How do you guys explain really bizarre cases of synchronicity?

[quarky]

And now that I've skimmed the new posts, I've got another take on it, tailored for the juggler:

Its a shame that the whole 'odds' issue came into the synchronicity discussion. They are seperated by feelings. Feelings, whatever they are, needn't make mathematical sense. Mathematicians, however brilliant, could be ruled by feelings in their overall life, though not in their math calculations.

Jealousy is quite rampant, and requires a fair bit of ignoring reality to really wallow in the feeling of it. Its real enough to alter a person's normal course.

Synchronicity, as I've experienced it, has no emotional investment, as might feelings of jealousy. Its always very mundane for me, like I'll mention some very obscure movie star in trying to answer my wife's crossward puzzle question, and then, that person is mentioned again, in a non-connected way, like on a radio show, or on a magazine cover that someone suddenly shows up with.

For me, its never been about looking for it, nor has it ever had any informational relevance to me. Its more about a wink from the odd side, that makes itself obvious.
There is no more proving the illogic of this than there is of proving the illogic of wallowing in jealous agony over an imagined event...though the 2 are on opposite ends of the spectrum of feeling.

Who hasn't had a de-ja vu? For me, I feel them first, and its never been about looking for one, or wanting to prove some significance. In fact, they too are always mundane for me. Someone will say something, like "please pass the ketchup" and suddenly a semi-weird feeling happens that the last moments were repeated somewhere else, or in another time, with the same mundane value. The de-ja vu experience, at least for me, just is, because I feel it. So far, none have had any message to me or affected my life or activated any comfirmation bias.

Synchronicity is like a hiccup in the world of the observed, and de-ja-vu is like a hiccup in the memory. Both announce their presence through feeling. The sudden 'cold chill' most have experienced, is similar, though unpleasant.

 

[Prometheus]

Plate o' Shrimp. (Just in case that's what anyone was thinking)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And now that I've skimmed the new posts, I've got another take on it, tailored for the juggler:

Its a shame that the whole 'odds' issue came into the synchronicity discussion. They are seperated by feelings. Feelings, whatever they are, needn't make mathematical sense. Mathematicians, however brilliant, could be ruled by feelings in their overall life, though not in their math calculations.

First, I'm certain most proponents of "synchronicity" (such as Rodney) will always claim the events are acausal and inexplicable because they misunderstand the answer to the question, "What are the odds against that happening."

Second, I disagree that claiming something is "synchronicity" is the same as expressing a feeling. (See my conversation with Maia on this topic.) Instead, synchronicity is put forth as an alternative explanation to the explanation that the event is a mere coincidence. That is, synchronicity is a sort of hypothesis about how the universe works rather than an expression of a feeling. ETA: This seems to be the way the term is used in the thread title. If it's not, I have also given a decent answer to the question, "Given that there is no such thing as synchronicity, why do people tend to see meaning and significance in the coincidence of low probability, apparently-patterned random events?" (The stuff about how we evolved to avoid making Type II errors at the cost of having the tendency to make Type I errors.)

ETA: And thirdly, talking about probabilities is the best way to answer the question posed in the OP and thread title. That is, these events can indeed be explained (and are expected) if you understand probabilities.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

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

Yes, it looks at though you read my question, "Do you think there is some reality in the universe that they perceive that the rest of us don't?" completely out of context, including the tag question (which really should grammatically have been part of the first question): "or do you think they're delusional?"

You answered something altogether unrelated to the question, at best. It's easy to see why I had trouble figuring out what you meant. It sure seemed like you were saying that when a schizophrenic detects "patterns" in random input (like chatter on the TV, words in magazine advertisements) and thinks that there is a message being directed at them, that they are actually perceiving some reality that the rest of us are oblivious to. Turns out, you're talking about something else.

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.

Or it could be that what you're tying to say isn't coherent. Or it could be wrong or something else. In fact, aside from your comment about delusional people being able to see an actual reality that the rest of us can't, I'm pretty sure I've understood what you've been trying to say. I think you're wrong, and I've done a pretty good job of spelling out why.

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.

Yes, I understand all that. I've also already responded. The term "synchronicity" isn't just used to describe an emotional state or internal experience. It's put forth as an alternative explanation to "mere coincidence". That is, it's offered as an explanation or an hypothesis of how the universe works. Again, look at the question that is the title of this thread.

