(Split Thread) Synchronicity or Coincidence

[Belz...]

Touché, Jimbo.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You do not have to be able to describe an ineffable experience in order for the term "ineffable experience" to mean something. It means an experience which cannot be adequately described.

Methinks it also means an experience that cannot be adequately understood by the experiencer.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Methinks it also means an experience that cannot be adequately understood by the experiencer.

~~ Paul

Maybe.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I.e. you ignored this question:

Yep. And I will continue to ignore all questions about specific things which have happened to me, just like I told you I would. If you ask me again, I will ignore you again.

Yet this is exactly what you have done in this thread regards to your belief of synchronicity, see the quote above.

My beliefs are my business. I am not asking anybody to believe in synchronicity. I am asking them to understand the difference between claims which have been falsified by science and claims which are unfalsifiable. That is all.

Geoff

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I am remembering now why I stopped posting on this board. I spend 90% of my time repeating myself.

Synchronicity has been defined perfectly coherently.
Nobody is asking anybody here to believe it is true.
I am not going to talk about specific personal experiences.
I am certainly not going to repeat myself ad infinitum to a bunch of people who have had these conversations with me on numerous occasions in the past (Darat, Larsen, Belz).

Goodbye.

 

[chriswl]

Then you have never experienced a synchronicity. Just because it had never happened to you, it does not follow that it does not happen to anyone. You cannot judge my experiences based on an assumption that they were like yours.

You cannot know that my experiences weren't like yours.

A synchronicity is a meaningful coincidence. I have had striking coincidences and not ascribed any meaning to them. Perhaps they were synchronicities and I failed to divine their meaning? Or perhaps all synchronicities are merely coincidences that people choose to make meaningful by acting on them in some way?

 

[Dancing David]

there are a number of reasons for synchronicity that I can think of right off the bat and they are logical, if you like scientific materialism.

1. There is a level of connectedness to everything around us, we share our society and culture with those in our culture, we are influenced by media and other cultural/social forums. They set a frame against which we judge and appreciate our world. they provide many of the links we can perceive.

2. It is in the nature of perception and cognition that there is associations as well as rationalization. Our brains desperately create patterns and order wherevetr we look, we have the abiklity to rationalize and percieve differences, we also have the ability to see similarities. Association creates a major venue for synchronicity.

3. We are creatures capable of both the rational logical perception and the intuitive, irrationa, and emotional perception. the key to reading Jung is in undersatnding that human cross many world and many different types of experience, and wether they are all valid to an obnective reality they are real to the subjective reality. And often the rational side of a person is hidebound and ignores the emotive. i have met many rational people who ignore thier emotions and have train wrech lives ebcause they don't aknowledge the message of the emotions. So synchronicity is real to the subjective and may have very strong valid reasons in the rational objective.

 

[Dancing David]

You cannot know that my experiences weren't like yours.

A synchronicity is a meaningful coincidence. I have had striking coincidences and not ascribed any meaning to them. Perhaps they were synchronicities and I failed to divine their meaning? Or perhaps all synchronicities are merely coincidences that people choose to make meaningful by acting on them in some way?

Or perhaps they have meaning wether the person chooses to act upon them or not. Thier validity may vary.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, you appear to be describing a supernatural mechanism for synchronicity, so it is rather different from entanglement.

But I understand now that this is some sort of indescribable personal experience that cannot be discussed. I'm not sure why Jung brought it up in the first place.

~~ Paul

Synchronicity is part of the human cognitive framework, although Jung had glimpses of cognitive behavioral therpay he did not see it.

Synchronicity is created when seemingly unrelated events have a perceptual association assigned(deliberate or indeliberate) by the perciever to them. They may or may not have emotional meaning, yet they are often influenced by the cognitive framework of thoughts and internal/external behaviors of the perciver. In many people deprssion can be alleviated through reframing the negative internal behaviors and by replacing them with positive behaviors.

