Explain this SERENDIPITY and these COINCIDENCES?

The_Sage theeSage at azrmci.net
Wed Jul 23 20:02:32 EST 2003

>Reply to article by: "John H." <john at faraway.com>
>Date written: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 16:28:31 +1000
>MsgID:<3f1e2aa9 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,

No one said it had to be precisely 24 hours so stop inventing strawmen
and face the fact: no circadian cycles have been demonstrated to exist
in humans. When left to themselves with no alarm clocks and no way to
know if it is day or night outside, humans sleep and wake at random
times -- and random is the opposite of CIRCADIAN.

>you need entrainment, and again you missed my
>central point. You stated that the unconscious has no concept of time. It

I got your point exactly, hence the reason I pointed out that nothing
you covered has anything to do with the unconscious mind but instead
with the AUTONOMIC NERVOUS SYSTEM of the BRAIN. Which word didn't you
understand? Obviously you don't understand what "unconscious mind"
means because nothing you've covered is even remotely related to the
unconscious or conscoius mind.

But as usaul, you are taking a small post and turning it into an
off-topic mountain. That is your way of trying to dodge and evade the
original subject, so let me snip the bullshit and get back to that
topic and see if you answered it or not...

<Snip the BS>

>>  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

Yep, you took the cowards way out again. There is no such thing as a
spooky universe except in your poorly thought out imagination.

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