Even if, as Quarky says, "synchronicity" is used just to explain a subjective experience, analogous to a term like "deja vu" or "NDE" (and I don't believe it is--it's much more like apophenia or paraedolia, where someone is claiming an objective significance that doesn't exist), I have answered the question by giving a good solid explanation of why human minds tend to see patterns and make such errors. I mentioned before that multiple lines of evidence from different disciplines support this idea. For example, evolutionary biology makes sense. Various psychological tests have shown our capacity and tendency to recognize patterns and infer intention even when it doesn't exist (I just read one that showed the effect is more pronounced when people otherwise are made to feel as if they lack control). Economics recognizes the clustering illusion (seeing a mathematical pattern where none exists).

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.

When you try to make up new meanings of words, don't expect anyone to understand you. Language works by convention. "Mystical" is a word with a lot of baggage. If you don't mean to refer to that baggage, why use that word?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Plate o' Shrimp. (Just in case that's what anyone was thinking)

Very close! I was just thinking, "Buggrit! Millenium hand and shrimp."


What are the odds of that?!

 

[quarky]

So, its not analogous to de-ja vu? Maybe not.

I guess its a very individual experience. Being guided by signs is another similar turf.
Ever been lounging in a chair, thinking about whether to get up and mow the lawn, or watch another TV show, and suddenly a single house fly appears and flies annoyingly on your face, even though there were no flies around prior to that. To a reader of signs, this means get up off the chair.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So, its not analogous to de-ja vu? Maybe not.

At least not the way people like Rodney use the term. I think even Jung proffered it as an alternative explanation to coincidence.

At any rate, even if the question is read with "synchronicity" being analogous to deja vu, I have given a good answer to that question. That is, I've answered the question, "Why do people seem to perceive meaning and significance to random events when they seem to form a low-probability pattern (even though all other non-patterned outcomes are just as low-probability)?"

Ever been lounging in a chair, thinking about whether to get up and mow the lawn, or watch another TV show, and suddenly a single house fly appears and flies annoyingly on your face, even though there were no flies around prior to that. To a reader of signs, this means get up off the chair.

Yes, and primitive religions (animism) thought everything was invested with a spirit capable of having intentions. They saw significance in all manner of natural phenomenon, most of which we now know the causes of, so we know their hypothesis or explanation of these natural phenomena were erroneous.

Even more modern religions followed the same tendency.

We know for sure, for example, that thunderbolts are not caused by a man-like deity named Zeus who lives on a high mountain and hurls them like spears.

We know that a crop blight is not caused by lack of faith or improperly executed rituals (but by parasites, fungus, etc.)

And we know that the universe did not send that house fly (or otherwise intend it) to motivate you to cut the grass.

 

[Maia]

I don't think that "synchronicity" actually exists. However, I do think that there's no reason to conclude that there's necessarily only one reason why people believe that it does. Pattern-seeking is certainly a very big reason. But no, I don't think that it has to be the one and only reason, and that's what I've been trying to say. Another reason may very well be that people do not trust the sole validity of their own emotions, feelings, and internal experiences. One way I think we see this is in the way that emotions and feelings which can't be "backed up" by external evidence are constantly qualified by words such as "only", "just", and "merely". According to this way of thinking, the only way that internal experiences are important is if they can be justified and verified by something like synchronicity (or God, the universe, the stars, the cards, etc.), and this is certainly what we constantly see. Nobody has to agree with this theory if they don't want to.

 

[Teapots Happen]

(oops, meant to drop in and post this link, and got sidetracked into a comment, and forgot:

http://csp.org/psilocybin/ - fascinating stuff - especially the effects of such experiences.)

Anyway, thank you sincerely, reductionist materialists - you have done an excellent and necessary job of reminding me why I left the fold, and why I should not feel conflicted or regretful over it.

Enjoy your paths, and thank you for helping me along on mine!

 

[Rodney]

And we know that the universe did not send that house fly (or otherwise intend it) to motivate you to cut the grass.

How do we know that?

 

[paximperium]

You know, reductionists' arguments are kinda cute, in a silly way.

(I think it is how they are just bursting with faith, the very thing they think they're denying.)

Except for the sad little fact that reductionism works very well and works pretty consistently as opposed to magic thinking which is a complete and total failure and has accomplished nothing except to kill people and make the gullible lose their money.

 

[Belz...]

(oops, meant to drop in and post this link, and got sidetracked into a comment, and forgot:

http://csp.org/psilocybin/ - fascinating stuff - especially the effects of such experiences.)

Anyway, thank you sincerely, reductionist materialists - you have done an excellent and necessary job of reminding me why I left the fold, and why I should not feel conflicted or regretful over it.

