• 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?

Rodney said:
No, I was simply making the point that a combination of 500 heads and 500 tails shouldn't astonish us, whereas a combination of 1000 heads and no tails should.
Click to expand...

And it's been repeated pointed out that there are permutations of 500 heads and 500 tails that would appear 'astonishing'.
 
Rodney said:
That's not necessarily true. For example, someone might see a pattern in the stock market that seems to be repeating a prior pattern from many years earlier and possibly use that successfully as a predictive tool.
Click to expand...

Cyclic patterns in complex systems like the economy are a well documented phenomenon (eg. Boom and Bust cycle) and can be attributed to explicable influences. I don't see how this applies to syncronicity. Surely by definition synconicities occur without a causal link.
 
Rodney said:
No, I was simply making the point that a combination of 500 heads and 500 tails shouldn't astonish us, whereas a combination of 1000 heads and no tails should.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I said. It's either a cheat or you really don't understand probability.

When you toss the coin, it could land on either face. When you toss it a second time, the first toss' result has nothing to do with the next. So you could very well toss 1000 heads in a row, although it won't happen often.

What you're trying to do is compare a single outcome with several and call them inequal. I'll say.
 
Rodney said:
Not necessarily all, but certainly those that used identical or very similar protocols. And I believe that statistician Jessica Utts agrees with me. In one of her papers she concluded: "The recent focus on meta-analysis in parapsychology has revealed that there are small but consistently nonzero effects across studies, experimenters and laboratories. The sizes of the effects in forced-choice studies appear to be comparable to those reported in some medical studies that had been heralded as breakthroughs." See http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/91rmp.html
Click to expand...

I rest my case, then. Because presumably Jessica Utts knows statistics well, but she makes the same kind of errors* when it comes to the appropriate application of these techniques and the sorts of conclusions which can and cannot be drawn. So it looks like the relevant knowledge does not fall under the purview of statistics.

Linda

*Partial list - use of Rosenthal's fail-safe N when the assumptions underlying its use are obviously violated, pretending that it is valid to compare experiments without a control group to those with a control group, misuse of p-values in Statistical Hypothesis Inference Testing (see Cohen "The Earth is Round (p<0.05)"), inappropriate pooling of data, assuming binomial probabilities instead of measured probabilities...
 
Belz... said:
Yes, that's what I said. It's either a cheat or you really don't understand probability.

When you toss the coin, it could land on either face. When you toss it a second time, the first toss' result has nothing to do with the next. So you could very well toss 1000 heads in a row, although it won't happen often.

What you're trying to do is compare a single outcome with several and call them inequal. I'll say.
Click to expand...

Also, in the game of finding "synchronicity" the number of possible attempts isn't counted. In the coin tossing thing, we don't state how many tosses we took to get a particular result of 1000 tosses. If we count all coins ever tossed by human beings throughout history (which is how the game of synchronicity is played), you would probably expect that is has happened at least once that any particular outcome of 1000 tosses has indeed happened.

Same as with dealing out a hand of 5 cards from a shuffled deck. Any outcome of 5 cards is equally as probable as any other outcome (since there's only one of each card in the deck, you can't play that grouping cheat that Rodney did).

So, if you try to argue that there is significance to a low probability event, asking "What are the odds against that?" can only be answered with, "the odds against that are exactly the same as the odds against any other similarly low probability outcome". So again, the purported significance ONLY comes from seeing a pattern in random data. This is called apophenia.

Ascribing some "acausal connection" or intention or inherent meaning to this perception of a pattern in random data is synchronicity, and it is an erroneous and unnecessary explanation of the event.
 
fls said:
I rest my case, then. Because presumably Jessica Utts knows statistics well, but she makes the same kind of errors* when it comes to the appropriate application of these techniques and the sorts of conclusions which can and cannot be drawn. So it looks like the relevant knowledge does not fall under the purview of statistics.

Linda

*Partial list - use of Rosenthal's fail-safe N when the assumptions underlying its use are obviously violated, pretending that it is valid to compare experiments without a control group to those with a control group, misuse of p-values in Statistical Hypothesis Inference Testing (see Cohen "The Earth is Round (p<0.05)"), inappropriate pooling of data, assuming binomial probabilities instead of measured probabilities...
Click to expand...
I am quite content to be associated with the statistical analysis of Jessica Utts, Professor of Statistics at the University of California, Irvine.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Also, in the game of finding "synchronicity" the number of possible attempts isn't counted. In the coin tossing thing, we don't state how many tosses we took to get a particular result of 1000 tosses. If we count all coins ever tossed by human beings throughout history (which is how the game of synchronicity is played), you would probably expect that is has happened at least once that any particular outcome of 1000 tosses has indeed happened.
Click to expand...
You would, but I wouldn't. If you toss a coin 1,000 times, there are 1.07 times ten to the 301st power (1.07E+301) possible permutations. Regarding the number of people who have ever lived: "A more recent estimate of the total number of people who have ever lived was prepared by Carl Haub of the Population Reference Bureau in 1995 and subsequently updated in 2002; the updated figure was approximately 106 billion." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population Assuming absurdly that those 106 billion (1.06E+11) people each lived to age 100 and each flipped a series of 1,000 coins a million times each day, there would have been a grand total of 3.87E+21 series of 1,000 coin tosses. Quite a ways from 1.07E+301, no?
 
