Synchronicity, Chance and Intention
I have started this thread because @TheMadFool refers to my own interest in the nature of synchronicity in a thread on Buddhism and science. I felt it better to open a thread on the topic because it is an area of thought in its own right. In referring to synchronicity, I am talking of what Carl Jung refers to as 'meaningful coincidences.'These include experiences which people have, such as premonitions, and other unusual aspects of experiences, such as thinking of someone and they phone at that moment.
Jung himself does emphasise that the connections are a causal and dependent on our meanings. However, other writers do develop the idea a bit differently. For example, Deepak Chopra argues for the notion of synchrodestiny, which is about there being more to apparent 'coincidences' than we often may believe.
Within physics there is the notion of the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg, which makes causality more complex than we realise. This does lead to the whole question of randomness. However, we could ask why does one thing happen rather than another.
In some spiritual systems, there is the notion of karma, which is the law of cause and effect, or 'as you reap, you will sow'. This involves our own experiences in the process of causal chain. The way I think that this could work is that our own subconscious processes experiences in such a way that our guilt and other emotions come into play in drawing experiences towards us.
So, I wonder about the role of our own consciousness in what becomes manifest in life. Intention affects our behaviour, but I do think that it may go beyond this and intentionality and thought may have more dramatic effects, involving layers of the subconscious. Perhaps, there are no coincidences at all. So, I am asking about explaining apparent coincidence, the nature of chance, randomness and causation. In particular, what is the role of consciousness, subconscious processes and intention in the manifestation of experience? I am interested to know what other people think about this.
Jung himself does emphasise that the connections are a causal and dependent on our meanings. However, other writers do develop the idea a bit differently. For example, Deepak Chopra argues for the notion of synchrodestiny, which is about there being more to apparent 'coincidences' than we often may believe.
Within physics there is the notion of the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg, which makes causality more complex than we realise. This does lead to the whole question of randomness. However, we could ask why does one thing happen rather than another.
In some spiritual systems, there is the notion of karma, which is the law of cause and effect, or 'as you reap, you will sow'. This involves our own experiences in the process of causal chain. The way I think that this could work is that our own subconscious processes experiences in such a way that our guilt and other emotions come into play in drawing experiences towards us.
So, I wonder about the role of our own consciousness in what becomes manifest in life. Intention affects our behaviour, but I do think that it may go beyond this and intentionality and thought may have more dramatic effects, involving layers of the subconscious. Perhaps, there are no coincidences at all. So, I am asking about explaining apparent coincidence, the nature of chance, randomness and causation. In particular, what is the role of consciousness, subconscious processes and intention in the manifestation of experience? I am interested to know what other people think about this.
Comments (126)
Nothing to see here.
:smirk:
Quoting Jack Cummins
"Experience" is the interpretive content of (spotlighted by) "consciousness" which is the output of "subconscious processes" interacting with the (CNS-brain's) environment. Our species cognitive defect: we impose patterns on noise (e.g. "seeing" faces in clouds or Jesus on toast, "noticing" palindromes everywhere, etc) as a result of the advantageous adaptive trait of false positives (i.e. "perceiving patterns" where there aren't any – coincidences, accidents) like the OP.
Just as any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, (Arthur C Clark)
Sufficiently advanced order/patten/law is indistinguishable from disorder (chaos, randomness, anarchy, wildness)
"Chaos" is the materialist's Woo of the gaps.
I quite like that.
I don't understand this. Can you explain what you mean ?
Quoting Banno
Why do you like it ?
What is meant by 'Chaos' ?
Quoting Wiki: Chaos
And what does this have to do with 'Synchronicity, Chance and Intention' ?
Karma means and is to be understood as "action". There is the common misconception that karma works like a bank account, I do good and the universe magically deals good back to me at some later date. This is wrong. The good I get through karma is the direct result of my action. If I treat someone well, they'll think better of me and treat me well in return. If I treat someone bad, they'll breed animosity and treat me bad in return. Cause and effect indeed. But there's nothing in particular that "draws experiences" towards us in any mystical way.
Quoting Jack Cummins
This is what Hermetics and followers of various occult beliefs call "alchemy" or "magic". Will leads to action, action leads to manifestation. Inbetween is transmutation, the process of using the laws of nature to change one thing into another. The idea here is that with enough will, awareness and knowledge about the law anything can be achieved.
A trivial example of what this really means:
My will is to buy a car.
I transmute the resources I have (time and energy) into labour.
