Explain this SERENDIPITY and these COINCIDENCES?

John H. john at faraway.com
Mon Jul 21 22:54:25 EST 2003

johnYYYcoe at tpg.com.au

remove YYY in reply
"The_Sage" <theeSage at azrmci.net> wrote in message
news:l03phv0v68rll88u8gvk1rd5o1ls82lnqd at 4ax.com...
> >Reply to article by: "John H." <john at faraway.com>
> >Date written: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 14:50:48 +1000
> >MsgID:<3f1b70bc at dnews.tpgi.com.au>
> >>>'Co-incidence' is an appellation, not an explanation.
> >>That is exactly why coincidences are very important to psychologists
> >>since the reason for the appellation tells us more about the
> >>psychology of humans than it ever would about physically real reality.
> >Unconscious has no concept of time? Ever heard of circadian cycles?
> Since when are humans circadias?

Do you mean to say that you have never heard of circadian cycles? You've got
to be kidding me, I thought first year undergrads in psychology etc would
have been made aware of circadian cycles. If you don't believe me, go to
www.sfn.org and check out the poster abstracts for the upcoming SFN meeting,
you'll find my name there regarding subtle circadian disassociations
mediated via various factors. So you don't believe in circadian rhythms but
I can get a presentation at the premier Neuroscience forum each year. Give
me a break.

> >Explain to me why many people report waking up just prior to their
> >alarm clock going off. There is nothing spooky about this, the
> >unconscious can be a very capable time keeper. For example, even
> >though I use a diary I am often reminded by my "unconscious" that I
> >have an appt at time X.
> That isn't your unconscious that is reminding you, so your point is
> invalid.

I'm asleep dammit.

> >Sorry, I can't follow your thinking here. To begin with, there was no
> >stress, at the time I was very relaxed.
> The opposite of psychological 'stress' is not 'relaxed'. Psychological
> stress simply means 'change'. The more sudden the change, the greater
> the stress level. Happy events and sad events can be equally
> stressful.
> And stress is something that accumulates, so it doesn't matter what
> you were doing right at the moment of the phone call, what matters is
> how much change had you been going through in the last day, week, or
> even year (if the stress level is high enough, say like the death of a
> spouse).

But the problem here is you are generalising. I may have been stressed but
at the time I didn't feel stressed and in fact was quite relaxed watching
the news. Just because some research shows that event A produces stress does
not ALWAYS mean that the stress is deleterious or pathological. For some it
will be, others thrive on stress and often a little stress is very useful to
cognition, raises nore particularly which helps focus prefrontal functions.

> >Nor did I attribute cause,
> But you did attribute cause, you assumed that you got up to plug in
> the phone because some magical force was prompting you to do so, just
> in time to listen to Jane.

No, I simply gave an account of what happened. I don't know what caused it.
It may have been magical, it may have been co-incidence. The question
remains open to me, but you, using your precious all embracing insight, have
already decided that it was a pathological response on my part.

> >I was simply surprised at the event and more surprised when others
> >told me that they also have experienced the same (and these others are
> >very much rationalists).
> You can't believe everything that everyone tells you.

Including you.

> >Ironically, psychology is often guilty of making the very same mistake
> >you are accusing me of: it seeks causes after the fact. This is
> >exactly what you have done here, surmised I attributed cause and
> >surmised I was stressed. Surprise is not stress,
> Since 'surprize' is defined as "To encounter suddenly or unexpectedly;
> take or catch unawares", it most definitely is a form of stress since
> it is a *sudden* change.

A common factor in stress responses as an increase in cortisol and amines
via the HPA axis, together with rises in il1, 6, and sometimes 12. The
matter is far too complex to go into detail here, read the reference below.
In any event, to argue that because a person is stressed their cognition is
affected is to say, by your definition of stress, that we all will make
logical errors all the time.

> >that is like saying that if you throw a surprise party for someone you
> >are subjecting them to stress.
> Exactly. Your true ignorance of what psychology is very apparent. See
> http://www.stresstips.com/lifeevents.htm for an example of what you
> are missing. Christmas is an example of a time of surprize and
> happiness that therefore is also a time of stress.

For some people yes, but to generalise and say that stress is cognitively
disabling all the time is nonsense. Moreover, given your demand for semantic
pedantry, I suggest you consider the inherent problem of the very word
"stress". As various neurobiological studies indicate, the stress response
is not a single thing but changes considerably depending on context and the
type of stressor. Seyle made an excellent start but even he acknowledged
that because English was not his first language something was lost in his
translations. Don't generalise the concept of stress, that is very stupid.
Get educated, start with

Stressor Specificity of Central Neuroendocrine
Responses: Implications for Stress-Related Disorders
Pediatric and Reproductive Endocrinology Branch (K.P.), National Institute
of Child Health and Human Development and
Clinical Neurocardiology Section (K.P.), National Institute of Neurological
Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of
Health, Bethesda, Maryland; Laboratory of Genetics (M.P.), National
Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of
Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-1583; and Laboratory of Neuromorphology,
Semmelweis University, 1094 Budapest,
Hungary (M.P.)

Endocrine Reviews 22(4):502-548
Printed in U.S.A. Copyright © 2001 by The Endocrine Society

If I want to study stress, I'll study it at this level thank you. I'm not
interested in the psychology of stress, only its neurobiology.

