Explain this SERENDIPITY and these COINCIDENCES?

The_Sage theeSage at azrmci.net
Tue Jul 22 21:22:55 EST 2003


>Reply to article by: "John H." <john at faraway.com>
>Date written: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:54:25 +1000
>MsgID:<3f1cb50a at dnews.tpgi.com.au>

>>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?

Haha! You think you are so smart, but I'm about to prove just how
'smart' you really are...

Humans have never demonstrated any 24 hour (circadian) CYCLES but they
do have demonstrated 24 hour RHYTHMS. The difference between a cycle
and rhythm is that a cycle is a mechanical process whereas a rhythm is
when they become accustomed or ADAPT to an external cycle, like the
cycle of sunset/sunrise. In France in the 70's they did experiments on
three men in caves and they didn't demonstrate any circadian cycles.
When scientists attempted to reproduce that experiment using a more
proper sampling size, again, no circadian cycles were demonstrated.
People would just randomly start sleeping and waking at all different
times of the night and day.

So you have gone from smartass to dumbass in one easy step. But do you
want to see something even stupider? Try this on for size...

  John H wrote on 07/20/2003:
  V. unlikely you would remember your mother's face at 6 weeks of age.
  Nigh impossible actually.

  The_Sage wrote on 07/21/2003:
  Why would it be impossible?

  John H gave no reply

  The_Sage also wrote on 07/21/2003:
  I [am] 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.

  John H wrote on 07/22/2003:
  You made the claim that a child can remember at 6 weeks. Now   
  prove that.

Since I never ever made that claim Johnny boy, there is nothing to
prove or disprove. But thanks for proving that you are rambling
instead of thinking before you speak.

You are dodging and evading the subject, you can't pay attention to
what was actually said, but I'm about to change that too. Here was the
original issue, let's if you can respond to it in a mature and factual
manner instead of ranting and raving like a lunatic, okay? Here goes,
pay attention this time and think (really think) before you reply...

  In regards to John H extraordinary claim of the improbable 
  paranormal/synchronicitous phone call:

  Probability is also an appellation and not an explanation. From an
  objective point of view, probability means nothing unless the
  probability is exactly zero. And that is what Jung meant by
  synchronicity -- meaninful coincidences that have zero probability 
  of occuring.

  Take a deck of playing cards for example. The odds of getting a 
  royal flush at any one time are 649,739.0:1, which is somewhat rare,
  but does that mean it is impossible to get a royal flush? You and I 
  know if you play cards long enough, eventually you will get a royal 
  flush, but will that mean when you do get a royal flush it will 
  become a coincidence or a synchronicity? The answer is no to all of 
  the above. Now if while you are playing cards, you shout, "Come on 
  royal flush" and a royal flush occurs, that would be an example of a
  coincidence. But if you had a 'significant' dream of winning a royal
  flush at 2PM the next day, and the next day you got a royal flush at
  2PM the next day, now that would be an example of a synchronicity.

  The odds of getting a royal flush are irrelevant, it is the odds of
  your dream causing or predicting that you would get a royal flush,
  since the odds of a dream being able to influence reality in this
  manner is zero, since no conceiveable way is known that could 
  explain how dreams cause or would predict that you would get a royal
  flush.

  From a subjective point of view, synchronicities are paranormal or
  magical and therefore not in the realm of science, especially since
  there is not one valid, properly documented and publicized case of
  someone writing down a dream or foreknowledge of an event way in
  advance of the event, and then having the event occur just as the
  dream or foreknowledge predicted it would. All we ever have are 
  after the fact storytales where we have to take somebody at their 
  word that it happened. Jung was no exception to this. But what is 
  most significant about synchronicities isn't that they don't exist 
  outside of our imagination, but that so many people want to pretend 
  they exist and want to pretend that they are 'special' enough to 
  have a few here and there. The reason for people wanting this tells 
  us alot about the psychology of humans.

Now either give an intelligent reply to that this time 'round or just
admit the obvious: that you have nothing intelligent to refute it
with.

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