Synchronicity surrounding schizoprenia/mystical/psychedelic/religious experiences.

[John Nowak]

I realize that anecdotal evidence is the worst form of evidence, and that no one should believe anything based on anecdotes. But there are so many of those stories that I doubt they're all making stuff up.

Just yesterday I was listening to a podcast titled This Week in Parasitism where the hosts discussed a possible correlation between toxoplasmosis and schizophrenia and pointed out there was a correlation between the number of films made with Nicholas Cage and deaths by drowning. Correlation isn't causation.

Extra Bonus Coincidence: although I've been listening for years, this is the second time I've mentioned this podcast on this site in the last week.

 

[steenkh]

A while ago we had a poster here who thought it had great significance that he and his wife saw Mexican license plates in place where Mexicans rarely come. The question was how those poor Mexcians were forced to drive to that place in order for some synchronicity to happen.

 

[Fudbucker]

I have considered myself a skeptic for a while, (not a very good one though.) Recently I found out about the phenomenon of "synchronicity," and so far I haven't found a rational explanation for it's occurrence. "Littlewood's law" and "the law of truly large numbers" do explain it pretty well for the most part.

Here's my problem: why do these events almost always surround a state of either a mystical/spiritual/religious experience, schizophrenic episode, psychedelic episode. There's got to be something to them occurring more frequently during, or surrounding a time when your brain was not working normally right? But these events do seem to happen objectively, and aren't merely a faulty memory or hallucination, since many anecdotes state others noticing the phenomenon too.

I realize that anecdotal evidence is the worst form of evidence, and that no one should believe anything based on anecdotes. But there are so many of those stories that I doubt they're all making stuff up.

Whether you believe in synchronicity (and having been married 15 years, and seen it in action, I tend to) will be determined by how much significance you attach to coincidence, which will be determined by your overall view of reality.

Consider Zener card tests (the cards with the squiggly marks on them that ESP people are supposed to guess correctly). Someone who gets 100 out of 100 is either psychic or cheating. Coincidence totally fails as an explanation (and if multiple trials are demanded, getting 100 out of 100 right is the same as getting 50 out of 50 right on two separate occasions, or 25 out of 25 four different times).

It's the middle ground where people differ. What if someone gets 50% of the cards right out of 100 tries? There are five different cards, so even getting half right, out of 100 tries, puts the result well outside of the realm of chance: the person either cheated or something else happened.

But what about getting 30 of them right, out of 100 tries? Now it gets tricky, because there's about a 1% chance of getting 30 (or more) cards right. And let's say we retest the person, and they get 25 right, which is still beating the odds, but barely. And on the third try, they again get 25.

I think a lot of people here would not be impressed by those results (or at least not impressed enough to consider something like synchronicity to be a viable explanation), but the odds of getting 80+ cards right out of 300 (which is what the three trials total out to) are very low. Someone check my math, but I believe it's around 1 in 3,000.

Now suppose the person just stopped testing. They were sick of it. And now all we have are these three trials from this one person. What do we make of it? How much weight should the coincidence hypothesis be given? Is it reasonable to conclude the person just got lucky? Is it also reasonable to conclude they displayed so low-level psychic ability? I don't think this is an easy answer, and I'm as leery of people who automatically claim ESP as much as I am people who claim "luck". My worldview is such that I don't entirely trust the scientific materialist view of reality. It's been wrong too many times. Paradigm shifts are the norm. There's too much we still don't know about the universe (we can only identify 5% of the universe- the rest is mysterious dark matter/energy) to adamantly rule out either explanation.

 

[Pixel42]

What if someone gets 50% of the cards right out of 100 tries? There are five different cards, so even getting half right, out of 100 tries, puts the result well outside of the realm of chance

Probability theory tells us the likelihood of each result, but no result is "outside the realm of chance". Test enough people and some will get very unlikely results; test even a few people and there is a small chance someone will get an unlikely result.

There are billions of people and billions of things that have a billion-to-one chance of happening. Most people can expect to witness or experience at least one in the course of an average lifetime.

