental figure-type God sitting up in heaven and regularly intervening in human affairs (if properly appealed to, of course.) We don't trust that we can have or create our own meaning.

Similarly... IMHO, of course... letting "something rare and beautiful happen" shouldn't be about some unending desperate need to find proof that it was "real", and to get other people to agree with this. Especially a group of people who are really the last ones who are going to do it if the person involved wants it to be on some kind of "factual" basis.

 

[fromdownunder]

It isn't about the odds, the event (flipping coins), or how unlikely something is, it's about how the observer FEELS about it.

But, this discussion is essentially taking place with Rodney, and about points made by him, and he disagrees with the above. Which is why it has taken the direction it has. See Post #244

So if something with ten million to one odds happens to a person who shrugs it off as a coincidence, it is a coincidence, but if someone is profoundly affected by the same ten million to one event it is synchrosity?

This makes it pretty subjective, does it not?

Norm


Good point. Upon reflection, I would say that, if the odds of a particular sequence of events occurring to anyone are off the charts, it would be a synchronicity, even if the person shrugs it off as just a coincidence.

Norm

 

[fromdownunder]

I'm arguing that either events are inherently meaningful, or they are not. If they are not, then what people call "synchronicity" is nothing more than imposing meaning, seeing a pattern where none exists, much like pareidolia.

[emphasis mine]

That's why I am still following this thread. Well said, and in far fewer words than I would have used. I am a verbose bastard when I get going.

Norm

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I can see what you mean, although I might put it differently, and in a way I actually mean the opposite. People seem to need to justify internal/emotional mystical experiences by linking them to something external: a "series of events", "synchronicity", something "paranormal", God sitting around up in heaven answering prayers for the true believers, the will of the universe, the stars, the cards, the crystals, etc. I'm reminded of something that John Shelby Spong wrote in his latest book (but then, doesn't everything remind me of something Spong wrote?): that so many people seem to feel that human life can only have meaning if it's been planned out or designed by the above-mentioned parental figure-type God sitting up in heaven and regularly intervening in human affairs (if properly appealed to, of course.) We don't trust that we can have or create our own meaning.

Similarly... IMHO, of course... letting "something rare and beautiful happen" shouldn't be about some unending desperate need to find proof that it was "real", and to get other people to agree with this. Especially a group of people who are really the last ones who are going to do it if the person involved wants it to be on some kind of "factual" basis.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

I also think that this need you note that people have to justify their experience as being something mystical, paranormal, divine, etc. is itself explicable, in the way I have explained it. It's not so romantic, but we have been selected against making Type II errors so well that we are prone to making Type I errors. We evolved to have the tendency to see patterns, infer intention, etc.

At one time it might have been something as simple as animism, then full blown religion with anthropomorphic deities, and now maybe something new-agey like being attuned to the universe or whatever.

It still comes down to the same tendency to make an error.

ETA: And it's the same error that lets us see faces in the clouds or think it's possible to predict the future in tea leaves, animal entrails, or the turn of a tarot card.

 

[quarky]

Again, couldn't you say the same thing about someone seeing the Virgin Mary in a water stain? It's all about the willingness of the observer.

There's nothing really there. No intention of the universe; no synchronizing with the universe.

By the way, I reject that this is at all "inexplicable" (as in "one's attention inexplicably drawn to an event"). I've pointed out repeatedly that our minds evolved the capacity and tendency to infer intention, see meaning, recognize patterns, even when none exists. Natural selection selects against Type II errors at the cost of allowing Type I errors.

Yeah, The Virgin in the stain could be analogous. And what I'm suggesting is that if you really want that verification; that winking back at you from the mystical side (whether it exists or not), then you don't charge people a dollar to see her, or make a big deal about it. If you believe, its personal, and the verification process is steeped in a certain doubt about it.

