Explain this SERENDIPITY and these COINCIDENCES?

SynchroniCity synchronicity at realinternet.net
Fri Jul 25 18:22:25 EST 2003


John H. <john at faraway.com> wrote in message
news:3f20c05d at dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Thanks for the link. By the way, for more on circadian cycles in humans
look
> at http://www.scirus.com/, "circadian cycles" AND human, I'm sure there'll
> be a bunch of references relating to the same. Circadian cycles even exist
> in single cell creatures. The mechanism is very complex and involves an
> amazing array of genes interacting to maintain a remarkably stable
> biological clock. Moreover, research is now indicating that even some
> specific organs have their own clock and that the master clock in humans,
> the SCN, is a regulator of these other clocks. I've spent some time
looking
> at this time and recently have even found research indicating how
differing
> frequencies of light have differing effects on entrainment. There *may*
even
> be some evidence that circadian cycles are entrained by non-light
> stimulation but I'm still not sure about that. Clocks evolved very early
and
> highly preserved through evolution. The strange thing is that the
endogenous
> circadian cycle does not move on a 24 hour cycle but is slightly off.
>
>
> John H>

Fromm Rey of SynchroniCity:

You're welcome and thanks for the education.    I won't be of much help
because my "cup of tea" and focus
of attention is on the topic of "synchronicity", although I do comment when
I see some  connection in 'almost' all fields of knowledge.

I'm not sure if you are interested in this bit of info, but the hubble,
according to Rocky Kolb and Michael Turner, astrophysicists from Argonne
Laboratories and Professors at University of Chicago,  detected velocities
"faster than light".

They said that this was not the most interesting information, but that
"space" was being created faster than light is.

RE




>
> --
> johnYYYcoe at tpg.com.au
>
> remove YYY in reply
> "SynchroniCity" <synchronicity at realinternet.net> wrote in message
> news:BGFTa.131220$Ph3.16519 at sccrnsc04...
> >
> > 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