 

[Fudbucker]

Probability theory tells us the likelihood of each result, but no result is "outside the realm of chance". Test enough people and some will get very unlikely results; test even a few people and there is a small chance someone will get an unlikely result.

There are billions of people and billions of things that have a billion-to-one chance of happening. Most people can expect to witness or experience at least one in the course of an average lifetime.

Of course there are results that are "outside the realm of chance". If I asked you to think of a six digit number, and I correctly told you what it was. You would be amazed. If I did it three more times, you would have to be an idiot to think I just got lucky, even though it's still possible I just got lucky.

I could do it 100 times in a row, and still just be getting lucky, but I assume eventually you would ditch the "chance hypothesis". Right?

 

[steenkh]

Of course there are results that are "outside the realm of chance". If I asked you to think of a six digit number, and I correctly told you what it was. You would be amazed. If I did it three more times, you would have to be an idiot to think I just got lucky, even though it's still possible I just got lucky.

That was not the argument. "Outside the realm of chance" in your case is connected with a single person that can repeat the performance, but the argument was about testing lots and lots of persons, and then you will eventually get a positive result. The chance that the performance can be repeated is of course slim.

 

[Fudbucker]

That was not the argument. "Outside the realm of chance" in your case is connected with a single person that can repeat the performance, but the argument was about testing lots and lots of persons, and then you will eventually get a positive result. The chance that the performance can be repeated is of course slim.

It depends on how positive the result is, which goes back to my original point.

Let's say we've tested, oh, ten thousand people over the years in various controlled psychic tests. The results would form a bell curve with some people performing horribly, most people being average, and some who've done really well. Two points to make:

1. For the people who do really well, how far do we push the chance hypothesis? A 1-in-a-100,000 result? 1 in a million result? 1 in ten million? Different people are going to point to different results as significant. Maybe for a scientist it's one-in-a-billion. Maybe for me, who's on the fence, it's one-in-a-million. Maybe for Suzie, who's into New Age stuff, it's 1 in 100,000. How do we decide who's right? We're going to fall back on our worldviews, and the discussion will get very philosophical and won't produce any results.

2. The number of people we test is only significant if we assume psychic ability is uniformly distributed across the population. That the chance of displaying some psychic ability is like the chance of winning the lottery: equal for everyone. But that's just an assumption. What if only 5 in 10,000 people have any ability at all? What if I test 10,000 people, and five score really high (they beat the odds by 1 in 100,000). How do I know I haven't just identified the five people who would have scored high had I just tested them? I would retest them, over and over again, and see if there's a regression to the mean, but obviously a lot of people aren't going to want to be tested over and over again. So if I do a large trial, and get some anomalous results, and those people don't want to be in the follow-up trial, how should I interpret the results? It's going to come down to how one views reality, and while you might not agree with the theist, or the immaterialist, or the person who thinks we're living in a simulation, it's impossible to prove them wrong.

To get back to synchronicity, if my worldview is already theistic, or idealistic, apparent cases of synchronicity just confirm what I already suspected (or had no reason not to suspect): sometimes people read each other's minds (or a bit of code in the Matrix is shared by two people, or a part of the dream we're all in, whatever). If my worldview is materialistic, synchronicity is nothing more than coincidence. In the end, you can't convince me materialism is the preferred -ism anymore than I can convince you that this is all a dream.

Which is why these threads where people are so sure of themselves are so amusing.

 

[marplots]

Of course there are results that are "outside the realm of chance". If I asked you to think of a six digit number, and I correctly told you what it was. You would be amazed. If I did it three more times, you would have to be an idiot to think I just got lucky, even though it's still possible I just got lucky.

I could do it 100 times in a row, and still just be getting lucky, but I assume eventually you would ditch the "chance hypothesis". Right?

Actually, chance remains in the mix. This is why mere unlikelihood doesn't get one all the way to an explanation. What's need, to flesh things out, is another ingredient - a plausible chain of cause and effect which seems more likely than chance.