Your loss. Magical thinking yields not truth, but whatever conclusion you want it to yield. Not very useful.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

How do we know that?

Because there's exactly no evidence that flies or the universe is capable of intending anything with regard to the decision a guy watching TV is considering. (Indeed, both the fly and the universe lack the neural substrate to have "intentions" or knowledge of the decision being considered.) Again, an understanding of biology and probability fully explains the coincidence of a fly passing near a guy just as he's considering whether to cut the grass or continue watching TV.

Do you believe the fly was sent with the intention of motivating the guy to cut the grass? If so, what evidence do you have for that irrational position?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

(oops, meant to drop in and post this link, and got sidetracked into a comment, and forgot:

http://csp.org/psilocybin/ - fascinating stuff - especially the effects of such experiences.)

Anyway, thank you sincerely, reductionist materialists - you have done an excellent and necessary job of reminding me why I left the fold, and why I should not feel conflicted or regretful over it.

Enjoy your paths, and thank you for helping me along on mine!

Enjoy your magical thinking!

One question: since you're fine with coming to conclusions regardless of (or even in spite of) evidence, where do you draw the line?

Why don't you believe in fairies, elves, alien abduction stories, that Jesus alone is the path to salvation, that the Koran alone is the path to salvation, that the Earth is flat, that the Earth is hollow, psychokinesis, ESP, clairvoyance, reincarnation, and so on?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't think that "synchronicity" actually exists. However, I do think that there's no reason to conclude that there's necessarily only one reason why people believe that it does. Pattern-seeking is certainly a very big reason. But no, I don't think that it has to be the one and only reason, and that's what I've been trying to say.

Then I disagree with you. (And it sure doesn't sound like what you've said up until now.) That humans evolved the capacity and tendency to see patterns even where they don't exist (that is to make Type I errors in order not to make Type II errors) is a necessary and sufficient condition for this to happen. As such, it does fully explain the phenomenon.

Any other explanation must be incomplete (or simply wrong) since the explanation I've offered is still required.

The two you've offered so far, that deluded people are seeing reality in a way that the rest of us don't, and that synchronicity is a "mystical experience" don't work very well.

Another reason may very well be that people do not trust the sole validity of their own emotions, feelings, and internal experiences. One way I think we see this is in the way that emotions and feelings which can't be "backed up" by external evidence are constantly qualified by words such as "only", "just", and "merely".

I think you misunderstood the point I was making about feelings and emotions. I was not discounting their importance, but was quibbling with the idea that "synchronicity" is only the reporting of an internal state and is not a claim or hypothesis about how the universe works.

I don't think my explanation discounts emotions in anyway. But between the emotion and the Type I error there is a tendency to see patterns that don't exist. For exampe: the crops failed and we are all scared (emotional reaction); we must have a witch among us that caused the crops to fail, and that lady with the skin condition seems weird to me, so it must have been her that made our crops fail (the Type I error).

I gave the modern day real life example already of the patient who was convinced that the Moon was following him and meant to do him harm. He was also very scared, but the problem wasn't that he was looking for external validation of his emotions. It was his delusion (a Type I error--or an inaccurate perception of reality) that was causing his fear, not the fear that gave rise to the delusion.

Perhaps what you're pointing out is that situations where people feel they have less control exacerbates the tendency to see patterns that aren't really there. (I think I mentioned a study on that recently.) I suspect stress and highly-emotional states also exacerbate the tendency. But I don't think it's the case that these perceptual errors are caused by an attempt to find external validation for emotions. In fact, some of these perceptual errors can be demonstrated in emotion-free contexts ("anchoring" tests with numbers, optical illusions--for example, seeing faces as convex even if the image is actually on a concave surface, etc.) These things are pretty much hard-wired into the way our brains work and not the result of trying to validate an emotional state.

ETA: At any rate, it's clear that even if stress and highly-emotional states increase the tendency to see patterns where there are none, they are not the explanation of that tendency.

 

[Maia]

Then I disagree with you. (And it sure doesn't sound like what you've said up until now.) That humans evolved the capacity and tendency to see patterns even where they don't exist (that is to make Type I errors in order not to make Type II errors) is a necessary and sufficient condition for this to happen. As such, it does fully explain the phenomenon.

Any other explanation must be incomplete (or simply wrong) since the explanation I've offered is still required.

The two you've offered so far, that deluded people are seeing reality in a way that the rest of us don't, and that synchronicity is a "mystical experience" don't work very well.