And so too many people can develop the feeling that 'everything is my life is going wrong', because they focus on those things and don't recognise the others. the level to which someone participates in their cognitive structure vaies from person to person. Many people can and many people can not change thier cognitive framing. Some people can benefit from cognitive reframing others seem less able to do so.

 

[Q-Source]

Darat,

You have made yourself a reputation of using law tactics in discussions. Get over it, you sound like a crazy fundamentalist to whom nobody pays attention anymore.

We all know that under your materialistic framework, in principle it is possible to examine claims about love, hate, taste by "objective" means i.e. with evidence that is available to all.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

We all know that under your materialistic framework, in principle it is possible to examine claims about love, hate, taste by "objective" means i.e. with evidence that is available to all.

You must be confusing me with someone else since I am not according to any definition I've ever heard or read a materialist.

 

[Q-Source]

You must be confusing me with someone else since I am not according to any definition I've ever heard or read a materialist.

I told you, you´ve lost your mind.

 

[Darat]

I told you, you´ve lost your mind.

That you consider non-materialists as people who have lost their minds seems a rather harsh generalisation.

 

[Darat]

Q-Source I have reported the PM you just sent me - I think it was abusive and a breach of the Membership Agreement. However I will answer it here.

First of all you are under a strange misconception, I am not and have never been what is generally referred to as a "materialist". I also do not use "dirty tactics" in discussions. What you have done is a dirty tactic i.e. sending me an abusive PM rather then engaging in open discussion.

 

[Belz...]

I am remembering now why I stopped posting on this board. I spend 90% of my time repeating myself.

Which is understandable: since you refuse to define your terms properly and insist on saying the same philosophical nonsense over and over, you're bound to repeat yourself although that's certainly not what I want.

Synchronicity has been defined perfectly coherently.

Perfectly nonsensically.

Nobody is asking anybody here to believe it is true.

What is it with people and belief ? Aren't we talking about objective evidence, here ?

I am not going to talk about specific personal experiences.

Why not ? They're part of the reason why you believe, no ?

I am certainly not going to repeat myself ad infinitum to a bunch of people who have had these conversations with me on numerous occasions in the past (Darat, Larsen, Belz).

So basically you only want to preach to the ones who haven't realised that you don't know what you're talking about ?

Goodbye.

"I'm going to sulk, now."

 

[Belz...]

We all know that under your materialistic framework, in principle it is possible to examine claims about love, hate, taste by "objective" means i.e. with evidence that is available to all.

I see no other alternative than to assume that it is.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You cannot know that my experiences weren't like yours.

If your experiences were like mine, then you'd believe in synchronicity.

 

[Jimbo07]

Touché, Jimbo.

We should be able to put all of this to rest with the following final exam.

FINAL EXAM:

Assume quantum fluctuations shortly after the Big Bang are point A and the argument on an internet forum over the appearances of synchronicity and a Word document 15 billion years later is B:

- Rigourously describe all rules, interconnections and steps on the pathway from A to B.
- This test is time limited - you must complete it before the universe reaches maximum entropy.
- You are not allowed to borrow energy from other universes for your computations.

Good luck!

 

[Tricky]

If your experiences were like mine, then you'd believe in synchronicity.

If a person's experiences were the same as yours, they would essentially be you.

Your experiences include much more than some single or group of incidents that cause you to believe in synchronicity. They include all of the experiences that have formed the way you think that make you predisposed to believe in synchronicity. Another person might experience the exact same small set of incidents, yet, because of the experiences of their lifetime, be predisposed to think of them as mere coincidence.

At different "experience stages" of my life, I've believed both. And not just synchronicity. I've also believed in Christ as the Savior, astrology, extraterrestrial visitations, crystal healing, and that you will get cramps if you swim within an hour after eating. As I have gained experience, I find I no longer believe any of those things, and I now think it would be foolish to do so because of someone else's subjective experiences.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Synchronicity is created when seemingly unrelated events have a perceptual association assigned(deliberate or indeliberate) by the perciever to them.

I think if you investigate what Jung meant by sychronicity, you will find it is supposed to be more than a perceptual association. There is a supernatural aspect to it.

~~ Paul