The reason for this is simple. Chance is measured by how likely something is to happen. If you are able to guess the 6-digit number, it may be that something extremely unlikely is happening (which, I take it was the purpose of choosing that example), or it may be that I have miscalculated the odds. If it were normal for people to guess correctly, I would have to revisit my calculation of the odds, not accept that a correct guess was extremely rare.

In any case, the rarity of an event - all by itself - doesn't tell you anything in particular other than what you think is a rare event happened. The context is missing, and there's a whole universe of context to look at. A rare event that comes bare - without some good explanation attached - simply remains a rare, unexplained, event. Naked.

Yes, I am surprised. But surprised is just the start - a way to get attention. Surprise has no intrinsic meaning by itself.

 

[Fudbucker]

Actually, chance remains in the mix. This is why mere unlikelihood doesn't get one all the way to an explanation. What's need, to flesh things out, is another ingredient - a plausible chain of cause and effect which seems more likely than chance.

The reason for this is simple. Chance is measured by how likely something is to happen. If you are able to guess the 6-digit number, it may be that something extremely unlikely is happening (which, I take it was the purpose of choosing that example), or it may be that I have miscalculated the odds. If it were normal for people to guess correctly, I would have to revisit my calculation of the odds, not accept that a correct guess was extremely rare.

In any case, the rarity of an event - all by itself - doesn't tell you anything in particular other than what you think is a rare event happened. The context is missing, and there's a whole universe of context to look at. A rare event that comes bare - without some good explanation attached - simply remains a rare, unexplained, event. Naked.

Yes, I am surprised. But surprised is just the start - a way to get attention. Surprise has no intrinsic meaning by itself.

The surprisingness of the event (A) is measured against the probability of the best competing explanation being true (B), and both (A) and (B) are influenced by all sorts of background beliefs and worldviews. Is spontaneous remission of someone's cancer surprising? If I'm the doctor in charge, it's surprising and unexpected, although I know it happens sometimes, so it's not going to make me rethink my views on medicine. If I'm a theist and I prayed and believe I'm right with god, my cancer going away isn't surprising in the least. It's simply what I expected to happen. Those other people who prayed and it didn't go away- they weren't trying hard enough.

To go back to my mind-reading example. If I got the numbers right the first time, it's a 1 in a million chance I did it by guessing. That's pretty surprising. But if one is a materialist and believes science has essentially ruled out the existence of mind-reading, that one-off event, while surprising, might not convince a person, because to them the existence of mind-reading would be even more surprising than me getting the number right. I think this is a bit close-minded, but I can understand it. Sometimes people get lucky.

If I did it again, it probably would convince most people. The odds of me doing it twice are 1 in a trillion, and the odds of mind-reading being a real phenomenon should not be pegged that low. That seems very close-minded. I think I would win Randi's discontinued challenge if I predicted I could do that (and did it twice under controlled circumstances).

If I did it three times, and it didn't convince someone, probably nothing will, because the odds of me doing that three times in a row are vanishingly remote. If that wouldn't convince a person, it's because they're wedded to the mind-reading-is-impossible belief no matter how many times I get the number right. That kind of worldview is fanatical.

 

[Pixel42]

The more people you test with something like Zener cards the better you expect the distribution of results to fit the distribution predicted by the laws of probability - unless there is something other than chance going on, ie there are people with genuine paranormal abilities. Before you even do the test you can specify the result that would cause you to reject the null hypothesis.

 

[marplots]

If I did it three times, and it didn't convince someone, probably nothing will, because the odds of me doing that three times in a row are vanishingly remote. If that wouldn't convince a person, it's because they're wedded to the mind-reading-is-impossible belief no matter how many times I get the number right. That kind of worldview is fanatical.

This isn't quite right, because it leaves out the position of not having a good explanation at all - which ought to be the default position.

There are testable consequences of accepting the mind-reading hypothesis that would add (or subtract) from the explanation offered, so there's no real demand to make a decision with the information at hand (the surprising event).

This is why phenomena themselves are not explanations, but merely suggest things that might be the target of an explanation. Saying "mind reading" and leaving it there is no more informative than saying "I can see three minutes into the future" or anything else that comes to mind. The phenomenon does not come, necessarily, with enough associations to generate an explanation I would accept, nor should it, nor should I.

You are overemphasizing one part of a more involved process, a process which connects some new thing to all the other things I believe I understand. The demonstration is a necessary link in the chain, but it is not the whole chain.

 

[Fudbucker]

This isn't quite right, because it leaves out the position of not having a good explanation at all - which ought to be the default position.

There doesn't have to be a "good" explanation. There just has to be an explanation that is more probable than me getting the number in your head right X times in a row. The more times I get it right, the worse the chance explanation becomes, until it becomes so bad that even outrageously wacky theories make more sense.

There are testable consequences of accepting the mind-reading hypothesis that would add (or subtract) from the explanation offered, so there's no real demand to make a decision with the information at hand (the surprising event).

I don't agree. If you said you could read my mind in the way I described, and did it three times, and then went away laughing, I'm going to have to update some beliefs. I can't just ignore the fact that it happened. Surprising results have to be explained, that's why science loves them so much. Look at the salivating going on in particle physics over some LHC readings that suggest there might be a new particle to discover. And those results are just a few deviations away from random noise.

Let's take you personally. Suppose someone did what I described, three times in a row. Five times in a row. Ten times. Whatever. After SOME number of times, you would be convinced it's not chance. And then you would have to come up with some non-chance hypothesis. That would require some deliberation, but chucking the chance explanation wouldn't. At some point, it would just be absurd to think what's going on is chance. It would be like flipping a coin heads a hundred times in a row. There's a lot of things to decide about the coin after that happens, but the coin being fair is not one of them. That would be rejected probably around the 20th toss.

This is why phenomena themselves are not explanations, but merely suggest things that might be the target of an explanation. Saying "mind reading" and leaving it there is no more informative than saying "I can see three minutes into the future" or anything else that comes to mind. The phenomenon does not come, necessarily, with enough associations to generate an explanation I would accept, nor should it, nor should I.

It IS more informative, because it means you have rejected one of the standard hypotheses in cases like these: chance.

You are overemphasizing one part of a more involved process, a process which connects some new thing to all the other things I believe I understand. The demonstration is a necessary link in the chain, but it is not the whole chain.

The more surprising the result, the more emphasis we're going to place on it. If the moon suddenly disappeared, we couldn't emphasize it enough.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

It's nice to speculate, but no one is guessing million to one answers better than chance. If they do, the most probable explanation is trickery.

 

[Pixel42]

The odds of me doing it twice are 1 in a trillion, and the odds of mind-reading being a real phenomenon should not be pegged that low. That seems very close-minded. I think I would win Randi's discontinued challenge if I predicted I could do that (and did it twice under controlled circumstances).

Yes, it's the repeatability that makes it convincing. That's why the JREF MDC required an applicant to beat 1 in 1000 odds twice. You would certainly have won it if you could do as you imagine. The point is that, although many people genuinely imagined they had such powers, none of them actually did.

 

[marplots]

There doesn't have to be a "good" explanation. There just has to be an explanation that is more probable than me getting the number in your head right X times in a row. The more times I get it right, the worse the chance explanation becomes, until it becomes so bad that even outrageously wacky theories make more sense.

That would depend on the probability you have assigned to the "outrageously wacky theory" - how are you doing that? (Some assign it zero, so chance still beats it.)

I don't agree. If you said you could read my mind in the way I described, and did it three times, and then went away laughing, I'm going to have to update some beliefs.

I have a strong bias here because I practice magic (the entertainment kind, not the supernatural kind). In a sense, my "job" is to create situations where what you describe seems to be the case. These experiences have me defaulting to trickery, when chance won't do.

 

[Fudbucker]

It's nice to speculate, but no one is guessing million to one answers better than chance. If they do, the most probable explanation is trickery.

Well, that certainly would be at the top of the list. I think someone argued here that no matter what kind of controls were involved, no matter what phenomena was displayed, they would also favor the "cheating" hypothesis over the "paranormal stuff is happening" hypothesis.

