Just a co-incidence?

DavidMcC · **#681** by **DavidMcC** » Jun 03, 2014 4:50 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:What woo-people do not get is that given our planet, it's temperature, our brains, and physics at this temperature, synchronicity is everywhere to be plucked. It's out there at every perspective, in multiples.

If you tune your mind to it as is practiced in some meditative techniques it will actually start to 'spook' you because it's so plentiful. The trick is not to let the 'spook' infect you as a belief. That's called voodoo I think. It's just the physical universe.

...

That is what I would call "SoS woo", if he really believes that.

You don't believe that there are coincidences?

Hold on, I 've just noticed that this is UE's thread, in which it was pretty clear to me that he was making much of a coincidence concerning his cards. However, your "synchronicity" through "meditative techniques" is arguing against pure coincidence, IMO.

DavidMcC · **#682** by **DavidMcC** » Jun 03, 2014 6:13 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:
Thommo wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:

There's a very easy way to show that the people who claim to know that the hard problem is not a real problem are in fact just refusing to accept a fact about reality that they don't want to accept. It has been explained to most of them on countless occasions in great detail. And yet even though they confidently dismiss it as a load of poppycock, when you ask them to explain exactly what the hard problem is, THEY ALWAYS GET IT WRONG - OR REFUSE TO EVEN TRY. They either can't answer the question, or come up with a blatant strawman - i.e. some other thing which isn't a problem at all, and therefore easy to dismiss.

Think you've got the burden of proof wrong here. I didn't barge in here boasting that there isn't a hard problem, you barged in and told me there is, that's it's a logical problem and then engaged on this "not even trying" malarky that you're now criticising.

It's not a malarkey. I've seen this tactic again and again. In most cases of non-existent problems (such as the watchmaker problem in evolution, or why half an eye is no good), it is very easy indeed to debunk the problem. If I asked you to explain either of those problems, and why they aren't really problems, you'd do it without thinking about it. It would be easy. That's because they really aren't problems. But the Hard Problem really is a problem, and as a result the attitude of the person trying to debunk it is totally different. Instead of being happy to explain what the problem is, they go to enormous lengths to avoid doing so, or they explain it but get it slightly (or completely) wrong, as you have done.

If they explained it clearly and correctly, they'd have to admit it was a real problem.

This is a waste of time anyway. If you want to progress then you need to stop resisting admitting it is real problem and accept that your model of reality is wrong.

I's only real and a problem for those who have mistaken a concept for perception for an actual percept. It's easy to reify generalizations and concepts and that accounts for it being your persistent mistake. If you just shout the word long enough people will start to believe in it.

There are no blue or green or smelly qualia. There is perception and perception is quite a bit more complicated than your reductive religious incantations. When you reframe the problem, as they reframed the problems for physics, than than the solutions become tractable and we can lose the capital H in Hard problem.

Neuroscientists don't call you for research tips do they? There's a good reason for that. Where we commoners were wrong about substance and forces and such, we are doubly wrong about the nature of our own minds. That is no surprise to people who think carefully about these things.

The mind-body gap is a mistake and the mistake has to do with letting philosophers have the floor on this matter for five centuries or so. That's over! You lose.

Speed, until you realise that there is a big difference between percepts and cognitive processes, the better, as you are mixing them up. That makes it impossible to combat UE effectively, except, perhaps, in your own mind.
Maybe your unusual kind of synaesthesia causes this, I don't know. :dunno:

DavidMcC · **#683** by **DavidMcC** » Jun 03, 2014 6:28 pm

... For the benefit of those who may not know Speed, he once mentioned that he had "ideasthesia", which seems (correct me if I'm wrong, Speed) to involve "concepts on vision" interference in his visual cortex.

EDIT: Oh, and that's even without taking substances!

GrahamH · **#684** by **GrahamH** » Jun 03, 2014 6:33 pm

DavidMcC wrote:Speed, until you realise that there is a big difference between percepts and cognitive processes, the better, as you are mixing them up. That makes it impossible to combat UE effectively, except, perhaps, in your own mind.
Maybe your unusual kind of synaesthesia causes this, I don't know.

