• 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?

fls said:
What do you mean by 'entangled' (I know you can't be referring to quantum entanglement) that would engage skepticism? It doesn't seem to be a particularly remarkable claim.

Linda
Click to expand...

I wouldn't assume that he isn't referring to quantum entanglement.

Yes "quantum" has been used to support synchronicity and so on among believers.

I don't know what the bleep they could be thinking!
 
Rodney said:
I believe in synchronicity based on personal experience, not Jung's book. But I do think it's a good book.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting the book is the source of your belief. I just can't fathom you still believing in it after reading the book, which clearly shows that when you take a close look at synchronicity, there's nothing there.

Well, unless you find meta-analysis convincing evidence of magic.
 
aggle-rithm said:
I'm not suggesting the book is the source of your belief. I just can't fathom you still believing in it after reading the book, which clearly shows that when you take a close look at synchronicity, there's nothing there.

Well, unless you find meta-analysis convincing evidence of magic.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that Jung's book is the final word on whether synchronicity exists?
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I wouldn't assume that he isn't referring to quantum entanglement.
Click to expand...

I wasn't assuming that he wasn't referring to quantum entanglement. I said he can't be referring to quantum entanglement - quantum entanglement doesn't occur under the described conditions. If it happens that that was what he was trying to refer to (as you mention, it is a favourite buzzword among woos), then maybe that explains why I didn't get an answer.

Linda
 
Rodney said:
So how would Robert Todd Carroll test for synchronicity?
Click to expand...

I suspect he would ask for a definition--how it differs from random coincidence. And you've said it can't be done. (Though you have tried repeatedly to claim that low probability makes it an example of synchronicity, even though I've shown that equally low probability events happen all the time and nobody claims they are examples of synchronicity.) You only define an example of synchronicity after the fact, and yet you claim it's somehow inherently meaningful or significant.

And the idea of "acausal connection" is logically contradictory. It's no more valid than saying "acausal cause". So since the term synchronicity is not logical, there is no need for empirical disproof--no more than it's necessary to provide empirical evidence for the non-existence of 4-sided triangles.
 
fls said:
If it happens that that was what he was trying to refer to (as you mention, it is a favourite buzzword among woos), then maybe that explains why I didn't get an answer.

Linda
Click to expand...

I think you're onto something. I'm also waiting for a Limbo response over here.
 
Rodney said:
So you're saying that Jung's book is the final word on whether synchronicity exists?
Click to expand...

One of the hallmarks of woo beliefs is that they become free-floating after the original reason for believing in it is discredited. For example:

Person A: I believe in aliens because I saw a UFO the other night.
Person B: That was a weather balloon.
Person A: So what? That doesn't mean there aren't aliens.

To answer your question:

I'm saying that Jung's book put forth the synchronicity hypothesis, explained (sort of) what it was and how it worked, and tested it. The test failed. Make of that what you will.
 
Rodney said:
So how would Robert Todd Carroll test for synchronicity?
Click to expand...

Since you are the one who believes in synchrosity, how would you test for it? To take your beloved Plum Pudding example much earlier in this thread, I gave you several lines of enquiry which could, with in some cases difficulty, show that this example could have a perfectly mundane explanation. Did you follow this up, or are you not trying to find evidence against the idea, and are just an armchair believer?

Let's stick to the Restaraunt theme for the moment, and here is a case which, if I include all the facts, is completely mundana, but with one vital fact missing, could be described as a case for the defence:

I go to a particular Restaraunt at least three times a year for lunch (I go to others quite a lot, but this one is special). Over the past three years, whenever I have been at the Commun Na Feine, and ordered a Seafood Platter, I see somebody. I see the same woman, who appears to be about 90 years old, at the same Restaraunt. Every time without fail.

Synchrosity? No. Simply because one fact is missing

Norm
 
aggle-rithm said:
One of the hallmarks of woo beliefs is that they become free-floating after the original reason for believing in it is discredited. For example:

Person A: I believe in aliens because I saw a UFO the other night.
Person B: That was a weather balloon.
Person A: So what? That doesn't mean there aren't aliens.

To answer your question:

I'm saying that Jung's book put forth the synchronicity hypothesis, explained (sort of) what it was and how it worked, and tested it. The test failed. Make of that what you will.
Click to expand...
Jung was a starting point for me. Since that time, I've read about Paul Kammerer's seriality hypothesis and experienced enough bizarre coincidences to convince me that there is such a thing as synchronicity.
 
Rodney said:
Jung was a starting point for me. Since that time, I've read about Paul Kammerer's seriality hypothesis and experienced enough bizarre coincidences to convince me that there is such a thing as synchronicity.
Click to expand...

Okay, leaving aside the fact that we still don't have an actual definition to test, approximately how many 'bizarre coincidences' did it take to convince you? Why so many/few?
 
Prometheus said:
Okay, leaving aside the fact that we still don't have an actual definition to test, approximately how many 'bizarre coincidences' did it take to convince you? Why so many/few?
Click to expand...
It was a combination of several dozen smaller ones, a few medium-sized ones, a whopper, and a super-whopper.
 
Rodney said:
It was a combination of several dozen smaller ones, a few medium-sized ones, a whopper, and a super-whopper.
Click to expand...

Why was this combination enough to convince you? Which, if any of the occurances could have been eliminated and still left you convinced?
 
aggle-rithm said:
So, somehow he sensed that you were a carbon-based life-form that is composed of 70% water, and that you are constantly losing that water through various forms of elimination and evaporation, and thus needed to replenish it.

Astounding! I wish I understood women that well.
Click to expand...

And thus is Papa Freud answered.
 
fromdownunder said:
Since you are the one who believes in synchrosity, how would you test for it? To take your beloved Plum Pudding example much earlier in this thread, I gave you several lines of enquiry which could, with in some cases difficulty, show that this example could have a perfectly mundane explanation. Did you follow this up, or are you not trying to find evidence against the idea, and are just an armchair believer?

Let's stick to the Restaraunt theme for the moment, and here is a case which, if I include all the facts, is completely mundana, but with one vital fact missing, could be described as a case for the defence:

I go to a particular Restaraunt at least three times a year for lunch (I go to others quite a lot, but this one is special). Over the past three years, whenever I have been at the Commun Na Feine, and ordered a Seafood Platter, I see somebody. I see the same woman, who appears to be about 90 years old, at the same Restaraunt. Every time without fail.

Synchrosity? No. Simply because one fact is missing

Norm
Click to expand...

(jumps up and down)

oo! Oo! I get it, I get it! Call on me!

She's your grandma, and you brought her there for lunch. :)
 
Prometheus said:
Why was this combination enough to convince you? Which, if any of the occurances could have been eliminated and still left you convinced?
Click to expand...

I still don't even know what it is. From what I can gather it's bizarre yet some people think that a boss calling an employee or a wife meeting a husband at the door is bizarre, so for me, personally, there's a disconnect. Apparently it happens to everyone and, according to Rodney, it has happened dozens of times. This confuses me even further in regards to bizarre because if it happens so frequently, isn't it just, well, I dunno...normal?
 
Maia said:
(jumps up and down)

oo! Oo! I get it, I get it! Call on me!

She's your grandma, and you brought her there for lunch. :)
Click to expand...

Close but no cigar - she is actually my mother. We lunch once a month, but go to Commie three times a year.

Norm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom