Explain this SERENDIPITY and these COINCIDENCES?

SynchroniCity synchronicity at realinternet.net
Wed Jul 23 19:12:43 EST 2003


John H. <john at faraway.com> wrote in message
news:3f1e1ea1 at dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> No, she does not regularly call me, most people don't because I tend not
to
> answer the phone anyway. Hate the bloody things because when I studying I
> hate distraction of any kind. (I'm the sort of person who will be buried
in
> words for 10 hours plus a day when in work mode.) Nor is it a miraculous
> phone call, just a puzzling one. The event in itself was surprising and I
> would have dismissed but when I re-iterated this event and some told me
how
> this has happened to them on a number of occasions, then I became
> interested. Sure, one could argue that these others had falsified
memories,
> but the onus there is to demonstrate that these others had falsified
> memories. An ad hoc explanation that they did is not evidence, it simply a
> possible explanation, not a proven one. Yes, I am well aware of
> confabulation and the labile nature of memory, but these things in
> themselves, while useful in investigating such incidences, must not be
used
> as proof these were the processes by which such associations came to be
> formed unless one can demonstrate that precisely in those given
incidences.
> ie. You can't use a general argument to refute a specific incidence unless
> it can be proven to be applicable in that particular incidence. Have
studied
> neuroscience for a number of years that has been a lesson I have had to
> learn on many occasions.
>
> --
> johnYYYcoe at tpg.com.au
>
> remove YYY in reply
> "The_Sage" <theeSage at azrmci.net> wrote in message
> news:e2orhvsavl338vmar43ejd5108oper90h4 at 4ax.com...
> > >Reply to article by: "Turtle0" <turtle0 at deleterogers.com>
> > >Date written: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 03:50:54 GMT
> > >MsgID:<yw2Ta.18777$%bQ.12709 at news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
> >
> > >Perhaps she called you after whatever she was watching was over which
was
> > >the same time the news was over and you were connecting the phone?
> Perhaps
> > >she also watches the news, it's always on at the same time, isn't it?
> >
> > >The phone line still carries a ring signal when there's no phone there
to
> > >recieve it so you wouldn't have needed to connect it the exact moment
she
> > >called, you might have connected it after the 1st or 2nd ring and still
> got
> > >the call.
> >
> > Not to mention, she hadn't called John in an awfully long time...over
> > two whole long weeks! Apparently she regulary called John in time
> > periods of less than two weeks before the 'miraculous' phone call.
> >
> > The Sage

Fromm Rey of SynchroniCity:

Getting away from the destructive 'misplaced concreteness', and the event
itself:

"Coincidences" are sometimes "acausal" and sometimes "causal".
Synchronicity is acausal.

For example,  let us consider the possibility that the time delay involved
the 'electromagnetic spectrum", or something similar.
A nueral cell firing technique went through the few cubic centimeters in the
skull from a remote location and the "collision" was "interpreted"
subconsciously as a coherent image.      IF it was caused, then it was not
"synchronicity".

However, if it were "CAUSED"  there is also much to study about the
insideous growth of the electronic media.  For all we know, RAIDios and
Tellusvisions drown out our awareness of these sorts of phenomenon.

RE
> >
> > =============================================================
> > 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