• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How do you guys explain really bizarre cases of synchronicity?

Marshmallow said:
I'm sorry, but no matter how I try, I just don't buy that "it's all in your head" stuff.
Click to expand...

Argument from incredulity. This is like saying "well, all your arguments are good and I can't find any reason to believe in this but... I still think we should keep an open mind." Right.

No matter how many times I see 11:11 on a clock, which happened very often during a certain period, I never believed it was anything else than coincidence. There simply wasn't reason to.
 
Marshmallow said:
I'm sorry, but no matter how I try, I just don't buy that "it's all in your head" stuff.

Remember how I mentioned that I sometimes go through these number synchronicities in phases and how I won't see 555 when I'm not already going through a 555 phase? The trouble is, even when I look really hard for 555 outside of that particular period, I won't find it.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by look really hard for it? Does it mean that you carefully look at every billboard as you drive by (I hope not, for safety's sake :)), that when you watch the TV your attention does not waiver as you make note of every number?

It just doesn't show up.
Click to expand...

That can't be true. After all, 555 will show up twice a day on every digital clock that you encounter. And any digital clocks which include seconds as well will show 555 140 times per day. Fake phone numbers on TV shows start with 555. If you don't see 555, it means that you aren't doing a very good job of looking for it.

It's just not there, when it was previously showing up all over. Also, the 555 seems to coincide with another seemingly paranormal phenomenon I experience and it doesn't show up outside of the time I experience it. I don't know how to explain it.

Once, during one of those times, I realized I'd left my stopwatch going (I had been using it for something earlier) for a long time, and I pressed the button to stop it while not looking at the screen. Then I looked and realized I'd stopped on 55 hours, 55 minutes, 55 seconds, and 55 milliseconds. I am not making this up. I even took pictures of it because it was so weird.
Click to expand...

That's a nice example of attribution bias, because what you just described is not an example of 555, yet you are counting it toward your list.

And I'll look up at a billboard (when driving past) or the TV at just the right time to see 555...but only when I'm going through this other phenomenon.

I just don't know how to explain this except for some kind of outside force. To be honest, it's scaring me the way this stuff happens. I looked it up and found out that some of the New Agey people assign meanings to these numbers.

I know that confirmation bias and apophenia exist. However, that really doesn't seem to be a possible explanation in my case.
Click to expand...

You've just described collecting data in two different ways - in the first instance, you wait for numbers to come to your attention and make note of when they are 555. In the second instance, you do not wait for numbers to come to your attention, but rather attend to many numbers and make note of when they are not 555. It should not be a surprise that collecting information in two different ways leads to two different results - this is a common issue in research.

I also agree that it is quite possible that the frequency with which you encounter 555 varies over days/weeks/months/years. However, as I mentioned earlier, variations in distribution are expected, even without postulating that some outside force is making you the object of their attention.

Linda
 
Marshmallow said:
I'm sorry, but no matter how I try, I just don't buy that "it's all in your head" stuff.

Remember how I mentioned that I sometimes go through these number synchronicities in phases and how I won't see 555 when I'm not already going through a 555 phase? The trouble is, even when I look really hard for 555 outside of that particular period, I won't find it. It just doesn't show up. It's just not there, when it was previously showing up all over. Also, the 555 seems to coincide with another seemingly paranormal phenomenon I experience and it doesn't show up outside of the time I experience it. I don't know how to explain it.

Once, during one of those times, I realized I'd left my stopwatch going (I had been using it for something earlier) for a long time, and I pressed the button to stop it while not looking at the screen. Then I looked and realized I'd stopped on 55 hours, 55 minutes, 55 seconds, and 55 milliseconds. I am not making this up. I even took pictures of it because it was so weird.

And I'll look up at a billboard (when driving past) or the TV at just the right time to see 555...but only when I'm going through this other phenomenon.

I just don't know how to explain this except for some kind of outside force. To be honest, it's scaring me the way this stuff happens. I looked it up and found out that some of the New Agey people assign meanings to these numbers.

I know that confirmation bias and apophenia exist. However, that really doesn't seem to be a possible explanation in my case.
Click to expand...

Will you and the others arguing so hard for synchronicity please explain what you think is the significance behind the phenomenon? If it were all true, so what? A bunch of numbers is telling you what? Two teapots are telling you what?
 
fls said:
You've entirely missed my point. Are you seriously trying to claim that the only pattern of coin flips which would be considered interesting is all heads?
Click to expand...

If you consider a pattern of coin tosses that spells out Moby Dick in Morse code, it begins to become clear how many potential meaningful patterns are possible, AND how easy it is to miss them.

If we were able to build a machine capable of linking together all the potentially meaningful events that happen in our lives -- one that, for instance, could alert you to the fact that the anonymous person you just passed in the supermarket was in your second-grade class -- it would likely become apparent that coincidences are commonplace. The only ones we assign some sort of magical value to are the ones that we notice.
 
Starthinker said:
This has been answered many times. Synchronicity is just giving meaning to a coincidence. It's a feeling, like deja vu. It has nothing to do with odds. Could be astronomical odds or just 2 to 1. The coincidence itself, the odds, none of that matters, what matters is how the observer feels about it. That feeling is synchronicity. It can't be proved or predicted any more than deja vu, or the feeling you are being watched, or any other useless, non-logical emotion. What you are asking is like asking how do you distinguish a gunshot from the color green?

Coincidences happen constantly = no big deal
Someone observing a coincidence and feels it has meaning = synchronicity
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I believe synchronicity is a real phenomenon if you define it as "a psychological reaction to a coincidence". It's part of human nature, fulfilling our primordial need to find patterns wherever we can.