Is there a "bog difference"? How big, what sort of difference? Are you proposing cognitive class of neurons and a perceptive class of neurons?

Subjectively both percepts and cognitive processes are experienced as events/states ocuring to 'me' now, that are attended to (to some degree). It seems undeniable that there must be other sensory stimuli and cognitive processes occurring that are not attended to and not experienced.

SpeedOfSound · **#685** by **SpeedOfSound** » Jun 03, 2014 6:44 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:What woo-people do not get is that given our planet, it's temperature, our brains, and physics at this temperature, synchronicity is everywhere to be plucked. It's out there at every perspective, in multiples.

If you tune your mind to it as is practiced in some meditative techniques it will actually start to 'spook' you because it's so plentiful. The trick is not to let the 'spook' infect you as a belief. That's called voodoo I think. It's just the physical universe.

...

That is what I would call "SoS woo", if he really believes that.

You don't believe that there are coincidences?

Eh?
What "coincidences"? Whatever they are, are you claiming that such coincidences are the norm?

Yup. If you look carefully enough. Synchronicity is the low hanging fruit in the universe. When you think about it it's kind of how it all works.

GrahamH · **#686** by **GrahamH** » Jun 03, 2014 6:54 pm

What definitions are you using?

Dictionary.com wrote:Synchronicity an apparently meaningful coincidence in time of two or more similar or identical events that are causally unrelated

Is perhaps not the same as

Dictionary.com wrote:Coincidence a striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance

DavidMcC · **#687** by **DavidMcC** » Jun 03, 2014 7:02 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
That is what I would call "SoS woo", if he really believes that.

You don't believe that there are coincidences?

Eh?
What "coincidences"? Whatever they are, are you claiming that such coincidences are the norm?

Yup. If you look carefully enough. Synchronicity is the low hanging fruit in the universe. When you think about it it's kind of how it all works.

Could this be another effect of your ideasthesia?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

...
The concept does not question, or compete with, the notion of causality. Instead, it maintains that just as events may be connected by a causal line, they may also be connected by meaning.

Otherwise, it's hard to understand why you refer to it as the "low hanging fruit of the universe".

SpeedOfSound · **#688** by **SpeedOfSound** » Jun 03, 2014 9:35 pm

GrahamH wrote:What definitions are you using?

Dictionary.com wrote:Synchronicity an apparently meaningful coincidence in time of two or more similar or identical events that are causally unrelated

Is perhaps not the same as
Dictionary.com wrote:Coincidence a striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance

I think both definitions. It's often meaningful to people when these things happen. I guess without some meaning what's the point? But meaning is meaningless with a meaner. :grin:

But I see what you are driving at. It's that butt-puckery feeling you get when you think one of the physicalists has 'gone over'. You should know not to worry about me by now.

I'll give you an example of coarse synchronicity. My dad died when I was 30. He was a bit over sixty. My twins had just been born. He and I had some meaningful exchanges because he was too sick to get drunk anymore. I found many patterns between his life and mine and it was very meaningful to me that this numeric timing between three generations was afoot. The most striking I only found much later. He was on my ass about work-ethic and such from the time I turned 10. Right before his death I was involved in releasing a software project for review in a major magazine. One that later made a few million I might add. But he wanted me to come and see him instead of working. I missed his last lucid moments but got the software out. Yeah! We had reversed our roles and the age at which this happened later became far more meaningful. Right now I am the same age as he was when he died.

So. Coincidence with meaning to humans. It's what I like about being human. Wouldn't trade it for anything.

SpeedOfSound · **#689** by **SpeedOfSound** » Jun 03, 2014 9:40 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:
You don't believe that there are coincidences?

Eh?
What "coincidences"? Whatever they are, are you claiming that such coincidences are the norm?