 

[Maia]

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

I also think that this need you note that people have to justify their experience as being something mystical, paranormal, divine, etc. is itself explicable, in the way I have explained it. It's not so romantic, but we have been selected against making Type II errors so well that we are prone to making Type I errors. We evolved to have the tendency to see patterns, infer intention, etc.

At one time it might have been something as simple as animism, then full blown religion with anthropomorphic deities, and now maybe something new-agey like being attuned to the universe or whatever.

It still comes down to the same tendency to make an error.

ETA: And it's the same error that lets us see faces in the clouds or think it's possible to predict the future in tea leaves, animal entrails, or the turn of a tarot card.

I think the Type I and II theory is fascinating and makes sense; whether it's actually well-supported enough to take it beyond a theoretical level and to say we've definitely been selected that way in an evolutionary sense, I don't know. But I think that to say anything decisive about that is really a side issue.

I was thinking about an incident that happened this week (well, a set of incidents.) One of my clients passed away this week, and another one probably won't make it until Wednesday. (And before y'all start thinking I'm bad luck, they were already on hospice!) I was the last person to touch Mac, who passed away, and I realized that when I get back to the hospital, I may find out that I was the last person to touch Miss Kitten (that's what we all called her on the hall.) I knew this by the time I was with MK because Mac had already died. I put my hand on her forehead and such a mixture of feelings went through me as I knew that she was dying. To be alone with the sick and the dying as they let go of life is a mystical experience.

However... a little later that day, Mac's call light kept going off in the empty room. I was a little spooked, because it really didn't make any sense at all. All of the nurses sat around and told one story after another about the weird things they'd seen happen at various hospitals after patients died. It was all very impressive until a couple of hours later, when I found out that the techs played a trick on me with that call light. One of them was planning to jump out from the closet.

The point is, the fact that I was the last one to touch the body of a dying man is itself profoundly meaningful. If I get to the hospital on Wednesday and find that Miss Kitten's passed away and go into her room, I don't need to convince myself that I'm seeing something mysteriously moving under the bed to find meaning in her life and death. None these experiences need to be justified by ghost tricks. Internal meaning doesn't need to be "created" by some kind of external event. That's why I think that TH should concentrate on what his mystical experience meant to him, rather than on these weird endless attempts to find meaning in teapot stories.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yeah, The Virgin in the stain could be analogous. And what I'm suggesting is that if you really want that verification; that winking back at you from the mystical side (whether it exists or not), then you don't charge people a dollar to see her, or make a big deal about it. If you believe, its personal, and the verification process is steeped in a certain doubt about it.

Even so, if you believe the water stain is an apparition of the Virgin Mary, you're still making an error. It's just the perception of a pattern from something that is random.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think the Type I and II theory is fascinating and makes sense; whether it's actually well-supported enough to take it beyond a theoretical level and to say we've definitely been selected that way in an evolutionary sense, I don't know. But I think that to say anything decisive about that is really a side issue.

A side issue, perhaps, but I assure you it is well-supported. At any rate, it answers the question asked in this thread (see OP and thread title) and is consistent with well-established scientific theory across several disciplines. The theory of "synchronicity" is not.

To be alone with the sick and the dying as they let go of life is a mystical experience.

<snip>
That's why I think that TH should concentrate on what his mystical experience meant to him, rather than on these weird endless attempts to find meaning in teapot stories.

What does it mean to assert that something is a "mystical experience"? Maybe you're not using it the way most people do. For most people it is a claim of something out of the ordinary and inexplicable by ordinary means. If that's what you mean, I disagree.

Even what's offered as a more "clinical" definition: "the mystical experience is a transient, extraordinary experience marked by feelings of unity, harmonious relationship to the divine and everything in existence, as well as euphoria, sense of noesis (access to the hidden spiritual dimension), loss of ego functioning, alterations in time and space perception, and the sense of lacking control over the event (Allman, De La Roche, Elkins & Weathers, 1992; Hood, 1974; Lukoff & Lu, 1988)" includes that bit about metaphysics ("sense of noesis") that I reject. (Linky.) The rest, is a sensation, as has been pointed out, that can be induced by drugs or electrical stimulation of certain brain structures.

It seems to me that the term "mystical experience" is not any better than "synchronicity". It's more a theory about something (based on an argument from ignorance--that is, it usually is what people point to when they can't answer the "How do you explain x?" sort of question) than merely a reporting of a feeling.

ETA: By the way, the term for "seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data" is apophenia.

 

[Maia]

What does it mean to assert that something is a "mystical experience"? Maybe you're not using it the way most people do. For most people it is a claim of something out of the ordinary and inexplicable by ordinary means.

No. Because then we're right back to that need for external proof of an internal experience. If something is "inexplicable by ordinary means", then that always ends up at least implying that God up in heaven, the will of the universe (as explained in horrible videos about The Secret), the conjunction of the stars, or weird teapot incidents must offer the proof.

Even what's offered as a more "clinical" definition: "the mystical experience is a transient, extraordinary experience marked by feelings of unity, harmonious relationship to the divine and everything in existence, as well as euphoria, sense of noesis (access to the hidden spiritual dimension), loss of ego functioning, alterations in time and space perception, and the sense of lacking control over the event (Allman, De La Roche, Elkins & Weathers, 1992; Hood, 1974; Lukoff & Lu, 1988)" includes that bit about metaphysics ("sense of noesis") that I reject. (Linky.) The rest, is a sensation, as has been pointed out, that can be induced by drugs or electrical stimulation of certain brain structures.

I don't know if I agree with the definition as a whole; still, they're talking about a sense of noesis rather than its reality. There was actually a very long thread about the Persinger studies a couple of months ago, and they are fascinating. (I'll see if I can find it.) He consistently recreated a very specific mental event in a large percentage of subjects ("the evocation of a sensed presence") through the stimulation of certain parts of the brain through a weak EMF. To be totally accurate, he wasn't studying anything else under a laboratory condition that could be described as a "mystical experience" (whatever that actually might be.)

It seems to me that the term "mystical experience" is not any better than "synchronicity". It's more a theory about something (based on an argument from ignorance--that is, it usually is what people point to when they can't answer the "How do you explain x?" sort of question) than merely a reporting of a feeling.

I think you've got the heart of the problem here. People do overwhelmingly tend to think of their own subjective experiences as "merely the reporting of a feeling" and, as such, just not important or "real" enough to be worth anything unless they can somehow be propped up by "real evidence." As many have pointed out, however, if the evidence simply isn't there, then it can't be manufactured. Where I would go from here, however, is to say that we don't need to keep trying to do this, and we don't need to keep trying to make ourselves believe in things that can't be logically supported. Our feelings, emotions, and subjective experiences as human beings are so much more important and real than any of this. This is why we do not need to try to be "out of the ordinary", and we would all be a lot better off if we stopped the attempt.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No. Because then we're right back to that need for external proof of an internal experience. If something is "inexplicable by ordinary means", then that always ends up at least implying that God up in heaven, the will of the universe (as explained in horrible videos about The Secret), the conjunction of the stars, or weird teapot incidents must offer the proof.

That's pretty much the point I'm making. If someone claims something is inexplicable by ordinary means it mostly means that they suffer from premature satisfaction of curiosity. It means, they're ignorant of the explanation and are content to make up fantasies.

At any rate, I'm unsure of your position on these things. Earlier, you claimed that delusional, mentally ill people are actually perceiving something real rather than making perceptual errors (seeing patterns or meaning that isn't really there).

You seem to reject the typical usage of synchronicity (like the way Rodney uses the word, which I think is the conventional way it's used). Yet you seem to consider "mystical experience" to be real. My question again, is what is the difference between saying "synchronicity" or "mystical experience"?

I don't know if I agree with the definition as a whole; still, they're talking about a sense of noesis rather than its reality.

