How do you guys explain really bizarre cases of synchronicity?

[Rodney]

- especially when we have been convinced of far weirder things than precognition, on the basis of evidence?

Such as?

Well, since you brought up the idea of other disciplines, can you find an example in any other discipline of meta-analyses performed by pooling the data in that manner?

I know that meta-analyses have been used in a number of medical studies. When you say "in that manner", what do you see as the distinction between the techniques used in those studies and those used in parapsychology studies?

Of course. Because she agrees with you. You ignore the far more vast body of work which recommends against the practice.

Do you have a few cites?

Well, you have to consider that all we need to account for is a vaguely characterized, tiny effect occurring under uncontrolled (in the sense that they have not made use of control groups, so there is no measured baseline) conditions. This kind of information is so unreliable that it doesn't even really need refutation in the first place. It's the kind of information we might try to use to persuade a granting agency that it wouldn't be a complete waste of time to perform some decent studies, but it would be a hard sell.

We've been through this before, but if the Ganzfeld psi effect is real but minor, how would you propose to measure it?

How do you think that argument would go if the research clearly showed that mammograms failed to accurately identify the presence or absence of breast cancer so that the pick-up rate was hardly any different than simply selecting women at random for breast biopsy?

Off-point. I was referring to the fact that frequently experts in various disciplines can't agree on some fundamental issues, such as when women should begin to have mammograms and how often they should have them.

 

[Rodney]

My husband claims that he doesn't like to get mad, yet he gets mad over really stupid and trivial stuff.

Stop reading my posts to him.

 

[Maia]

Originally Posted by fls
My husband claims that he doesn't like to get mad, yet he gets mad over really stupid and trivial stuff.

Stop reading my posts to him.

That was funny...

Anyway. I think I see the relevance of the correct definitions more and more. For instance, deja vu and jamais vu sound as if they should simply be opposite ends of the spectrum, don't they? But they aren't at all. Deja vu is a comparatively vague phenomenon, and it has a number of possible explanations, one or more of which could be operating at any given time. There's probably a mismatch in brain processing between present and past information, but there's likely also an element of fantasy and wish fulfillment in cases when the feeling of deja vu is pleasant or exciting. Most people have experienced deja vu under all types of circumstances. Jamais vu, on the other hand, usually occurs in the context of a neurological disorder, most commonly temporal lobe epilepsy, and is almost always unpleasant and frightening. Its frequent occurrence is really a marker for possible neurological problems. I should know-- I have TLE, and I've had a lot of jamais vu. But without knowing any of the real meaning of the term, it sounds like the innocent correlate of deja vu.

Similarly, I think that if synchronicity were actually occurring, then that would be pretty amazing. But the incidents which have been described don't fit the definition. I'm not going to say that nothing has ever happened in the entire history of the world that could accurately be called "synchronicity", but let's just say that if there's evidence, I've never seen it. Apophenia does seem to be the closest thing to what people are describing, but maybe there really is another term which could be more accurate to what they're feeling. I just don't see how "synchronicity" can be it.

 

[Starthinker]

And this is self contradictory. If the the coincidence of events were meaningful, then there must be some relationship. Otherwise, you're just talking about apophenia (seeing patterns in meaningless random data).


and I keep pointing out to you that this isn't the way the word synchronicity is conventionally used.



No it's not. Synchronicity is a word coined by Jung to give an alternative explanation to mere coincidence. He said, as I quoted earlier, that synchronicity is evidence of paranormal things (psychic powers, astrology, etc.). He believed there was a real connection in the universe (in the external world, that is, and not just imposed by a perceiver).

What you're offering is a new definition that doesn't fit the way Jung defined the term or the way the vast majority of believers in synchronicity (and what in Jung's day was called the "occult").

The way it's used most of the time these days is very much the way people talk about "The Secret"--your thoughts "resonate" with the "vibrations" or "frequencies" of the universe and actually attract certain events.

I pulled that definition right off wiki and it's the definition I've know from various sources since I started studying this 8 years ago. I guess we'll just have to agree that it has more than one meaning depending on what definition you use.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I pulled that definition right off wiki and it's the definition I've know from various sources since I started studying this 8 years ago. I guess we'll just have to agree that it has more than one meaning depending on what definition you use.

Wiki gives this (my bolding):

Synchronicity is the experience of two or more events that are causally unrelated occurring together in a meaningful manner. To count as synchronicity, the events should be unlikely to occur together by chance.

This is pretty much Jung's definition. (ETA: You said, "Synchronicity is just a word coined for an emotion that no one had a name for" which is not what the Wiki definition says.) The problem is that there is a logical inconsistency in this definition: events are causally unrelated but still occurr in a meaningful manner. At any rate, I've fleshed this out with Jung's definition and assertions that synchronicity is indeed an alternative explanation to mere random coincidence. Read the "Description" section of the Wiki article and you'll see that Jung was indeed talking about inherent meaning in the events.

Again, the notion that the majority of people are wrong in their usage of the word doesn't make sense (the meaning of words is conventional--there is no inherent meaning in a word). Also, I'm not sure how you can ignore the definition given by the person who actually coined the term.