Labour transmutes into money.
Money transmutes into car.
This is how intention becomes manifest.
1. You're walking down a street, thinking of nothing in particular. You look to your left and on the wall is a Coca cola advertisement. You then bump into someone. You turn to apologize and you realize that the person in front of you is the CEO of Coca Cola. Coincidence, meaningful.
2. You and your friend are in a deli. As you chow down on the burgers you ordered, you discuss Will Smith (the actor) and his movie I am legend. Just as one of you say "Will Smith", Will Smith walks by on the sidewalk outside the deli. Coincidence, meaningful.
3. You're in your room, quite bored. You lie down on the bed and a random thought - a police car chase you saw on the idiot box. Just then, two squad vehicles zoom past your room, sirens blaring. Coincidence, meaningful.
The reason why synchronicity gives you that sense of meaning is the probability of it occurring - near zero. Too, why some interpret it as causation is because, again, of its likelihood - near zero.
One crucial possibility that has to be ruled out in causal attribution is chance and the extremely low/zero probability of the conjunction of putative causes and effects. You can see where this is going.
Synchronicity, by definition, as per Carl Gustav Jung himself, is acausal, a clear sign that Jung knew he was dealing with coincidences and not causation. If he had said there was a causal angle to it, he wouldn't have used "coincidence" in his very thought-provoking idea.
I know that we have discussed synchronicity on a number of occasions and, having started this thread I can see that people clearly view the matter differently from me. Definitely, Jung's idea is about acausal connections and it was a theory which he developed in relation to his own experiences of premonitions. I discovered his idea in the context of having many premonitions in adolescence.
I think that the theory is speculative and it may be that some people are more able to perceive patterns and psychic phenomena is about that. I am not entirely sure. However, I do believe that mind may have a greater significance in the scheme of manifestation than many recognise, especially in physicality accounts.One most basic aspects of the importance of the role of observer consciousness recognised within scientific experiments. I am not sure how far to go in my own view that consciousness has a determining role, but I believe that causality and chance may be far more complex than recognized within mainstream scientific thinking.
Perhaps you need to research further afield. Here's only one article I found quickly. There will be more.
On Serendipity in Science
Quoting On Serendipity: discovery at the intersection of chance and wisdom
Edit - another quickie:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/serendipity
Quoting Berkeley article: The Story of Serendipity
***
Serendipity: Towards a taxonomy and a theory
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733317301774
Quoting Science Direct: Serendipity: Towards a taxonomy and a theory
I don't know how else to get my point across except in that a one-off event that fits the description of synchronicity is exactly that - acausal. However, there should be some kinda limit to the number of synchronicities experienced, beyond which we might have to make an effort to seek a causal explanation. Have you encountered anyone who's a synchronicity magnet? Are there documented cases of multiple synchronicities? I don't think so. I'm not sure though.
By the way, I used to be big fan of Jung's synchronicity theory - it feeds my inclination for mystery. Now, I've come to the realization that it's just an ordinary person's way of yearning for just that thing to make life extraordinary. Unfortunately, a lot has to be sacrificed - reason being the first casualty - to that end.
A clever bit of woo that makes no sense. Materialist, of course, or otherwise.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
And yet "materialism" (I prefer naturalism) works much better than any of the other perhaps less "indefensible" "worldviews".
-"'meaningful coincidences.'"
-Well that is observer depended term. We as observers "connect" connect different events in a narrative and as thinking agents we project purpose and intention on blind physical processes.
Teleology needs to be demonstrated, not assumed. This assumption is a pseudo philosophical approach on explaining natural events.
So "synchronicity" as an abstract concept has value as a narrative and what it means for our existence. ITs an observer relative term not an intrinsic feature of the phenomenon it describes.
Now the experiences that you are referring to (thinking a person and receiving a phone from him) are known weaknesses in our reasoning. Pattern recognition in animals (and humans) is a very strong urge and bias. We tend to identify the hits and completely ignore the misses. The numerous times we have thought of people and the phone didn't ring just don't register. When a coincidence occurs we tent do see "agency" and purpose behind it.
Richard Feynman used to go up to people all the time and he'd say "You won't believe what happened to me today... you won't believe what happened to me" and people would say "What?" and he'd say "Absolutely nothing". How is it possible in such a huge universe where weird and inexplicable coincidences happen every second, to happen nothing to me?