Rodney said:
I am quite content to be associated with the statistical analysis of Jessica Utts, Professor of Statistics at the University of California, Irvine.
Click to expand...

Of course. You have always made it clear that your criteria as to whether or not you associate yourself with something is not whether it is correct, but whether it can be taken as support for your beliefs.

Linda
 
Belz... said:
Thinker, let's not derail the thread further. I'll close by saying that you have no idea if it's the same anger except by watching the associated behaviour. So if the behaviour is different it's hard to say it's the same thing, eh ?

I'll let you conclude, if you want to reply.
Click to expand...

No such thing. I've been here for years and never thought I'd say this...but show me evidence that people experience anger the same way. So if I throw a chair and you throw a chair we must be experiencing the exact same anger? I'll say it again, your assertion that two people can experience the same emotion, in this case anger, in the same way is ludicrous. Prove it.
 
Rodney said:
Quite a ways from 1.07E+301, no?
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand why you changed the coin tossing example from 10 or 20 tosses to 1000.

At any rate, the simple fact remains, any particular outcome is exactly as likely as any other.

It doesn't help your case to lump a bunch of outcomes together and claim that any one from that pool is much more likely than one particular outcome.

Again, can you calculate the odds against all the random events that had to have happened from the time of my conception until now for me to be here right now writing this post? Wow! What are the odds against that! It must mean the universe intended for me to be here right now!

And when I deal out 5 cards from a well shuffled deck, whatever 5 card hand I get is a less than one in 2.5 million! Why isn't that always significant? Why isn't that evidence that the universe is trying to tell me something by that 2 of clubs, Jack of hearts, 7 of spades, 10 of spades and 3 of diamonds?

After all, it's a low probability event. You keep claiming low probability is what distinguishes mere random coincidence from "synchronicity". I keep denying that and saying it is the perception of pattern in random events (apophenia) combined with a false claim about inherent significance in the event (resonance with the universe's vibrations or whatever).
 
Rodney, what are the odds against getting the following 1000 toss result (with a fair coin and honest tosses)?

What distinguishes the following 1000 toss result from an example of "synchronicity"?

TTTHTHTHHHTTHTHHTHHTHTHTHHHHHTTTHTTTTTTHTHTHTHHHHHTHHTTTHHHTHTTHTHHTHHHTHTTTHHHTHHTTHTHTHHHTTHTHTTHHTTTHTHTHHHTTHTHHTHTTTTHTHHTTHTTTHTTHHTTHTHTHTHHHHHTHHTTTHHHTHTTHTHHTHHHTHTTTHHHTHHTTHTHTHHHTTHTHTTHHTTTHTHTHHHTTHTHHTHHTHTHTHHHHHTTTHTTHHHTHTHTHTHHHHHTHHTTTHHHTHTTHTHHTHHHTHTTTHHHTHHTTHTHTHHHTTHTHTTHHHTTHTTTHHTTTHTHHTHHTHTHTHTTHHTTTHTTTTTTHTHTHTHHHHHTHHTTTHHHTHTTHTHHTHHHTHTTTTTHTHHTTHTHTHHHTTHTHTTHHTHHHTHTHHHTTHTHHTHHTHTHTHHHHHTTTHTTHHHTHTHTHTHTHHHTHHTTTHHHTHTTHTTHTHHHTHTTTHHHTHHTTHTHTHHHTTHTHTTHHTHHHTHTHHHTTHTHHTHHTHTHTHHHHHTTTHTTTTTTHTHTHTHHHHHTHHTTTHHHTHTTHTHHTHHHTHTTTHHHTHHTTHTHTHHHTTHTHTTHHTTTHTHTHHHTTHTHHTHHTHTHTHHHHHTTTHTTHHHTHTHTHTHHHHHTHHTTTHHHTHTTHTHHTHHHTHTHHHTHTHHTTHTHTHHHTTHTHTTHHTTTHTHTHHHTTHTHHTHHTHTHTHHTTHTTTHTTTTTTHTHTHTHHHHHTHHTTTHHHTHTTHTHHTHHHTHTTTHHHTHHTTHTHTHHHTTHTHTTHHHTTHTHTHHHTTHTHHTHHTHTHTHHHHHTTTHTTHHHTHTHTHTHHTTTTHHTTTHHHTHTTHTHHTHHHTHTTTHHHTHHTTHTHTHHHTTHTHTTHHHHTHTHTHHHTTHTHHTHHTHTHTHHHHHTTTHTTTTTTHTHTHTHHHTHTHHTTTHHHTHTTHTHTTHHHTHTTTHTTTHHTTHTHTTTTTTHTHTTHH

ETA: Note, I'm talking about this specific outcome, and not a group of outcomes that fit some pattern such as "starts with 3 tails in a row and ends with 2 heads in a row, with some other set of 995 results in the middle".
 