If you're using the term in an unconventional way, it's at least up to you to recognize that you are the one using a term unconventionally. It's certainly not up to the rest of us to change the way we use a word to suit your re-definition of it.

And again, what you offer as your definition of synchronicity (which isn't what Wiki says, BTW) is exactly apophenia.

ETA again: Wiki also has this lovely diagram made by Jung. I'm not exactly sure what he means by it, but it's obvious that he's proposing synchronicity as the way the universe actually works, and as an alternative to causality.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Apophenia does seem to be the closest thing to what people are describing, but maybe there really is another term which could be more accurate to what they're feeling.

I think the definition given by Conrad (who coined the term apophenia) includes the subjective experience--the feeling.

To repeat the bit I quoted from the Wiki article on apophenia: it's a term "coined in 1958 by Klaus Conrad,[1] who defined it as the 'unmotivated seeing of connections' accompanied by a 'specific experience of an abnormal meaningfulness'."

It includes seeing patterns in random data, and the experience of meaningfulness--or making a Type I error.

I think the tendency humans have fully explains why people think they've experienced synchronicity. However, the logically contradictory nature of the definition of synchronicity, and the fact that the definition includes the idea that these events somehow violate probability (yet none of them do), is enough to just dismiss the idea along with other discarded ideas from the late 19th Century: animal magnetism (Mesmerism), the collective unconscious, phrenology, etc.

 

[fromdownunder]

includes the idea that these events somehow violate probability (yet none of them do)

This is a key point, and I would like anybody who accepts synchrosity as to how any of the events described in this thread violate probablility. Mathematically high "odds" would not cut the ice as no matter what the odds, if it can happen, it will happen, some day.

Norm

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Minor nitpick but-:

Mathematically high "odds" would not cut the ice as no matter what the odds, if it can happen, it might happen, some day.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

This is a key point, and I would like anybody who accepts synchrosity as to how any of the events described in this thread violate probablility. Mathematically high "odds" would not cut the ice as no matter what the odds, if it can happen, it will happen, some day.

Norm

Minor nitpick but-:

Mathematically high "odds" would not cut the ice as no matter what the odds, if it can happen, it might happen, some day.

Bit of a tangent, but if it is determined that there is a non-zero probability of an event occurring in a finite number of trials, then over an infinite number of trials the probability is equal to 1 that the event will occur.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Bit of a tangent, but if it is determined that there is a non-zero probability of an event occurring in a finite number of trials, then over an infinite number of trials the probability is equal to 1 that the event will occur.

True, but that does assume the 'infinite number of trials'. I wasn't disagreeing, just nitpicking, I would argue that all trials are finite.

I suppose really the point is that a lot of people act as though an x:y probability means that the occurance will happen x times in y rather than on average x times in y (probably over a huge multiple of y attempts). Its the same reasoning that makes Rodney say that 1000 heads would never be thrown in the history of the universe because there isnt time for 10^301 attempts but turned on its head. It assumes that 'random' is smooth and igonores clustering.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Yesterday I was listening to Brahms' "Variations on a theme by Haydn", and it occurred to me that most people listening to this might think, "pretty music", but would totally miss all the cool thematic relationships tying it together. It took a lot of musical training on my part to be able to recognize this aspect of the work.

Which brings me to the whole synchronicity issue. People who aren't conversant with Jungian psychology will probably miss many of the "synchronistic" cooincidences...and even those that are, are likely to miss many of them as well, since it is likely that many, if not most, coincidences are completely unidentifiable. For instance, the person in front of you in the line to see a movie doesn't have a neon sign on them saying, "I was in the basinet next to you in the maternity ward". This would be something that goes completely unnoticed.

So, which part of synchronicity is ruled by some unknown physical law...the part that makes coincidences happen, or that part that makes us notice them? Or is it some convoluted mixture of both?

 

[Rodney]

So, which part of synchronicity is ruled by some unknown physical law...the part that makes coincidences happen, or that part that makes us notice them? Or is it some convoluted mixture of both?

Interesting question. The thing I would note is that when you read logic such as -- "With 6 billion people having an average of 250 dream themes each per night (Hines, 50, though I don't think I've ever had more than 5 or 6 dream themes a night), there should be about 30,000 to 1.5 million people a day who have dreams that seem clairvoyant" (See http://www.skepdic.com/lawofnumbers.html) -- the assumption is that all coincidences are known. In fact, only a tiny fraction are known.

 

[fls]

Such as?

Incredible complexity as a result of undirected variation is pretty weird. Non-locality is pretty weird.

I know that meta-analyses have been used in a number of medical studies. When you say "in that manner", what do you see as the distinction between the techniques used in those studies and those used in parapsychology studies?

Pooling data on subjects rather than on studies. Actually, it's not even that. It's pooling individual measurements rather than pooling data on subjects. Can you find any other discipline that performs meta-analysis in that manner?

Do you have a few cites?

If you can explain to me why the cites I have given you in the past were unsatisfactory.

We've been through this before, but if the Ganzfeld psi effect is real but minor, how would you propose to measure it?

Yes, we have been through it before. What specifically did you find unsatisfactory with my prior proposals.

Off-point. I was referring to the fact that frequently experts in various disciplines can't agree on some fundamental issues, such as when women should begin to have mammograms and how often they should have them.

However, experts do not disagree on whether women have breasts.

Linda

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Incredible complexity as a result of undirected variation is pretty weird.

I was going to say that 'The incredible variation of the natural world was possible without a creator seemed pretty earth shattering at one time' but I see you've beaten me to it and with your "fancy book lernin' wurds"

We have all this and yet still feel the need to look for magic.

 

[Rodney]

I was going to say that 'The incredible variation of the natural world was possible without a creator seemed pretty earth shattering at one time' but I see you've beaten me to it and with your "fancy book lernin' wurds"

We have all this and yet still feel the need to look for magic.

Aside from the fact that you're begging the question as to how the incredible variation of the natural world came into existence, haven't you noted how many people on this Forum argue that precognition is impossible? Do you not subscribe to that view?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yesterday I was listening to Brahms' "Variations on a theme by Haydn", and it occurred to me that most people listening to this might think, "pretty music", but would totally miss all the cool thematic relationships tying it together. It took a lot of musical training on my part to be able to recognize this aspect of the work.

Which brings me to the whole synchronicity issue. People who aren't conversant with Jungian psychology will probably miss many of the "synchronistic" cooincidences...and even those that are, are likely to miss many of them as well, since it is likely that many, if not most, coincidences are completely unidentifiable. For instance, the person in front of you in the line to see a movie doesn't have a neon sign on them saying, "I was in the basinet next to you in the maternity ward". This would be something that goes completely unnoticed.

So, which part of synchronicity is ruled by some unknown physical law...the part that makes coincidences happen, or that part that makes us notice them? Or is it some convoluted mixture of both?

However, the thematic relationships in the Haydn music are actually inherently real. In examples of synchronicity, these "relationships" are said to be acausal. If you read meaning and significance in patterns in random data, it is apophenia.

I think Rodney is correct when he says that synchronicity has to include the claim that there is inherent significance. (He tried that approach and rejected it, since then synchronicity would be purely in the eye of the beholder.) As I've shown, Jung was arguing that synchronicity explains how the universe works (as an alternative to causality in some events) rather than merely describing a purely subjective experience.

The thematic relationships in Haydn's composition are not acausal. That's the difference between an educated perceiver detecting meaningful patterns that many people would miss and a believer's claim of synchronicity. If there is a cause for the coincidence of events, then it's not synchronicity.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Aside from the fact that you're begging the question as to how the incredible variation of the natural world came into existence, haven't you noted how many people on this Forum argue that precognition is impossible? Do you not subscribe to that view?

I think that's not accurate. I think most of us on this Forum argue the skeptical approach to claims of precognition. That is, we follow the evidence. The evidence leads us to the provisional conclusion that there is no such thing as precognition. If the balance of the evidence changes, we would happily reject or modify our provisionally held conclusion.

Most of us don't go around saying precognition is "impossible" (except perhaps in a very narrow context).

On several of these religious/philosophical questions I have remarked that the standard for arguing that something is possible is very low compared to arguing what is reasonable to believe. CJ, I remember, liked to argue that a particular belief is "rational" as long as the belief is not logically contradictory--as 4 sided triangles, for example. I point out that while a proposition that is not contradictory is "possible" it is not therefore reasonable to believe it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My bolding:

Interesting question. The thing I would note is that when you read logic such as -- "With 6 billion people having an average of 250 dream themes each per night (Hines, 50, though I don't think I've ever had more than 5 or 6 dream themes a night), there should be about 30,000 to 1.5 million people a day who have dreams that seem clairvoyant" (See http://www.skepdic.com/lawofnumbers.html) -- the assumption is that all coincidences are known. In fact, only a tiny fraction are known.

So are you arguing that his estimate of the probability of a seeming clairvoyant dream (based purely on random coincidence) is too low or too high? You seem to be trying to do both simultaneously.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Interesting question. The thing I would note is that when you read logic such as -- "With 6 billion people having an average of 250 dream themes each per night (Hines, 50, though I don't think I've ever had more than 5 or 6 dream themes a night), there should be about 30,000 to 1.5 million people a day who have dreams that seem clairvoyant" (See http://www.skepdic.com/lawofnumbers.html) -- the assumption is that all coincidences are known. In fact, only a tiny fraction are known.

You may only remember five or six dreams a night - in truth, most dreams last at most a few seconds, and even people who say they never dream have lots of dreams - they just don't remember them.

Aside from the fact that you're begging the question as to how the incredible variation of the natural world came into existence, haven't you noted how many people on this Forum argue that precognition is impossible? Do you not subscribe to that view?

I don't think the people here say that precognition is impossible. They say that, given the current level of evidence for its existence, there's no reason - in fact, it might be pretty silly - to act as if it occurs.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

I don't think the people here say that precognition is impossible. They say that, given the current level of evidence for its existence, there's no reason - in fact, it might be pretty silly - to act as if it occurs.

It seems somewhat appropriate for people who believe in precognition to act as if it does exist before there is good evidence for its existence.