I will agree with Jung's statement that the connections we make are the result of our practice to project our meanings, I will ignore Chopra's intellectual artifacts since his philosophy isn't based on Naturalistic principles,its are unfalsifiable and indistinguishable for blind synchronization(unparsimonious) and I will address the introduction of a quantum phenomenon in the classical scale (uncertainty principle of Heisenberg).
-"Within physics there is the notion of the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg, which makes causality more complex than we realise. "
-That is a factually wrong statements. First of all this principle doesn't apply to "Physics", but a specific sub-field of quantum physics.
This, again is not an intrinsic feature of causality in nature but as the original German word suggests we are unable to take sharp values from our measurments. Its more like "We are uncertain of the definition our measurements provide" than "we are sure the nature of the quantum world is uncertain".
After all QM is the only framework that can offer predictions up to 99,99(up to 14decimal places) accurate!
So causality is not under threat in the quantum scale and we should point out that Classical and quantum world don't have that much similarities. Energetically and structurally they differ in a huge degree. So its not right to generalize our findings to both scales
Now conceptual artifacts like the notion of karma or any other spiritual construction have their roots on our inability to register all the miss/ lose events during large periods.
Consciousness is the quality of a specific brain state that enable us to be aware of events and the world. Consciousness alone as a mind property is useless if your Central Lateral Thalamus can connected the other brain areas responsible for symbolic language, pattern recognition, reasoning, memory etc and introduce content (thoughts) in our conscious states.
So all those patterns we identify in nature is based on what we are aware, how we reason, what we remember and what we ignore.
The role of consciousness stops with our ability to be conscious of an even, how we reasoning it and what is the produced thought...consciousness is an "observer."
I think meaningful coincidence often has more to do with attention than intention. We prefer to attribute power internally, especially when the alternative is to accept randomness and uncertainty.
Quoting TheMadFool
Talking about Will Smith brings to the periphery of your attention the qualitative patterns in his facial features, build and mannerisms, making you more likely to recognise him walking past, even out of the corner of your eye, than you would at any other time (when he could be walking past). While the likelihood of him walking past just as you’re talking about him is the same as any other moment, the likelihood of you recognising him on the street is increased by the attention you’ve just been giving to the conceptual structures you have with regard to Will Smith. You didn’t will him to appear, you merely brought the remote possibility of his appearance to your attention.
With what I've seen, it doesn't seem to lead anywhere. And I don't understand what the "theory" is supposed to be.
Would like to know. And suspect you are right.
I'm not sure what you are referring to. Which theory and what doesn't seem to lead anywhere? Synchronicity?
I believe at root, consciously or unconsciously, the naturalists believe order comes from chaos. Maybe that is wrong. I know that is what I think when I try to think from a naturalist point of view. Opposite for divine origin theory. Reason creates the appearance of chaos for the sake of amusing itself, being bored of a perfectly reasonable (thus predictable) reality.
Chaos Theory.
That scared 'em...
, , .
Quoting Amity
Just what has defied explanation, perhaps as a result of lack of order, perhaps as a result of insufficient knowledge.
Naive materialists will assume that what is missing will be made good in due time - that the explanation is there, but not yet known. That is of course an unjustified claim. It's just a consequence of assuming determinacy, which in the end is not essential to materialism.
I thought the whole chaos theory business began with someone trying to predict weather patterns, which a priori, looks easy enough, but turned out to be rather tricky.
But if "chaos" is what has defied explanation so far, then that's fine, though it suffers from the unjustified claim you mention.
I don't understand why it's called a theory though.
Can you give a mathematical example?
Not sure what level you want. See. https://science.howstuffworks.com/math-concepts/chaos-theory3.htm
The highest level. The contemporary state of the art. The Lorenz system is for beginners. I know this is a philosophy forum but ancient philosophers were all strangely attracted to math.
Explain yourself. I spend, maybe, 5 minutes talking about him and the rest of the day, 1435 minutes, not even thinking about him.
This is going into my quotes collection! Something about it is profoundly meaningful.
As far as I'm concerned, chaos can't be satisfactorily ruled out; after all, as you seem to be implying, order is a phase in chaos. Reminds me of skepticism and skeptical hypotheses - the point is not to prove that something is the case but simply to cast doubt on what we believe to be the case.
My English needs work. That's what I wanted to say!
Chaos is lack of order. It isn't a thing in itself. So I don't know what you mean. A tempest doesn't lack order. Can you give an example of an occurrence which lacks order?
Everything that happens in nature is in conformity with the laws nature.
Everything that happens makes sense in light of the rules of nature.