> >>>Naturally I disdain all forms of religion, including rationalism.
> >>By definition for the word religion, rationalism is not a religion, it
> >>is a philosophy.
> >Philosophy, religion, I'm not interested in semantic pendantry,
> Well I am and you should too if you want to have an intelligent
> dialog.
> >the point I was making is that some think rational thought is the
> >answer to everything. It isn't. Look at the history of science, it is
> >amazing how many fundamental dogmas shift over time.
> I prefer evolution over stagnation but apparently you don't feel the
> same way about it as I do.

> Give some examples of some legitimate alternatives then.

Try some common sense, you need it.

> >>>The universe is spooky, get used to it.
> >>Prove it then, because it certainly isn't spooky for me.
> >I suggest you take note of Einstein's dictum that he has lost a sense
> >of wonder of the universe is lost to science.
> >Or for that matter look at the number of physicists who have gone
> >spooky (Penrose and tubules rubbish, Bohm, Tippler, ... ) I am not
> >saying there is something to this supernatural stuff, I'm saying I
> >just don't know but refuse to rationalise away in the inexplicable
> >bits of reality. That is what religions do, deductively determine the
> >cause of this or that.
> Look at the even more numerous physicists who believe that is all
> rubbish.

Irrelevant, the point is some do head that way. YOu say science is not a
democracy and then insist that because the greater mass refute something it
must be rubbish. As Ricardo said in an account of Galileo: "The spark of
reason in one man is worth more than the opinion embodied in thousands of
others." For a whole decade two Aus doctors argued with the medical
establishment vis a vis ulcers, they claimed these could be cured with antib
iotics. They faced severe opposition and were roundly criticised. Yet now
antibiotics are the standard treatment. Or consider that for many years most
geneticists considered Junk DNA to be just that, in the past 3 years we now
know that is not the case. A fundamental theory said that this could not be
so, that theory aint so fundamental anymore. Note the warning of Max Planck

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
opponents and making them see the light, but rather because
its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows
up that is familiar with the idea from the beginning."

Max Planck

> And likewise, science doesn't end by using the unknown (like particle
> physics still is) to explain the known. It simply says, "Insufficient
> data to make *ANY* conclusion" -- including your conclusion that the
> dual slit experiment proves anything that you claim it does. The dual
> slit is irrelevant because it can't prove or disprove anything.

Science never ends, by your admission it must evolve. Consider psychiatric
drugs. We use a drug of often unknown effects to treat a disorder of unknown
etiology. This is so common in this realm.

> >If you choose not to investigate something because it is unknown, then
> >you choose to remain ignorant forever of that thing.
> Well then I have nothing to worry about since I have never done that
> in regards to this issue. You aren't making up things about me as you
> go along, are you? It would be kind of hard for you to prove what I
> know or don't know since you don't know me or my education...unless
> you want to propose you have some form of ESP that allows you to
> magically know these things without having to do any research
> whatsoever?
> >>>>>>No, I won't argue the case, it's all up for grabs for me. I practice
> >>>>>>science, I don't believe in it; and I'm not that fucking arrogant as
> >>>>>>to believe that there's an explanation for everything.
> >>>>>Nor does everything need an explanation.
> >>>>V. unlikely you would remember your mother's face at 6 weeks of age.
> >>>>impossible actually.
> >>>Why would it be impossible?
> >>Show me one documented case of a child who remembers memories at 6 weeks
of age.
> >You demonstrate a puzzling dichotomy here, you attribute causes to a
> >complete stranger and demand proof that something isn't impossible.
> >Shouldn't you demand that before asserting the possibility there is
> >evidence in support of the same? One could just as well say, "why are
> >paranormal phenomena impossible." The question cannot be answered. Are
> >you not making the same error as myself? Hmmm, we are human after all.
> >Now ain't that a pisser?
> No, I simply asking you for the facts and you simply aren't going to
> provide any, therefore the proper thing to do is to doubt the truth of
> your claim/assertion. You made the claim, now let's see if you can
> back it up. I would hate to think that you made up "facts" as you go
> along in a dialog.

No, you made the claim that a child can remember at 6 weeks. Now prove that.
I asked you for evidence of this. My evidence is simple, to utilise your
demand: show me the evidence of this. The prevailing view is that nearly all
childhood memories are lost at 5-8 years of age (interesting given
hippocampal changes at this time).

Ironically you contradict yourself here. YOur web page states

"If a theory does not forbid something to happen or exist then logically we
must assume that this certain thing could happen or exist. "

There is no logical proof against paranormal phenomena, though there
certainly is lots of empirical evidence to discount the possibility of the
same. However, until a few years ago neuroscientists believed that no new
brain cells were created in the adult brain because there was no empirical
evidence for the same, we now know otherwise (dentate gyrus and obfactory
bulb particularly) and very valuable for clinical purposes. The prevailing
theory of the time said it wasn't possible, now with new evidence,
contradicting the previous theories, we state otherwise. This is a prime
example of where once cherished theories are proved wrong by further
investigation. Theories come and go, and so do "facts".

> The Sage
> =============================================================
> My Home Page      :           http://members.cox.net/the.sage
> "Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone you still
> exist, but you have cease to live" -- Mark Twain
> =============================================================

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list