I haven't made either argument at all. But I have repeated myself enough, and my posts are there. At some point, it just isn't worth it to keep beating a dead horse. It might be one thing to debate what's been said, but that just isn't what I've said, and I have too many other things to do to spend time that way (my twelve-hour shifts on the Alzheimer's wing begin tomorrow.) You have many intelligent things to say, and you may be right about everything. Enjoy your posting.

 

[Rodney]

Because there's exactly no evidence that flies or the universe is capable of intending anything with regard to the decision a guy watching TV is considering.

To my knowledge, no study has been conducted regarding this issue.

(Indeed, both the fly and the universe lack the neural substrate to have "intentions" or knowledge of the decision being considered.) Again, an understanding of biology and probability fully explains the coincidence of a fly passing near a guy just as he's considering whether to cut the grass or continue watching TV.

Without a study, you're just assuming that is the case.

Do you believe the fly was sent with the intention of motivating the guy to cut the grass? If so, what evidence do you have for that irrational position?

I have the same amount of evidence that you do. Which is not to say that you should believe that the fly was sent with the intention of motivating the guy to cut the grass, only that you shouldn't come to a conclusion with no evidence.

 

[Rodney]

Why don't you believe in fairies, elves, alien abduction stories, that Jesus alone is the path to salvation, that the Koran alone is the path to salvation, that the Earth is flat, that the Earth is hollow, psychokinesis, ESP, clairvoyance, reincarnation, and so on?

I realized that you addressed this to Teapots Happen, but I'm sure you're anxious to get my opinion. Which is that you're mixing things that could be true with things that have been disproven.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The problem with your example is that it wasn't at all improbable that some sperm and some egg would get together on New Years Eve in 1948 -- in fact, it was inevitable. But was it inevitable that Teapots Happen would feel compelled to buy a teapot one week and then find that same style teapot under his house the next week?

No, but, you Texan sharpshooter you, it is almost inevitable that some equally bizarre coincidence would happen to him sometime. It didn't have to involve teapots and the crawlspace of his house. It could have been anything equally odd and he'd still be here telling us about it and complaining about "reductionism".

Anyone who can find "meaning" in encountering two similar teapots is obviously prepared to find any coincidence meaningful; and since the chances of him getting though life without some remarkable coincidence happening to him are effectively zero, it is, in fact almost inevitable that he should eventually have some such story to tell. And completely inevitable that someone should have some such story to tell. He'd just have a different username --- he'd be called Marmalade Happens or Penguins Happen or something, and be just as ardently convinced of the deep significance of whatever it was that happened to him.

Whatever it was.

I have an equally weird story myself. Doesn't everyone? What makes Teapots Happen different is not that his coincidence is particularly remarkable: it is not more remarkable than the coincidences that happen to other people. Nor is it particularly meaningful: indeed, it is particularly meaningless. (Two teapots? As someone asked, what's the Universe trying to tell him --- that he should drink more tea?) No, only the exceptional thing about his experience is that he takes it seriously, and is a apparently founding a whole philosophy of life on his teapot-related coincidence, plus the effects of what sounds like some rather good acid.

Me, I'm going to wait 'til God gives me some stone tablets with commandments on. I'm a traditionalist at heart.

 

[Prometheus]

No, but, you Texan sharpshooter you, it is almost inevitable that some equally bizarre coincidence would happen to him sometime. It didn't have to involve teapots and the crawlspace of his house. It could have been anything equally odd and he'd still be here telling us about it and complaining about "reductionism".

Anyone who can find "meaning" in encountering two similar teapots is obviously prepared to find any coincidence meaningful; and since the chances of him getting though life without some remarkable coincidence happening to him are effectively zero, it is, in fact almost inevitable that he should eventually have some such story to tell. And completely inevitable that someone should have some such story to tell. He'd just have a different username --- he'd be called Marmalade Happens or Penguins Happen or something, and be just as ardently convinced of the deep significance of whatever it was that happened to him.

Whatever it was.

I have an equally weird story myself. Doesn't everyone? What makes Teapots Happen different is not that his coincidence is particularly remarkable: it is not more remarkable than the coincidences that happen to other people. Nor is it particularly meaningful: indeed, it is particularly meaningless. (Two teapots? As someone asked, what's the Universe trying to tell him --- that he should drink more tea?) No, only the exceptional thing about his experience is that he takes it seriously, and is a apparently founding a whole philosophy of life on his teapot-related coincidence, plus the effects of what sounds like some rather good acid.

Me, I'm going to wait 'til God gives me some stone tablets with commandments on. I'm a traditionalist at heart.

I prefer the paper tabs with cartoon characters, myself.