Yup. If you look carefully enough. Synchronicity is the low hanging fruit in the universe. When you think about it it's kind of how it all works.

Could this be another effect of your ideasthesia?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

...
The concept does not question, or compete with, the notion of causality. Instead, it maintains that just as events may be connected by a causal line, they may also be connected by meaning.

Otherwise, it's hard to understand why you refer to it as the "low hanging fruit of the universe".

I call it that because if you look for patterns and you are good at that sort of thing our planet has opportunities for identifying patterns in great abundance. It's our poetic or emotive side and I like it.

In the grand metaphysical scheme of things though it doesn't amount to squat.

Shrunk · **#690** by **Shrunk** » Jun 04, 2014 1:25 am

SpeedOfSound wrote:I call it that because if you look for patterns and you are good at that sort of thing our planet has opportunities for identifying patterns in great abundance. It's our poetic or emotive side and I like it.

In the grand metaphysical scheme of things though it doesn't amount to squat.

Even taking that into consideration, UE's example in the OP was singularly unimpressive. I mean, really, look at it again:

scott1328 · **#691** by **scott1328** » Jun 04, 2014 2:26 am

I think everyone on this forum could come up with a much more impressive coincidence from his/her own personal experience and not even have to adorn the truth of the matter. Hell I bet UE himself has a more impressive story.

SpeedOfSound · **#692** by **SpeedOfSound** » Jun 04, 2014 2:36 am

scott1328 wrote::this:
I think everyone on this forum could come up with a much more impressive coincidence from his/her own personal experience and not even have to adorn the truth of the matter. Hell I bet UE himself has a more impressive story.

I have a real haunter from my childhood if I get the time. Three horses, howling in the night, mystery, and death.

redwhine · **#693** by **redwhine** » Jun 04, 2014 6:24 am

DavidMcC wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:What woo-people do not get is that given our planet, it's temperature, our brains, and physics at this temperature, synchronicity is everywhere to be plucked. It's out there at every perspective, in multiples.

If you tune your mind to it as is practiced in some meditative techniques it will actually start to 'spook' you because it's so plentiful. The trick is not to let the 'spook' infect you as a belief. That's called voodoo I think. It's just the physical universe.

...

That is what I would call "SoS woo", if he really believes that.

You don't believe that there are coincidences?

Eh?
What "coincidences"? Whatever they are, are you claiming that such coincidences are the norm?

They're certainly not abnormal.

redwhine · **#694** by **redwhine** » Jun 04, 2014 6:40 am

GrahamH wrote:What definitions are you using?

Dictionary.com wrote:Synchronicity an apparently meaningful coincidence in time of two or more similar or identical events that are causally unrelated

Is perhaps not the same as
Dictionary.com wrote:Coincidence a striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance

(My bold)

GrahamH · **#695** by **GrahamH** » Jun 04, 2014 7:09 am

You hardly needed to emphasise 'apparently', redwine. The difference between the two words is the assumption that there is a meaningful but unseen connection, or not. If you call two co-incident events syncronicity you are implying a meaningful connection between them. If you call it coincidence you are not. Since there is no evidence of causal connection you can't actually determine which is correct.

Fallible · **#696** by **Fallible** » Jun 04, 2014 11:41 am

scott1328 wrote::this:
I think everyone on this forum could come up with a much more impressive coincidence from his/her own personal experience and not even have to adorn the truth of the matter. Hell I bet UE himself has a more impressive story.

I can give you one right off the bat.

You may or may not have seen me say that my mum had a heart attack recently. She ignored the excruciating pains in her chest, down her arm and up her jaw for an entire day before finally going to the doctor the following morning. There the doctor took a blood test and told my mum that if she had not heard anything by that evening she could assume that everything was OK.

It had got to around 7pm without a phone call and my mum assumed that everything was fine. Shortly afterwards the doctor called to say that one of the hormones present in the heart had shown up in her blood test as alarmingly high - indicator of a substantial heart attack. The doctor was sending paramedics to her home and she was to go directly to hospital.