That doesn't make it any more rational. If I claimed I "felt" like God was telling me to kill someone, I am actually reporting an erroneous idea, not a feeling. Noesis is a bizarre term where things metaphysical are thought to be scientific, but they're not. So claiming a "sense of noesis" is really a metaphysical claim.

(Again, it's comparable to a guy in couples counseling claiming that "I feel like I don't get to watch football" is an honest reporting of his feelings, when in fact it's not. "I feel mad or sad that I don't get to watch football as much as I want" is the honest reporting of a feeling.)

I think you've got the heart of the problem here. People do overwhelmingly tend to think of their own subjective experiences as "merely the reporting of a feeling" and, as such, just not important or "real" enough to be worth anything unless they can somehow be propped up by "real evidence."

I think you have misunderstood me. My point was that people are asserting false claims but when they're confronted with evidence that the claims are false, they backpedal by saying they're talking about their own subjective experience or "feeling" and no one can prove that that is false. In fact, they're not reporting a feeling. (A "sense of noesis" is not reporting a feeling--it is perhaps a theory of why you have a certain feeling.)

Our feelings, emotions, and subjective experiences as human beings are so much more important and real than any of this.

However, if one's feelings, emotions, perceptions and so on are way out of line with the real world, and indeed if they are used to make claims about the real world (claims like "being in synch with the universe"), then there is a problem.

For example, someone who cries hysterically when something minor happens (like spilling milk), they are said to have inappropriate affect. It could be that in their own delusional world the spilling of milk is the cause of the Holocaust-like slaughter of millions of innocents. Such a thought is delusional and erroneous.

 

[Maia]

That's pretty much the point I'm making. If someone claims something is inexplicable by ordinary means it mostly means that they suffer from premature satisfaction of curiosity. It means, they're ignorant of the explanation and are content to make up fantasies.

At any rate, I'm unsure of your position on these things. Earlier, you claimed that delusional, mentally ill people are actually perceiving something real rather than making perceptual errors (seeing patterns or meaning that isn't really there).

I talked some more about this in another post, but this thread does move so quickly that you might have missed it. In my experiences (which involved working with people who have SPMI's and running therapy groups,) they're indeed very likely to correctly perceive things that most people don't. However, these things don't relate to the incorrect perceptions which are direct consequences of their severe and persistent mental illnesses (delusions, audio and visual hallucinations, etc.) Rather, these are correct perceptions of the profound importance and value of mental health and functional mental processes. Most people take these qualities for granted and don't perceive how important they really are, or understand what it's like to have to do without them.

You seem to reject the typical usage of synchronicity (like the way Rodney uses the word, which I think is the conventional way it's used). Yet you seem to consider "mystical experience" to be real. My question again, is what is the difference between saying "synchronicity" or "mystical experience"?

Well, as I understand it, anyway, "synchronicity" would be an accurate term if a verifiable example really ever existed. A good example (I guess) would be the one I'd thought of before: a complete stranger comes up to you and accurately tells you that you have a lottery ticket in your pocket with a certain combination of numbers on it, and also that you're going to win the lottery tomorrow with that particular combination of numbers. So three correct predictions were made: one, that you had a lottery ticket to begin with, two, that it had a certain combination of seven numbers, and three, that this is the exact combination of numbers that won the lottery the next day. Now that would be impressive. I don't think that this has ever happened. Coincidences do happen, but there's no logical reason why they shouldn't, as has been explained on this thread.

The difference between this and a "mystical experience" (by my definition anyway) is that a mystical experience does not have anything to do with some improbable combination of external events. It consists of feelings, emotions, thoughts, and internal processes.

That doesn't make it any more rational. If I claimed I "felt" like God was telling me to kill someone, I am actually reporting an erroneous idea, not a feeling. Noesis is a bizarre term where things metaphysical are thought to be scientific, but they're not. So claiming a "sense of noesis" is really a metaphysical claim.

(Again, it's comparable to a guy in couples counseling claiming that "I feel like I don't get to watch football" is an honest reporting of his feelings, when in fact it's not. "I feel mad or sad that I don't get to watch football as much as I want" is the honest reporting of a feeling.)

It is, but definitions themselves usually don't make this distinction, and my guess is that this is what happened here. It would have been more accurate for the author of that definition to redefine it as " a personal opinion that one is experiencing noesis."

I think you have misunderstood me. My point was that people are asserting false claims but when they're confronted with evidence that the claims are false, they backpedal by saying they're talking about their own subjective experience or "feeling" and no one can prove that that is false. In fact, they're not reporting a feeling. (A "sense of noesis" is not reporting a feeling--it is perhaps a theory of why you have a certain feeling.)



However, if one's feelings, emotions, perceptions and so on are way out of line with the real world, and indeed if they are used to make claims about the real world (claims like "being in synch with the universe"), then there is a problem.

For example, someone who cries hysterically when something minor happens (like spilling milk), they are said to have inappropriate affect. It could be that in their own delusional world the spilling of milk is the cause of the Holocaust-like slaughter of millions of innocents. Such a thought is delusional and erroneous.

I don't disagree with you. But I think that I would take the same information and think about the implications from a slightly different point of view. I've worked with clients who had severe personality disorders, and other clinicians were often very quick to write off their feelings, partly because the expressions of these emotions would become so entangled with faulty thinking. But I found that it really didn't help to do that and actually made things worse in the long run. Their emotions were still genuine; they just didn't know how to express them gracefully or in a way that was functional. The only way to progress was to acknowledge the importance of these clients' emotions and inner experiences. Easier said than done sometimes!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I talked some more about this in another post, but this thread does move so quickly that you might have missed it. In my experiences (which involved working with people who have SPMI's and running therapy groups,) they're indeed very likely to correctly perceive things that most people don't. However, these things don't relate to the incorrect perceptions which are direct consequences of their severe and persistent mental illnesses (delusions, audio and visual hallucinations, etc.) Rather, these are correct perceptions of the profound importance and value of mental health and functional mental processes. Most people take these qualities for granted and don't perceive how important they really are, or understand what it's like to have to do without them.

I'm sure I specified which "perceptions" I was talking about--the delusions.

I raised the subject trying to get Teapots Happen to clarify why he felt his experience was not a drug-induced delusion but was "synchronicity" or a "mystical experience". I asked if the delusions of mentally ill people were distinguishable from perceptions of reality.

It seems you misunderstood me, though I'm sure my intention was quite clear. I was speaking specifically about the delusions and not some other perceptions.

Well, as I understand it, anyway, "synchronicity" would be an accurate term if a verifiable example really ever existed. A good example (I guess) would be the one I'd thought of before: a complete stranger comes up to you and accurately tells you that you have a lottery ticket in your pocket with a certain combination of numbers on it, and also that you're going to win the lottery tomorrow with that particular combination of numbers. So three correct predictions were made: one, that you had a lottery ticket to begin with, two, that it had a certain combination of seven numbers, and three, that this is the exact combination of numbers that won the lottery the next day. Now that would be impressive. I don't think that this has ever happened.

I agree it has never happened, but I disagree that this fits the definition of "syncrhonicity". Rodney and others specifically say synchronicity is not a matter of making a prediction. What you describe here would be the paranormal power of precognition.

The difference between this and a "mystical experience" (by my definition anyway) is that a mystical experience does not have anything to do with some improbable combination of external events. It consists of feelings, emotions, thoughts, and internal processes.

I suspect Teapots Happen would disagree with you. In fact, I'm pretty sure his reason for thinking his teapot experience was significant was because he couldn't answer the question, "What are the odds against that happening?"

At any rate, I would except that people have subjective experiences. But tagging it as a "mystical experience" seems to me an attempt to offer some explanation that goes beyond just having an internal feeling. They usually claim some connection with the universe or something like that--again, more a claim of an explanation than a report of a feeling.

