How do you guys explain really bizarre cases of synchronicity?

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

What if you precognized time travel? Then you . . . .nevermind, the verb tenses are too difficult to make.

 

[Dr H]

(2) No body part has been identified as being potentially responsible for paranormal communications;

It has not been demonstrated that "paranormal communications" occur.

No need to identify an organ "responsible" for something which doesn't happen.

 

[Dr H]

I'm not sure what it is. Just because I think something strange is going on doesn't mean I think I know what it is.

Then how do you know that "something strange is going on," and that it's not merely coincidence?

And an update on the whole 555 thing: I have been testing this out and it's gettin really freaky. I've been seeing basically all the other combinations of triple numbers except 555. Like, when I look at the number of views for threads on a forum (any forum, not just this one), I'll see 111, 222, 333, etc...but no 555 and rarely any 444s...even if I scroll through for several minutes or go to a different website. Since I know next to nothing about statistics, how statistically likely or unlikely would you say this is? It's really starting to creep me out.

Heh, well keep watching: my number of posts is rapidly approaching 666.

 

[Dr H]

While correct and incorrect reasoning can be identified, for real world problems there is often insufficient information for such logical analyses to give useful answers. In these cases we use the opinions of perceived and/or actual authorities to base our views on.

For example, some of Linda's criticisms of Utts' analysis are not that she has used invalid reasoning, but that she has used inappropriate techniques to analyse the data.

In effect, Utts is making some assumptions and drawing conclusions that are outside her particular field of expertise. This is not unususal, nor is it unusual that when people do this -- even highly accomplished and intelligent people -- they are often wrong.

 

[Rodney]

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.

I'm merely saying that Robert Carroll's dismissing of coincidences in general and precognitive dreams in particular on the basis that there are such a vast number of opportunities each day for coincidences and dreams coming true is greatly exaggerated, given that there is no awareness of most coincidences and dreams.

 

[fromdownunder]

I'm merely saying that Robert Carroll's dismissing of coincidences in general and precognitive dreams in particular on the basis that there are such a vast number of opportunities each day for coincidences and dreams coming true is greatly exaggerated, given that there is no awareness of most coincidences and dreams.

Then perhaps like Joe, I am misunderstanding your earlier post:

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.

(bolding mine)

The inference I got from this earlier post is that these unusual things happen far more often than people remember, and that in fact synchrosity and other unusual events such as precognitive dreams really occur far more often than people give them credit for. So, there really may be "something out there". Now you seem to be saying (from your later post) that Carroll simply got his data wrong.

I would really like a bit of clarification on this point. Your two separate posts here appear to be inconsistant, to me at least. that Carroll simple exagerated his figures, or that nobody remembers their dreams.

Norm

 

[tsig]

To me the definition is: Synchronicity is the experience of two or more events that are causally unrelated occurring together in a meaningful manner. Since the meaning can only be inferred by the observer, then synchronicity means different things to different people. Again, (I think this is the 5th time in this thread) it's more an emotion, not something quantifiable that can be measured. You guys keep arguing statistics and odds when that has very little to do with it. The odds could be 1 to 2 or 1 to 2,000,000,000 it doesn't matter, all that matters is how the observer FELT about the outcome. I keep bringing up this comparison, but it's like deja vu. You can't prove deja vu or test for it, and neither can you prove synchronicity or test for it. It's just an odd feeling you get when you witness a coincidence, or experience a coincidence, and you infer meaning into it. This shouldn't be a debate with statisticians, it should be a debate with psychologists.

It's not apophenia, that is seeing patterns where none exist. You could say someone found patterns in a string of coincidences and they found meaning in it, but just plain apophenia is not it. It can be part of the definition, but not the definition itself.

Synchronicity is just a word coined for an emotion that no one had a name for. I know I'm just a lay person but I've read everything I could get my hands on about this topic since Sept 11, 2001 when a string of coincidences saved my life. It's kinda frustrating seeing a continued argument over the odds of flipping a coin when that has nothing to do with it.