As Jung said, it's an "acausal connecting principle", but the connection is purely a matter of interpretation.
 
fls said:
An idea that is useful is testable. I think that what is being said is that formulations of synchronicity are only untestable because they fail to be useful.

Linda
Click to expand...
How does this square with your belief that there is an objective way to determine whether there is such a thing as synchronicity?
 
Elizabeth I said:
Will you and the others arguing so hard for synchronicity please explain what you think is the significance behind the phenomenon? If it were all true, so what? A bunch of numbers is telling you what? Two teapots are telling you what?
Click to expand...
The main thing it tells me is that there is a scientifically-unrecognized force in the world.
 
Belz... said:
Not to my satisfaction, because the definition given has no standard that is the same from person to person. In other words it is unfalsifiable and therefore useless, scientifically speaking.
Click to expand...

There's nothing scientific about it and it is different from person to person. Is anger the same for everyone? I think you are failing to see it's a psychological phenomenon, not a physical one. There is nothing to test, nothing to falsify. It's just a feeling.
 
Rodney said:
How does this square with your belief that there is an objective way to determine whether there is such a thing as synchronicity?
Click to expand...

Rodney said:
The main thing it tells me is that there is a scientifically-unrecognized force in the world.
Click to expand...

I think it's simply a function of wishing to have your cake and eat it too. Claiming, as you and TeapotsHappen do, that it simply allows you to recognize that there is an unrecognized force, is not especially objectionable. It's not a particularly remarkable claim to state that there are as yet unrecognized organizing forces present. Science, after all, can be described as the pursuit of organizing principles, and its ongoing activity tells us that we still have things to pursue. Even as recently as a few years ago we discovered a previously unrecognized organizing force called 'dark energy'. So I think that there are objective ways to determine whether there are as yet unrecognized forces, because we have already used them (and continue to do so) with unparalleled success.

Except that is not the claim that you are really making. Instead, you are using the idea to draw meaning and comfort. It's not that these events are not co-incident. It's that these events are not co-incident in a way that places you at the centre of attention. That has been the history of our exploration of the universe. If something seems inexplicable or unexpected, we propose that some sort of intentional force is doing it to or for us. Don't know where lightning comes from? It's Zeus smiting us for misbehaviour. Don't know why the lights in the sky move in that particular pattern? It's the activity of gods on the celestial plane. As science discovers that these activities are wholly indifferent to us, we can no longer derive comfort and meaning from them. So here we are going at it once again.

I am saying that it is possible to establish that there is some sort of pattern, even if that pattern manifests through thoughts or feelings, and that one can discover rules or constraints which govern that pattern. But you can't pretend that you have any idea whatsoever as to whether a pattern can be established and whether for the first time ever it will involve an intentional force, because you have simply imposed a pattern formed by cognitive biases on to a motley assortment of events.

Linda
 
fls said:
I think it's simply a function of wishing to have your cake and eat it too. Claiming, as you and TeapotsHappen do, that it simply allows you to recognize that there is an unrecognized force, is not especially objectionable. It's not a particularly remarkable claim to state that there are as yet unrecognized organizing forces present. Science, after all, can be described as the pursuit of organizing principles, and its ongoing activity tells us that we still have things to pursue. Even as recently as a few years ago we discovered a previously unrecognized organizing force called 'dark energy'. So I think that there are objective ways to determine whether there are as yet unrecognized forces, because we have already used them (and continue to do so) with unparalleled success.

Except that is not the claim that you are really making. Instead, you are using the idea to draw meaning and comfort. It's not that these events are not co-incident. It's that these events are not co-incident in a way that places you at the centre of attention. That has been the history of our exploration of the universe. If something seems inexplicable or unexpected, we propose that some sort of intentional force is doing it to or for us. Don't know where lightning comes from? It's Zeus smiting us for misbehaviour. Don't know why the lights in the sky move in that particular pattern? It's the activity of gods on the celestial plane. As science discovers that these activities are wholly indifferent to us, we can no longer derive comfort and meaning from them. So here we are going at it once again.

I am saying that it is possible to establish that there is some sort of pattern, even if that pattern manifests through thoughts or feelings, and that one can discover rules or constraints which govern that pattern. But you can't pretend that you have any idea whatsoever as to whether a pattern can be established and whether for the first time ever it will involve an intentional force, because you have simply imposed a pattern formed by cognitive biases on to a motley assortment of events.

Linda
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Rodney said:
Not exactly, because Linda begs the question that I asked when she states: "You have simply imposed a pattern formed by cognitive biases on to a motley assortment of events."
Click to expand...

I didn't intend to beg the question. I just think that the process of objectively evaluating synchronicity (i.e. discovering an unrecognized force in the world) is a different process than imposing a pattern of cognitive biases on to a motley assortment of events. That is, the way that we go about looking at/for synchronicity is different than the way in which the possibility was raised. To that end, it probably won't occur to us to call it 'synchronicity' (just like it doesn't occur to us to call gravity 'God') when it is discovered.

Linda
 
Rodney said:
The main thing it tells me is that there is a scientifically-unrecognized force in the world.
Click to expand...

Forces do specific things under specific, definable conditions. What does this one do, and under what conditions? If you can't answer that question concretely, then what you have noticed is not a force.
 
aggle-rithm said:
I agree with this. I believe synchronicity is a real phenomenon if you define it as "a psychological reaction to a coincidence". It's part of human nature, fulfilling our primordial need to find patterns wherever we can.

As Jung said, it's an "acausal connecting principle", but the connection is purely a matter of interpretation.
Click to expand...

Isn't an "acausal connecting principle" rather like an acausal cause?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom