Explain this SERENDIPITY and these COINCIDENCES?
synchronicity at realinternet.net
Mon Jul 21 18:27:24 EST 2003
John H. <john at faraway.com> wrote in message
news:3f1b70bc at dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> johnYYYcoe at tpg.com.au
> remove YYY in reply
> "The_Sage" <theeSage at azrmci.net> wrote in message
> news:9a8mhv8981llhcvrljint4654e9hs8c891 at 4ax.com...
> > >Reply to article by: "John H." <john at faraway.com>
> > >Date written: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:25:42 +1000
> > >MsgID:<3f1a97ee at dnews.tpgi.com.au>
> > >'Co-incidence' is an appellation, not an explanation.
> > That is exactly why coincidences are very important to psychologists
> > since the reason for the appellation tells us more about the
> > psychology of humans than it ever would about physically real reality.
> Imagine what would have happened if Fleming noted the way the bacteria
> killed and let it go at that. He had no logical explanation for this and
> wrote up his results in 1928. It was until 1937 that Florey paid
> attention to this Fleming's little read paper that pencillin came into the
> world. In medicine particularly, logic often follows the application of a
> treatment (psychiatric drugs are a very good example in this regard - it
> taken decades to begin to appreciate why these are efficacious and to this
> day no-one claims with complete certainty why anti depressants work).
Fromm Rey of SynchroniCity:
He we have been a chest pounding self proclaimed "sage" who proved to
himself that it wasn't worth all the work he puts into it.
> > 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.
> Psychology is replete with after the fact stories of human behaviour and
> lousy at predicting the behaviour of individuals. Last count I heard,
> were over 300 different theories of human personality. If you read my post
> carefully you would note that I am undecided about such matters, the
> question remains open to me. I think it is very dangerous to dismiss
> by psychoanalyzing peoples' motives for such beliefs. That is the easy
> and allows rampant speculation, as the history of psychology and
> easily demonstrate. Think of Freud's madness, promulgated for years by
> intelligent and capable people and now virtually absent (thankfully!) from
> theories of human behaviour.
> > The unconscious has no concept of time and is prone to mix up cause
> > and effect, especially under times of stress. Your phone call is a
> > perfect example of that since hearing from a long lost girlfriend is a
> > sudden surprize (read: stress) and that 'jolt' was enough for you to
> > mix up your memories of cause and effect, creating a false memory.
> Unconscious has no concept of time? Ever heard of circadian cycles?
> to me why many people report waking up just prior to their alarm clock
> off. There is nothing spooky about this, the unconscious can be a very
> capable time keeper. For example, even though I use a diary I am often
> reminded by my "unconscious" that I have an appt at time X.
> Sorry, I can't follow your thinking here. To begin with, there was no
> stress, at the time I was very relaxed. Nor did I attribute cause, I was
> simply surprised at the event and more surprised when others told me that
> they also have experienced the same (and these others are very much
> rationalists). Your project causes onto my thinking, psychology seems to
> delight in telling people why they think the way they do but psychology
> itself is often a hodge podge of ad hoc after the fact explanations of
> behaviour. Ironically, psychology is often guilty of making the very same
> mistake you are accusing me of: it seeks causes after the fact. This is
> exactly what you have done here, surmised I attributed cause and surmised
> was stressed. Surprise is not stress, that is like saying that if you
> a surprise party for someone you are subjecting them to stress.
> > >Naturally I disdain all forms of religion, including rationalism.
> > By definition for the word religion, rationalism is not a religion, it
> > is a philosophy.
> Philosophy, religion, I'm not interested in semantic pendantry, the point
> was making is that some think rational thought is the answer to
> It isn't. Look at the history of science, it is amazing how many
> dogmas shift over time. Philosophy has a scorecard somewhat akin to
> religion. The point here is that irrespective of semantics many
> adopt a religious attitude towards their philosophy, as if it is the only
> way to think about the world. Yes, I am convinced that science is the best
> method for understanding things but I am not convinced that it is the only
> > >The universe is spooky, get used to it.
> > Prove it then, because it certainly isn't spooky for me.
> I suggest you take note of Einstein's dictum that he has lost a sense of
> wonder of the universe is lost to science. Or for that matter look at the
> number of physicists who have gone spooky (Penrose and tubules rubbish,
> Bohm, Tippler, ... ) I am not saying there is something to this
> stuff, I'm saying I just don't know but refuse to rationalise away in the
> inexplicable bits of reality. That is what religions do, deductively
> determine the cause of this or that.
> > >If you don't believe me, read about J
> > >Wheeler's delayed choice dual slit experiment.
> > That isn't the universe, that is particle physics. When someone can
> > tell me if a photon is a particle or a wave or whatever, I will start
> > paying attention to those experiments, otherwise it would be resorting
> > to the unknown to explain the unknown.
> Read about the experiment. You are proposing an explanation for something
> you are not aware of. That is exuberant confidence in your cogitations, we
> all fall down that hole all too often. In Wheeler's case whether or not a
> photon is that or that is irrelevant, what is relevant is that the choice
> the observer, even after the event, profoundly affects the results.
> Deductive, be inductive. Science begins by resorting to examining the
> unknown to explain the known. If you choose not to investigate something
> because it is unknown, then you choose to remain ignorant forever of that
> > >No, I won't argue the case,
> > >it's all up for grabs for me. I practice science, I don't believe in
> > >I'm not that fucking arrogant as to believe that there's an explanation
> > >everything.
> > Nor does everything need an explanation.
> > >V. unlikely you would remember your mother's face at 6 weeks of age.
> > >impossible actually.
> > Why would it be impossible?
> Show me one documented case of a child who remembers memories at 6 weeks
> You demonstrate a puzzling dichotomy here, you attribute causes to a
> complete stranger and demand proof that something isn't impossible.
> Shouldn't you demand that before asserting the possibility there is
> in support of the same? One could just as well say, "why are paranormal
> phenomena impossible." The question cannot be answered. Are you not making
> the same error as myself? Hmmm, we are human after all. Now ain't that a
> > 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