It is, but definitions themselves usually don't make this distinction, and my guess is that this is what happened here. It would have been more accurate for the author of that definition to redefine it as " a personal opinion that one is experiencing noesis."

I don't see any difference. Any claim of feeling a "sense of noesis" is making a claim of some metaphysical reality. Again, just like saying, "I feel like God wants me to kill someone" is not really reporting a feeling.

Their emotions were still genuine; they just didn't know how to express them gracefully or in a way that was functional.

My experience with clinicians is that they don't dismiss these emotions. Instead, they try various techniques to help the patient separate delusional or confused thinking from their feelings. Even as simple a method as requiring them to express their feelings as "mad" "glad" "sad" or "scared". I've worked with Deaf patients where this was further confounded by language and cultural barriers, and I've yet to see a clinician dismiss their feelings. They wouldn't waste time considering delusional perceptions as perceptions of reality that the rest of us aren't privy to.

I recall one psychiatrist very patiently spending a long time painstakingly explaining the parallax effect to an extremely paranoid patient who was convinced that the moon was following him (and him alone). He wasn't dismissing the guy's feelings ("scared" to the max), but was trying to help him straighten out his thinking on at least this one matter in an effort to help him feel more at ease.

 

[quarky]

I sent this via pm to Teapot, but his box was full, so I'm dumping it here, just because.



Its like when you're having a flying dream, and take too much notice of it, or exclaim "I'm flying!".
Then you wake up, or can't fly any more.

Cartoons illustrate the point with the character that can walk out into space, from the precipice, until they become aware of the mistake they've made, according to normal logic circuits.

Down they go. The magic disappears from the scrutiny and the self reflection. The magic is there when the sense of self is subdued or distracted. One should hope that a person that has conquered the sense of self would remain in a state of nothing but synchronicity.

You know, like saints, sadhus, shamans, mystics, and the like.

Castanada and company, just for fun, might claim that there was a much greater synchronistic event on the fateful teapot day...and you missed it, because the teapots were glittzier in your metaphoric realm...and you never noticed the five crows flying east at sunset, just when an off-blue mini-van was driving south on the road in front of your house.

I guess what I'm saying is that we decide what events have the significance we're after, which , for the most part, is the events that verify our own significance.

Rest assured, I have no clue what I'm writing about, and am a complete failure. I'm glad you're here, though. I enjoy some good philosophical debate. I'm sure lots of skeptics are glad for the opportunity you gave them to exercise their skills and verify their mind-set. After all, its what makes us all equals...the relentless defense of our self.

 

[Maia]

I'm sure I specified which "perceptions" I was talking about--the delusions.

Yes. But that's why I made thisoriginal reply.

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler
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's what I meant all along: people with severe and persistent mental illness can understand the desire for and value of functional brains as others generally do not. It's both beautiful and heartbreaking to see (and it's something that can also sometimes be seen in people with different types of dementia-- I'm thinking of a particular client I'm working with right now.) The place where I've parted company with other mental health clinicians the most often is that I have real problems with the way some of them can be very dismissive of the emotional experiences of clients with personality disorders, particularly borderline personality disorder. (As you correctly noted, this situation doesn't apply to clients with general SPMI's.) And I don't think it's a coincidence that people with BPD are remarkably susceptible to beliefs about the influence of the stars, the cards, the crystals, the Reiki masters, and so forth.

Anyway, I do agree with what you've posted on the subject of the OP, JtheJ. I think you've nailed down the main points very well and you're very articulate and logical. When all is said and done, though, what I'm trying to say is something that's probably difficult to get across because it may be hard to take at face value. But that's really how I mean it. Human emotions, feelings, and internal experiences aren't "just" or "merely" anything; they're enough in themselves. They're important and meaningful without needing to be verified or justified by a connection to God, heaven, the spirit guides, the will of the universe, synchronicity, the paranormal, Bigfoot, aliens in UFO's, or anything else that is external. To call them "mystical" is to redefine the word, but I think it's a definition that should at least be added to the dictionary.