Explain this SERENDIPITY and these COINCIDENCES?

SynchroniCity synchronicity at realinternet.net
Wed Jul 23 19:24:01 EST 2003


John H. <john at faraway.com> wrote in message
news:3f1e2aa9 at dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>
> --
> johnYYYcoe at tpg.com.au
>
> remove YYY in reply
> "The_Sage" <theeSage at azrmci.net> wrote in message
> news:jiprhvgptqttig33kb2cu0c22burime5d9 at 4ax.com...
> > >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.
>
> Not set precisely to 24 hours, you need entrainment, and again you missed
my
> central point. You stated that the unconscious has no concept of time. It
> does. So what, in my rush I used the wrong word (cycles) but the fact
> remains that our bodies do maintain a sense of time. That it is regulated
> externally has no bearing on that fact. We have timekeepers, whether we
are
> conscious of the same or not. Moreover, blind people will demonstrate
> altered circadian rhythms but there remains a rhythm. Pinealocytes can
> demonstrate remarkable stability. If the scientists in the above
experiment
> lookedly closely enough they would see patterns (eg phase advance or
delay).
> Moreover the experiment is flawed because by placing people in such a
novel
> environment you will obtain all manner of varying responses depending on
the
> individual. Some people maintain rhythms much better than others, others
> phase advance in spite of entrainment. These are all very puzzling things
> and difficult to understand, circadian dynamics are integrated via various
> neuroendocrine elements. Eg. Even some em fields will impact on melatonin
> production.
>
>
> > 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
>
> Yes I did, scientific methods demands that demonstrate people can recall
> memories from 6 weeks of age. To ask why something is impossible is
> ludricous. In science the goal is to demonstrate what is possible. Look at
> the assumptions in your assertion
>
> You also have some
> similiarities to your mother and father, so if you naturally seek out
> a woman who looks like yourself, that woman will have characteristics
> of your mother and father...but you selectively ignore everything
> about this woman except for her similarity to your long lost mother
> because your long lost mother is what is most meaningful to you.
>
>
> Not everyone will have facial characteristics like their mother or father.
> Not everyone will be attracted to someone else with like features.
> You cannot be certain the individual selectively ignored other features.
>
>
> You are using as general argument which may be valid but not in every
> circumstance, it does not constitute a proven explanation, only a possible
> one. This comes back to my previous point, any argument from general
> principles must be validated in the specific instance. You can't go around
> invoking ad hoc explanations for why we act the way we do in every given
> instance. This is where so much of psychology runs into trouble, people
read
> about some theory of human cognition and then run around applying it to
> every instance. YOu made exactly the same type of logical error when you
> claimed that because I was surprised I was therefore stressed. Surprise
can
> equate with stress, but not all the time.
>
> >   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.
>
> I'm amazed that push this argument because it is distinguished from my
> example in that this is one incidence, not something that occurred over a
> number of trials, where the probability will improve. If person X rang me
> everyday then I would dismiss the same as co-incidence, but when you are
> talking about a a very infrequent event the analogy above fails because
for
> it to be valid you have to assert a high probability that even I played
just
> a few hands this afternoon I would hit a royal flush. For your analogy to
> have any validity the person would have to be trying to ring me everyday
for
> a many many days.  Even if the person had said to me, "I've been trying to
> ring you for the last few minutes" I would dismiss the incident, but it
was
> the very first time she tried to call. Now sit down and deal yourself a
hand
> and see how many trials it takes to get a royal flush. In this year the
> person involved has rung me at best a dozen times. So I'll allow you a
dozen
> deals.


Fromm Rey of SynchroniCity:

John,  you might be interested that the first scientist that ever studied
"coincidences" was a Biologist.  His name is Kammerer.
I'm not sure which of his works are translated into English from German,
but I've been using http://freetranslation.com  to help me translate  The
Law of Series.

Jung had some things to say on the point of biology and life without brains,
and these so called "cycles" :)

Pauli's vision of the universe as clocks was well understood by Jung.
Ferdinand Gonseth, Professor of Higher Mathematics has a great book about
these different types of clocks.

RE
> If you come up with a royal flush I suggest you take up gambling as a
career
> because you'll make a fortune. Don't patronise with straw men, I never
> addressed this argument in the first instance because it is demonstrably a
> false comparison.
>
>
>
> >   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