Maybe epiphany is the word you want.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

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?

With your first point you're wrong, I'm not begging the question as this statement is in the context to your asking what wierder things than precognition people on this forum (or science in general) has been convinced of on the basis of evidence. In that context whether they are right to be convinced (my opinion is that they are) is immaterial, hence no question begging.

I don't see where you see an opinion on precognition, one way or another, in my statement.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

As an aside, Rodney, if precognition was possible (I realise this is a huge assumption) then would Teapot's attraction to the teapot in the store be due to 'syncronicity' or to his recognising it in advance as the twin of the one he found? Which do you think is the more probable?

1) Guiding force in the universe
2) Precognition
3) Coincidence and selection after the fact

?

 

[Rodney]

The inference I got from this earlier post is that these unusual things happen far more often than people remember, and that in fact synchrosity and other unusual events such as precognitive dreams really occur far more often than people give them credit for. So, there really may be "something out there". Now you seem to be saying (from your later post) that Carroll simply got his data wrong.

I would really like a bit of clarification on this point. Your two separate posts here appear to be inconsistant, to me at least. that Carroll simple exagerated his figures, or that nobody remembers their dreams.

My point is that skeptics constantly trot out the "it would be far stranger if no coincidences occurred" mantra to dismiss seemingly wildly improbable coincidences. Now, if everyone were aware of all that's happening around them and remembered and documented all of their dreams in detail, that explanation would make far more sense than it actually does. So, for example, seemingly precognitive dreams regarding the 1966 Aberfan, Wales mining disaster -- see http://www.psychic-experience-for-you.com/psychic-power-of-dreams.html -- could be much more readily dismissed on the basis that billions of dreams are occurring every night and so it's not surprising that some people would have remembered and documented dreams of mining disasters. But the reality is that most people don't remember their dreams and, even when they do, don't document them. So, in the real world, it wouldn't necessarily be expected that dreams of mining disasters would be documented.

 

[Rodney]

As an aside, Rodney, if precognition was possible (I realise this is a huge assumption) then would Teapot's attraction to the teapot in the store be due to 'syncronicity' or to his recognising it in advance as the twin of the one he found? Which do you think is the more probable?

1) Guiding force in the universe
2) Precognition
3) Coincidence and selection after the fact

?

Let's do this by the process of elimination: 3) is obviously out, so that leaves 1) and 2). Hmm, I'll have to think about this some more.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

First, my knowledge of statistics is only half-vast. (I'm sure you'll agree with me there.) Second, I can state with a high degree of confidence that your series is not random -- it has too many repeating patterns.

I typed out my own attempt at a random 100 digits, then copied it 10 times then changed at least a handful of Ts to Hs and Hs to Ts in each set of 100. If there is a repeating pattern, it's one with a lot of wildcard holders in it. As such, you could make it the pattern I mentioned TT*HHH. (Where the asterisk represents 995 unspecified results).

At any rate, my question wasn't about whether you could detect a pattern. It was, what is the probability of that result. The probability of that result is exactly the same as the probability of all heads.

So, it is synchronous.

Nonsense. You would not claim such a result is an example of synchronicity. If so, then can you tell me how many possible outcomes you would consider to be synchronicity? It seems to me if you count that one, then you would count almost any result. After all, in any string of randomly generated Hs and Ts you will surely be able to detect some sort of pattern.

Fourth, we can agree that the odds of any one permutation occurring is vanishingly small.

So do you agree that it is not the odds against any particular permutation that makes that permutation an example of synchronicity?

That is, the answer to the question, "What are the odds of that happening?" is legitimately, "No longer than the odds against a vast number of events that you don't consider to be synchronicity."

Also, what level of probability is the cut-off between something you think is synchronicity and something that is not?

When statistical analysis is done on hypothesis testing, we can set a confidence level. And even so, we demand reproducibility. The synchronicity game, however, doesn't have these rules.