Last edited:
Starthinker said:
No such thing. I've been here for years and never thought I'd say this...but show me evidence that people experience anger the same way. So if I throw a chair and you throw a chair we must be experiencing the exact same anger? I'll say it again, your assertion that two people can experience the same emotion, in this case anger, in the same way is ludicrous. Prove it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this is what you're after, but while there is a lot of variation in the way our brains are organized, the major structures are the same from one person to the next. (Someone made the analogy that if you considered the organization of the brain to be a map of roads and highways, the interstates are the same in every person, and the state highways are mostly the same, but there's some variation in the exact layout of small subdivision roads and especially those unnamed gravel roads in the country.)

When brain surgeons are removing a tumor, they often work with the patient awake so that they can simulate various structures to make sure they're not cutting into something important (speech centers, for example). The sensory cortex maps out with some consistency from person to person. (Surely you've seen the sensory and motor maps drawn as a homunculus?) If you stimulate the spot that receives sensory input from the thumb, for example, the subjective experience reported is a sensation on the thumb.

There's no reason to think it isn't the same with emotions.

I'm not sure where this side topic came up, but if this is meant to be an argument that subjective experience requires some non-material explanation because subjective experience is somehow inaccessible to neuroscience (it's not), the simplest rebuttal is to point out that non-material explanations (dualism) don't do anything to solve this "problem".

I think this question is one I pondered and disposed of when I was maybe 8 years old.

I remember wondering whether what I perceive as "orange" is the same experience other people have when they perceive "orange". All the associations we have with all the colors could be different so that another person might see green for orange, but it would have all the same associations as orange, so there would be no way for them to communicate that they see that color as what I call blue. Of course, it's the same wavelength of the EM spectrum that causes the appropriate sensory cells in the retina to covert stimulation by photons into action potentials that travel along the same pathways to homologous structures in our primary visual cortices, so the whole question is meaningless.

The same is true of emotions. At some levels the experience we subjectively feel is the result of some frequency of action potentials. The chemistry works the same in your brain as in my brain, by and large.
 
Starthinker said:
No such thing. I've been here for years and never thought I'd say this...but show me evidence that people experience anger the same way. So if I throw a chair and you throw a chair we must be experiencing the exact same anger? I'll say it again, your assertion that two people can experience the same emotion, in this case anger, in the same way is ludicrous. Prove it.
Click to expand...

My two cents...an anger reaction is produced by vary primitive parts of the brain, but moderated by very modern parts of the brain. I doubt anyone could ever tease apart which action results from which brain function.
 
Rodney said:
Again, in the real world (i.e., outside this Forum), no prediction is necessary. And that real world includes mathematicians and statisticians. If you don't believe me, ask a few of them if they would be astonished if someone threw a coin 1000 times and obtained all heads. If anyone says no, let me know who that is.
Click to expand...

You actually know a statastician who claims to be astonished by this?

Is he/she employed? ;)
 
aggle-rithm said:
My two cents...an anger reaction is produced by vary primitive parts of the brain, but moderated by very modern parts of the brain. I doubt anyone could ever tease apart which action results from which brain function.
Click to expand...
Why do you think it could never be done?
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Also, in the game of finding "synchronicity" the number of possible attempts isn't counted. In the coin tossing thing, we don't state how many tosses we took to get a particular result of 1000 tosses. If we count all coins ever tossed by human beings throughout history (which is how the game of synchronicity is played), you would probably expect that is has happened at least once that any particular outcome of 1000 tosses has indeed happened.

<snip>
Click to expand...

Why limit it to just people who have existed upto the present?
 
Dr H said:
You actually know a statastician who claims to be astonished by this?
Click to expand...
I would be surprised by a result of 1000 heads in a row, but not because of the odds--or at least not because of the odds alone. If the result of 1000 throws came up as in my post number 811, I would not be surprised, but the odds against that result are identical to the odds against getting all heads.

It's the pattern that is surprising. In this thought experiment, we're stipulating that the outcome is random. So seeing significance in this (or any) random outcome would be erroneous.

If we didn't know for sure it was a random outcome, then we might consider it to be a double headed coin or some such. (That's why the result that is THTHTH. . . would be even MORE surprising if we didn't know the result was random because it would be harder to fake that outcome.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom