(Split Thread) Synchronicity or Coincidence

[Jekyll]

I'm not sure that it is events which are disposed to synchronicity. I think it is some people. Also, since the significance of these events to those people cannot be objectively assessed, it can't be objectively evaluated by science.

Well that's fine, you could track the future events occurring around these people. At the same time you don't need to consider the significance of the events for the person, just whether or not it's surprising that they happen.

As far as counting the hits and ignoring the misses goes, that would be a standard skeptical response. I have no way of demonstrating to you that this is not the case. The only way you could ever be convinced of the existence of synchronicity was to experience something yourself which you yourself could not put down to mere co-incidence. I have no way of knowing what it would take in your case, but where-ever you draw the line it is possible the Universe could throw something at you which crossed it.

I like the universe and it does appear to throw some wonderful curve balls at me from time to time. Just not enough for me to think that it is paying any more attention to me than to that half eaten banana on my desk, which may, in a marvellous display of synchronicity, meet with other bananas from the same bunch in my stomach later today.

This is why I was suggesting that it might be possible to count the misses as a way to see if there is anything going on.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Well that's fine, you could track the future events occurring around these people. At the same time you don't need to consider the significance of the events for the person, just whether or not it's surprising that they happen.

That's not going to work either. Firstly, the very fact that the person is being monitored may influence the occurence of synchronicity. Second, no analysis could possibly have the same impact for anyone-else that it does for the person who is experiencing the synchronicities. There is absolutely no way to eliminate the subjective factors. Subjective factors are crucial for synchronicity, and for this reason science cannot go there.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Coincidence is both an unsatisfying and unfalsifiable answer. Much like "goddidit", it doesn't explain anything and once people have accepted that explanation, they cease any further investigation.

Uh, coincidence is the default answer, whether you find it satisfying or not. By all means, investigate away, but you ought to have something more than "I really, really feel like this was something special." In particular, if you're gonna give me trouble about falsifiability, the alternate proposal should be falsifiable, too. Syncronicity is an incoherent idea, let alone falsifiable.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That explanation works for you. You cannot demand that it works for me, because you don't actually know what it is supposed to be an explanation for.

Of course I'm not demanding anything, but fair enough: What is it that happened that requires a nonempirical yet detectable mechanism?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

A lot of people on Dawkins board make posts which appear to be trying to turn science into a religion. They talking about "rebranding atheism", atheist substitute churches, etc....

Yikes!

~~ Paul

 

[Darat]

No evidence I have can be of any serious use to you. It is open to interpretation, and your interpretation is going to be different to mine.

I disagree, websites appearing and disappearing with no way to account for that, a document appearing on a computer again with no way to account for its existence would be very "useful" to me and would if verified certainly alter how I understand the world around me. ETA: Remember UCE you claimed some of these events that led you to beleive in synchronicity were "This information was directly supplied to me in breach of the laws of physics. " (Your words from 14th February 2002)

Also why did you bother to quote a description of sychronicity which has nothing to do with what you mean by the word - that is rather confusing.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm not sure that it is events which are disposed to synchronicity. I think it is some people. Also, since the significance of these events to those people cannot be objectively assessed, it can't be objectively evaluated by science.

The significance of the events to those people is irrelevant! People place all sorts of significance on all kinds of events purely on an emotional basis.

Look, if you want to define synchronicity as "apparently coincidental events whose juxtaposition I choose to make meaningful," be my guest. But all this metaphysical gibberish about nonempirical cause and effect is nonsense.

As far as counting the hits and ignoring the misses goes, that would be a standard skeptical response. I have no way of demonstrating to you that this is not the case.

I guess the standard response is reasonable, then.

I have no way of knowing what it would take in your case, but where-ever you draw the line it is possible the Universe could throw something at you which crossed it.

Then I drew the line in the wrong place, which is possible since I have absolutely no way to determine where the line should be drawn in the first place.

~~ Paul

 

[Darat]

So others can better understand the type of events UCE is referring to and why he believes in "synchronicity" this is from what he posted about some of the non-coincidences back from 2002 (from my personal archive files - sadly long lost from the Forum db).

I'll give you another example - which currently remains on line on a web page. I was instructed that smoking cannabis acts as a damper to the communication mechanisms - I was told to stop smoking dope. The next day I found a tiny lump of hash a friend had left and I spent 10 minutes trying to decided whether I should smoke it or not. I was torn between doing what I was told, and worrying about taking it all too seriously. I agonised about it for ages before finally deciding to smoke it. Anyway - ten minutes later I had a look at one of the website from where I had been receiving information and this appeared (it is still there)
(I hope it doesn;t disappear between me posting this and you looking at it)

http://www.elohim.com/forum.htm

Asked about this, the expanded explanation:

UndercoverElephant
Member
Member # 93
posted February 14, 2002 09:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John,
I just explained this. I had been instructed to stop smoking. I found a lump of dope on my coffee table. I agonised about whether to smoke it. I smoked it. I turned on my computer, went to that page (as I had done the night before) and this had appeared :

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope the little 'smoke' dilemma today was just that..only some smoke. I would like to thank you for creating some questions and doubts in my mind this morning, because it has offered me a great opportunity to re evaluate and to come back to my centre. I welcomed the idea of possibly changing and rearranging the channel to 'suit' your readers or perhaps so that you will not get 'criticized'. I remember you asking me to 'own' what I do and to make it sound as if it is coming from me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have said enough. I have no interest in getting into a "Nah! Is So! Nah Isn't So!" debate with you or anybody else.

If you want clarification on anything I will clarify. If you want to point out why this is not 'proof' of anything then don't bother, because I can't prove anything to a person who is dead set on not believing it, and I have no interested in trying to do so.

Since this thread is already deteriorating in precisely that direction I will now bow back out. Anyone interested in further information can email me at xxxxxxx or send me a private message.

Shalom.

Now I don't see why this type evidence can't be objectively assessed by others. For instance there is the well known phenomenon that we are all prone to i.e. "remembering the hits, forgetting the misses" so in the example above how many other websites had you visited that did not give you advice about giving up your drug habit?

 

[KingMerv00]

Now I don't see why this type evidence can't be objectively assessed by others. For instance there is the well known phenomenon that we are all prone to i.e. "remembering the hits, forgetting the misses" so in the example above how many other websites had you visited that did not give you advice about giving up your drug habit?

If he hadn't smoked he STILL would have seen it as a message. Any discussion of drugs at all would have had the same effect.

 

[Beth]

Uh, coincidence is the default answer, whether you find it satisfying or not. By all means, investigate away, but you ought to have something more than "I really, really feel like this was something special." In particular, if you're gonna give me trouble about falsifiability, the alternate proposal should be falsifiable, too. Syncronicity is an incoherent idea, let alone falsifiable.

~~ Paul

Unsatisfying answers are why people continue to search for other explanations. While coincidence may be your default answer, that doesn't mean it is the default for everyone else, nor does it make it the correct explanation. As UCE is pointing out, syncronicity is inherently subjective, and thus not amenable to traditional scientific analysis so you are right about it being an unfalsifiable explanations. I'm not so sure about incoherent, but I'll let UCE deal with that issue if he is so inclined.

 

[Darat]

....snip... As UCE is pointing out, syncronicity is inherently subjective, and thus not amenable to traditional scientific analysis so you are right about it being an unfalsifiable explanations. ...snip....

What is subjective about the evidence that UCE claims led him to his belief in synchronicity? Breaches of physics, things appearing and disappearing and so on? Whether we end up at the same conclusion as UCE does is one thing however the evidence he claims supports his conclusion is according to him objective.

 

[Beth]

What is subjective about the evidence that UCE claims led him to his belief in synchronicity? Breaches of physics, things appearing and disappearing and so on? Whether we end up at the same conclusion as UCE does is one thing however the evidence he claims supports his conclusion is according to him objective.

The interpretation is subjective and since it is the interpretation that provides meaning and is what allows individuals to distinguish occurrences between random chance and synchronicity, the evidence, such as it is, seems to me to be inherently subjective. I

As far as the evidence cited being objective, I don't believe that it is. They are essentially subjective anecdotal experiences, which are not usually considered objective evidence, at least not on this forum. What evidence could UCE reasonably be expected to provide that would convince you that those events had actually occurred? If such an occurrence happened to you, what objective evidence would you have keep to later convince others it happened?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

As far as the evidence cited being objective, I don't believe that it is.

...snip..

I am talking about the type of evidence being objective not whether UCE can at this point provide that type of evidence.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Of course I'm not demanding anything, but fair enough: What is it that happened that requires a nonempirical yet detectable mechanism?

~~ Paul

There is no point in me answering that question. The answer is of no use to you. We've already agreed that personal testimony is no use. There's no reason for you to believe my claims.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

The significance of the events to those people is irrelevant!

On the contrary, the significance of the events to these people is critical. Nothing else matters.

People place all sorts of significance on all kinds of events purely on an emotional basis.

Maybe they do. If so, don't rely on their reports of synchronicity.

Look, if you want to define synchronicity as "apparently coincidental events whose juxtaposition I choose to make meaningful," be my guest. But all this metaphysical gibberish about nonempirical cause and effect is nonsense.

I didn't define it like that.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

What is subjective about the evidence that UCE claims led him to his belief in synchronicity?

Because in the abscence of a first-person perspective one what it is like to be UCE, the evidence is meaningless. Literally meaningless. It gets its meaning by virtue of its relationship to me.

And you can try as hard as you like to provoke me to discuss specific instances, but you will fail. You can go over my old posts till the cows come home.

 

[Darat]

Because in the abscence of a first-person perspective one what it is like to be UCE, the evidence is meaningless. Literally meaningless. It gets its meaning by virtue of its relationship to me.

As I have said a couple of times so far - I am not talking about the conclusion you end at but the evidence that takes you to that conclusion.

And you can try as hard as you like to provoke me to discuss specific instances, but you will fail. You can go over my old posts till the cows come home.

I am using past specific instances to demonstrate why in principle the type of evidence you claim is actually objective and accessible to everyone.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Darat,

What I am writing appears to be going in one of your ears and out the other. How many times do you want me to repeat the same answer to your questions before you realise there is not going to be any other answer?

The evidence is meaningless to you. It is just a collection of factual descriptions of events which don't mean anything to you. It's not just the events which matters. It is what those events mean to me in the context of my life, my belief system, my history, people I know, etc.... It is not possible for me to explain all this to you or anybody else. Therefore the evidence is meaningless to anybody but me.

 

[Beth]

I am talking about the type of evidence being objective not whether UCE can at this point provide that type of evidence.

I am using past specific instances to demonstrate why in principle the type of evidence you claim is actually objective and accessible to everyone.

I'm still not clear on this. Could you give an example of the type of objective evidence you think is available.

 

[Darat]

Darat,

What I am writing appears to be going in one of your ears and out the other. How many times do you want me to repeat the same answer to your questions before you realise there is not going to be any other answer?

...snip...

And how many times will I have to explain to you that we are not talking about conclusions but about objective evidence? Again let me use one of your specific examples:

__________

A word document appears on your PC, that document is a piece of objective evidence in other words we all can examine it, check it's provenance and so on.

Tests are run, e.g. was your PC connected to the outside world at the time, was there some clever trojan software installed on your PC. We run the most exhaustive tests imaginable and then are forced to conclude "this document appeared and there is no explanation in our current understanding of how the world works for its appearance".

That type of evidence would not be, as you claimed earlier, "useless" it would be a very powerful piece of evidence for something we at least currently don't know about or understand. And that "something" may well be your synchronicity however that is not my point.

To re-iterate my point: at least some of the type of evidence you have claimed allowed you to come to the conclusion that there is something called "synchronicity" is in fact objective evidence that we all could examine even if we couldn't all come to the same conclusion.