ETA:

Third, if you have some time on your hands, you might try listing the other (1.07E+301) - 1 permutations.

I actually intended this example to be one of the non-patterned looking non-"synchronous" outcomes, but I don't feel like tossing a coin 1000 times and recording the actual results. I tried asking this same question with words, but every time I did, you pretended to misunderstand me and answered about a probability of a large number of outcomes (like all the permutations with 500 heads). Again, that's why I wanted to talk about the odds against a given 5 card hand dealt with a well-shuffled regular deck of cards, or the probabilities of 10 or 20 tosses of a fair coin.

 

[aggle-rithm]

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 you're dealing with the probability of something happening multiplied by the probability that someone will notice it. That would seem to be pretty small.

However, these two things aren't as separate as you might think. A dream that SEEMS clairvoyant has been noticed, by definition.

Add to this the special training enjoyed by Jung adherents to find non-obvious connections. The dream doesn't have to be about death at all (in fact, Jung said that a dream about death is never really about death, but about something that death symbolizes to the dreamer).

As with many things that seem wondrous but are unsupported by science, synchronicity becomes less interesting the more you study it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My point is that skeptics constantly trot out the "it would be far stranger if no coincidences occurred" mantra to dismiss seemingly wildly improbable coincidences.

One of the characteristics of random data is that patterns occur. Yes, it would be far stranger if you didn't get such patterns.

I was just reading Randi's Flim Flam. There was a description of some sort of ESP test that depending on the choice of the subject to "send" being chosen by a faux random number. It wasn't a true random number, and it was later discovered that it eliminated any doubles. (I don't recall the details, but let's say it was generating a number between 0 and 12. If it generated 3 for the first one, it would not allow a 3 for the second one.) Real random numbers don't have that rule, so the probabilities were changed.

Back to the dream stuff: my understanding is that if you wake someone when their EEG says they're dreaming, they will invariably report that they were dreaming. In my own experience, I frequently remember a lot of details about a lot of dreams right when I'm waking up, but those memories quickly fade as the morning goes on. However, if something were to happen that was coincidentally very similar to something I dreamed, I would still be likely to recall that particular dream (or that aspect of a dream). So my theory is that a coincidentally similar event would trigger recall of a dream that would otherwise be forgotten. And after that event, the memory would be vivid.

At any rate, even if all of us only have 1 dream per night, that's still something like 6 billion dreams every night. If a dream about a plane crash (or whatever) is only a 1 in 10 million occurrence, it would still happen tens of thousands of times every 24 hours. In cases like famous shipwrecks, there might even have been a skewing of pure coincidence by the fact that loved ones might have anxiety-caused dreams on that very subject.

And then there's the problem of faulty reporting, confabulation and plastic memories. The vast majority of people's experience with "synchronicity" are not well-documented cases that would eliminate these explanations.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So you're dealing with the probability of something happening multiplied by the probability that someone will notice it. That would seem to be pretty small.

However, these two things aren't as separate as you might think. A dream that SEEMS clairvoyant has been noticed, by definition.

I think that's the same point I was trying to get at. There's a selection bias.

Add to this the special training enjoyed by Jung adherents to find non-obvious connections. The dream doesn't have to be about death at all (in fact, Jung said that a dream about death is never really about death, but about something that death symbolizes to the dreamer).

Yep--lots of retrofitting. That's why in the coin toss case, no one can say ahead of time how many of the possible outcomes are "synchronous" and how many are not.

It's much like the Uri Geller e-mail of all the elevens you can find associated with 9/11 (if the rules are arbitrary, you ignore the many misses, and there's some flat out lying). The eleven might seem to be significant and meaningful until you think about a real answer to the usually rhetorical question, "What are the odds of that?"

 

[fls]

My point is that skeptics constantly trot out the "it would be far stranger if no coincidences occurred" mantra to dismiss seemingly wildly improbable coincidences. Now, if everyone were aware of all that's happening around them and remembered and documented all of their dreams in detail, that explanation would make far more sense than it actually does. So, for example, seemingly precognitive dreams regarding the 1966 Aberfan, Wales mining disaster -- see http://www.psychic-experience-for-you.com/psychic-power-of-dreams.html -- could be much more readily dismissed on the basis that billions of dreams are occurring every night and so it's not surprising that some people would have remembered and documented dreams of mining disasters. But the reality is that most people don't remember their dreams and, even when they do, don't document them. So, in the real world, it wouldn't necessarily be expected that dreams of mining disasters would be documented.

It should be pointed out that dreams of mining disasters weren't documented. What was presented in that article was recollections of second-hand reports of dreams, which were remembered after the mining disaster occurred. This means that the reported details will have already been influenced and altered by the subsequent events so as to fit with "dreams of mining disasters".

Dreams that are documented at the time they occur, such as the example given of dreaming about children skating on thin ice and one falling through (assuming that they followed their own advice and wrote down the dream) will not have the opportunity to be remembered in a way that fits with subsequent events. The children skating dream, for example, seemed to have very little to do with the author's trip to the airport, despite their quite heroic effort to make it do so.

A handy way to tell whether or not something can be considered documented is to look at whether an immutable recording was made, and whether that recording was made before the event. If not, then it's not 'documented', merely recalled. And our recollections are quite mutable, especially when we know what to expect. Lincoln's dream, for example, fails to be documented because no immutable recording was made before the assassination.

Linda

 

[fls]

I typed out my own attempt at a random 100 digits, then copied it 10 times then changed at least a handful of Ts to Hs and Hs to Ts in each set of 100. If there is a repeating pattern, it's one with a lot of wildcard holders in it. As such, you could make it the pattern I mentioned TT*HHH. (Where the asterisk represents 995 unspecified results).

You can make a decent random sequence if you start by trying to form a random sequence (which is unlikely to be any good) and then recopying it taking every 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or whatever digit (I usually just ask someone in the room to "pick a number between 2 and 10). That tends to get rid of those patterns we inadvertently add, like trying to avoid repeated sequences that are too long.

Linda

 

[fls]

But the reality is that most people don't remember their dreams and, even when they do, don't document them. So, in the real world, it wouldn't necessarily be expected that dreams of mining disasters would be documented.

But the reality is that most 'precognitive' dreams are undocumented anyway. So it isn't the case that only a few dreams are documented and that they happen to match up with later events in a way that is unexpected due to chance. It's that we recall undocumented dreams as being a better match than they were. We do have documented dreams to draw from and I suspect that the reason so few of the amazing precognitive dream stories depend upon one of these documented dreams is that unembellished accounts don't seem so amazing in comparison to undocumented accounts which can be remembered as a much better 'fit'.

Linda

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Rodney, do you consider precognitive dreams to be examples of "synchronicity" anyway?

Again, the internal contradiction in the definition of synchronicity becomes problematic. I thought most people think that precognitive dreams are actually caused. (That the event sends "waves" or "energy" or "vibrations" that travel back in time and affect the dreamer, or some such.)

If the dreams are acausal, then aren't they merely random coincidence and not significant in anyway? Isn't matching the "pattern" of similarity of dream to events that actually happen later merely a Type I error if the dream is not caused?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You can make a decent random sequence if you start by trying to form a random sequence (which is unlikely to be any good) and then recopying it taking every 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or whatever digit (I usually just ask someone in the room to "pick a number between 2 and 10). That tends to get rid of those patterns we inadvertently add, like trying to avoid repeated sequences that are too long.

If I did it that way, though, I'd have to count them up again. That's an awful lot of work! The only reason I did it the way I did was to count to 100 just one time.

At any rate, the point remains that random strings tend to contain perceivable patterns. It would be surprising if they never did. And the probability of this (or any other particular outcome) is identical, so the probability alone is not what separates an outcome that is "synchronous" from one that is not. It's just our tendency to perceive patterns and significance where it doesn't exist (apophenia).