 

[Fudbucker]

That would depend on the probability you have assigned to the "outrageously wacky theory" - how are you doing that? (Some assign it zero, so chance still beats it.)

The only theories with zero probabilities are logically impossible theories. None of those kinds of explanations are considered because they can't possibly be true.

So suppose I flipped a coin a million times and it came up heads each time. The theory that invisible alien unicorns are determining the result would be more believable than chance.

I have a strong bias here because I practice magic (the entertainment kind, not the supernatural kind). In a sense, my "job" is to create situations where what you describe seems to be the case. These experiences have me defaulting to trickery, when chance won't do.

I think it was you, Marplots, who would always go with the trickery explanation, no matter how well we set up the controls.

Fair enough, you know how easily people can be fooled. But I don't think trickery is a good explanation in a case of straight-up mind-reading (like someone telling me I'm thinking of my 8th birthday and the space-invaders watch I was so excited to get when that's exactly what I'm thinking about), and this just illustrates how important our background beliefs are when evaluating new evidence.

 

[marplots]

The only theories with zero probabilities are logically impossible theories. None of those kinds of explanations are considered because they can't possibly be true.

So suppose I flipped a coin a million times and it came up heads each time. The theory that invisible alien unicorns are determining the result would be more believable than chance.

I don't think that follows, since chance holds the same status as the invisible alien unicorns - that is, not logically impossible.

I think it was you, Marplots, who would always go with the trickery explanation, no matter how well we set up the controls.

I am biased that way, yes. But to make an actual judgement (instead of the recommended holding off) I would want to come up with some idea of how the trickery were accomplished, or at least find room for it - the distinctive "smell" of trickery.

Fair enough, you know how easily people can be fooled. But I don't think trickery is a good explanation in a case of straight-up mind-reading (like someone telling me I'm thinking of my 8th birthday and the space-invaders watch I was so excited to get when that's exactly what I'm thinking about), and this just illustrates how important our background beliefs are when evaluating new evidence.

True enough. I do have one advantage though. I can show someone how the trickery is accomplished (sometimes). That's pretty convincing. It still doesn't solve all the problems though, since someone could always claim that trickery was just mimicking a phenomenon that didn't, itself, rely on falsehoods.

 

[Fudbucker]

I don't think that follows, since chance holds the same status as the invisible alien unicorns - that is, not logically impossible.

Ehhh, it's far-fetched, and invisibility might be metaphysically impossible (like water not being H2O), but we'd start having a real wonky discussion if we went that far.

I am biased that way, yes. But to make an actual judgement (instead of the recommended holding off) I would want to come up with some idea of how the trickery were accomplished, or at least find room for it - the distinctive "smell" of trickery.



True enough. I do have one advantage though. I can show someone how the trickery is accomplished (sometimes). That's pretty convincing. It still doesn't solve all the problems though, since someone could always claim that trickery was just mimicking a phenomenon that didn't, itself, rely on falsehoods.

Well, and your background knowledge is such that since you know about magic you know people can easily be fooled. I don't think we're disagreeing by much and are on the same page.

RE: the thread title: It's happened enough to my wife and I that we both believe it's a real phenomena (she, more than myself). But the evidence is so flimsy and sporadic, I certainly wouldn't wager a large sum on synchronicty being a real phenomenon.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Ehhh, it's far-fetched, and invisibility might be metaphysically impossible (like water not being H2O), but we'd start having a real wonky discussion if we went that far.




Well, and your background knowledge is such that since you know about magic you know people can easily be fooled. I don't think we're disagreeing by much and are on the same page.

RE: the thread title: It's happened enough to my wife and I that we both believe it's a real phenomena (she, more than myself). But the evidence is so flimsy and sporadic, I certainly wouldn't wager a large sum on synchronicty being a real phenomenon.

The evidence for dreams actually predicting future events is not flimsy and sporadic. It is total crap. nothing there.

People are often easy to fool. Sometimes people are very difficult to fool, but most people who are not familiar with conjuring, scams or trickery in general severely underestimate how far some will go to fool others.