There's an interesting article, "The Odds of That", By LISA BELKIN,
in today's New York Times Magazine.
The Author correctly [in my view] recognizes that extreme positions
with respect to 'coincidence' are equally untennable.
So, what gives?
When can it be said that 'coincidence' correlates with meaningful
synchrony?
My approach to answering this Q entails databasing over the
long-term, then analyzing the data with respect to long-term
coincidence.
The longer the term within which coincidence holds, to the degree
that coincidence does clearly [not having to be 'debated'] hold, the
greater is the cross-correlation inherent in the 'coincidental'
synchrony.
This's exactly what NDT holds is the case with respect to the
development of the "prefrontal force" [AoK, Ap7], although, in the
mechanism of volition, there is active driving involved ["meta
motor-dominant" and "meta sensory-dominant" information-processing
"phases", AoK, Ap7].
The biggest 'caveat', inherent, is that 'coincidence' can be
'engineered' so that there is an appearance of there being
'meaningful' synchrony.
Such calculated 'deception' exists throughout nature. Moths and
birds, for instance, rely on 'protective coloration' through which
they 'synchronize' their appearances with elements in the
environments in which they exist. Chamelion [sp :-] are champions at
such 'engineered' synchrony.
Humans do the analogous thing within the realm of routine experience,
in order to 'gain advantage' within the 'social' millieux.
So, even though long-term repetitive 'coincidence' constitutes
'valid' synchrony, such does not, necessarily, coincide with Truth.
To ascertain Truth, requires long-term databasing with respect to
individual correlates with respect to 'coincidence'.
This last thing is so energy-consuming that it tends to make the
problem Hard, in terms of rendering the work inherent non-polynimial.
Which is why I 'just' go with Truth.
Avoids much, if not all, the Waste that's inherent in 'engineered'
synchrony.
Also tends to leave one 'alone' because one's non-participation in
routine 'deception' is experienced as 'unusual' within the 'social'
milieux, which induces folks who're familiar with 'deception' to
'move away from'.
All of the basic [Maths] stuff inherent in the above applies within
the nervous system, itself, and to the question of neural-synchrony
that's being discussed on the board.
So, although the question of there being synchrony, or not, is easy,
questions with respect to the meaning inherent in such neural
synchrony remain Hard.
Which, again, is why, long-ago, I decided to go with Truth -
eliminates the waste inherent in problem-solving.
Doesn't solve the problem of being-alone, though :-]
k. p. collins