300 miles away the day before, I suddenly consider phoning my mum at the time she was having her heart attack. I normally phone her in the evening so this was unusual. Just as my mum was convincing herself the pain would go away, I was wondering why I felt like I wanted to phone her at that time of day and ended up not doing so, we'd only spoken recently anyway.

The next day, and Mum is waiting to see if she will hear from the doctor. 300 miles away I am experiencing anxiety which increases as the day wears on. When my husband returns from work at about 5.30, I tell him that I feel extremely anxious and I don't know why. I sit on this feeling for a further hour and a half or so, telling myself that I've probably had too much coffee. I also have a strong feeling that I really really need to call my mum. Finally the anxiety is so strong that I can't stand it any more - I need to call my mum right now.

So I call her. A strange man answers the phone. He asks me who I am and I tell him and ask him who he is. He doesn't answer me but hands me over to my dad. Turns out the man was a paramedic. I had phoned at the exact time that my mum was being wired up and taken to hospital.

Just a coincidence? Well yes, probably. I'd say that's bit more convincing than UE's contribution though.

SpeedOfSound · **#697** by **SpeedOfSound** » Jun 04, 2014 11:56 am

GrahamH wrote:You hardly needed to emphasise 'apparently', redwine. The difference between the two words is the assumption that there is a meaningful but unseen connection, or not. If you call two co-incident events syncronicity you are implying a meaningful connection between them. If you call it coincidence you are not. Since there is no evidence of causal connection you can't actually determine which is correct.

Wow. As a species we are really fucked.

Animavore · **#698** by **Animavore** » Jun 04, 2014 12:05 pm

Since this thread started I've had a coincidence.
I was walking home from my mother's and the song Shook Ones by Mobb Deep came into my head and I couldn't shake it. Now I haven't listened to gangsta rap in years, I don't even know why I suddenly thought of it.

I got home and looked up the PlayStation Battlefield 4 forum to see who was playing Sunday's game and there was a thread entitled, "I had to post this." I clicked on it and it had a Call of Duty vs Battlefield rap battle which featured the tune from Eminem's Guilty Conscience. I let it play in the background and when it finished it moved to the next song on the playlist, another rap battle, but this one using the tune from, you've guessed it, Shook Ones. :shock:

SpeedOfSound · **#699** by **SpeedOfSound** » Jun 04, 2014 12:18 pm

GrahamH wrote:You hardly needed to emphasise 'apparently', redwine. The difference between the two words is the assumption that there is a meaningful but unseen connection, or not. If you call two co-incident events syncronicity you are implying a meaningful connection between them. If you call it coincidence you are not. Since there is no evidence of causal connection you can't actually determine which is correct.

Ok. I'm really sad right now but we can get past that.

What kind of 'causal' connection could there possibly be in that story about my dad dying? That incident and all of the events around it is my best example of what I call life's poetry. How about UE's cards?

kennyc · **#700** by **kennyc** » Jun 04, 2014 12:25 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:
scott1328 wrote::this:
I think everyone on this forum could come up with a much more impressive coincidence from his/her own personal experience and not even have to adorn the truth of the matter. Hell I bet UE himself has a more impressive story.

I have a real haunter from my childhood if I get the time. Three horses, howling in the night, mystery, and death.

Ah....poetry! :thumbup:

Just a co-incidence?

Re: Just a co-incidence?

Re: Just a co-incidence?

Re: Just a co-incidence?

Re: Just a co-incidence?

Re: Just a co-incidence?

Re: Just a co-incidence?

Re: Just a co-incidence?

Re: Just a co-incidence?

Re: Just a co-incidence?

Re: Just a co-incidence?

Re: Just a co-incidence?

Re: Just a co-incidence?

Re: Just a co-incidence?

Re: Just a co-incidence?

Re: Just a co-incidence?

Re: Just a co-incidence?

Re: Just a co-incidence?

Re: Just a co-incidence?

Re: Just a co-incidence?

Re: Just a co-incidence?

Who is online