If something appears to not make sense, it means there is an of yet undiscovered or not fully understood law of nature.
I am drawing a parallel between "making sense" and order, and "not making sense" with chaos.
Edit: I might go so far as to say that to understand means to make/perceive order
Edit ps. I don't know about radioactivity, vacuums, impressible strings, or thermal equilibrium.
The likelihood of him walking past doesn’t change just because you’re talking about him. The fact that you’re thinking about him increases the chance of him attracting your attention in a crowd, not the chance of him walking past. He may have walked past you half a dozen times that day, but you were focused on other things and didn’t notice.
And "the laws of nature" – they came to be without "conforming to laws of nature", they continue to be "without conforming to laws of nature" and when they cease to be they will do so without "conforming to laws of nature". That's how fundamental chaos is: just as 'north of the north pole' doesn't make sense, 'order to which order conforms' is nonsense – doesn't say anything.
The fundamental principles of reality cannot be created, destroyed, or violated. All activity is contingent upon them. Only their expressions come in and out of being.
Quoting 180 Proof
How can a negative be fundamental? Chaos = absence of order.
Perhaps you mean "primordial substance" has no "order". But if primordial substance has any possibilities inherent in it, those possibilities would be contingent upon some inherent principle.
Order is conformity with principle. Principles are not order or chaos. They are the source of both order and apparent chaos.
-"I believe at root, consciously or unconsciously, the naturalists believe order comes from chaos."
- I am a Methodological Naturalist and I don't believe that there is a contingency there or a relation between two human made abstract concepts . It might be a feature of the "picture"...like "fuzziness" is visible in any painting IF you decide to stand really close.
Or maybe it can be an inability of our methods to see the patterns in a chaotic system due to its inherent complexity.
What I don't understand is why people who subscribe to different Worldviews feel the need to include observations of reality as "explanations" for their beliefs beyond reality!!!
-" I know that is what I think when I try to think from a naturalist point of view. Opposite for divine origin theory."
-Or you can think that the noise that we see and describe in chaos theory is just a "by product" of the self organizing process caused by really simple "rules" between properties of fundamental particles.
-" Reason creates the appearance of chaos for the sake of amusing itself, being bored of a perfectly reasonable (thus predictable) reality.""
-Not really. Direct observations guide reason to identify chaotic systems.
-"What is meant by 'Chaos' ?"
-Chaos is a observable phenomenon in nature.
Is a property displayed by physical systems that appear highly disordered and irregular.
The chaos theory has nothing to do with "comforting mathematical formulations" (at least comforting).
As the definition explains, its the study of "dynamical systems whose apparently random states of disorder and irregularities are actually governed by underlying patterns and deterministic laws that are highly sensitive to initial conditions."
So we deal with systems that appear chaotic to the observer due to the lack of initial data.
So it doesn't mean that those systems are "outiside" or immune to physical laws. Our inability to know initial conditions and variables is what makes them appear to our eyes "Chaotic".
It Observer dependent "fussiness" or known as "Observer Objectivity Collapse".
-"And "the laws of nature" – they came to be without "conforming to laws of nature", they continue to be "without conforming to laws of nature" and when they cease to be they will do so without "conforming to laws of nature". That's how fundamental chaos is: just as 'north of the north pole' doesn't make sense, 'order to which order conforms' is nonsense – doesn't say anything. "
-Again I am not sure that you use the term "laws of nature" under the accepted scientific definition.
The laws of nature are human descriptive law like generalizations of the emerging "rules" being observed in the interactions of the properties displayed by fundamental elements and their processes.
i.e. we through two magnets randomly and specific poles attract each other producing a predictable result. In short this is what our laws work....how properties "force" specific "behavior" in a system.
The current scientific paradigm doesn't validate the change of those properties hence it isn't reasonable to expect change in the emergent rules (described by our laws).
Now even if that was possible, that doesn't mean that this "Chaos" will prevail. No properties means no dynamic interactions, no dynamic interactions means no Chaos or order. As long as you have some kind of properties of matter those will always "force" the emergence of patterns and rules.
In short, the term chaos doesn't describe an opposite intrinsic state of a system, but our inability to have a complete observation of the process, its initial conditions included.
I think you are using the concept of Chaos in a colloquial every day sense.
In order for a philosophical conclusion to be "wise"(ultimate goal of philosophy) it needs to be based on knowledge, not on idealistic artifacts.
We know from science that such a state(with that definition) is NOT an observe state within the reality.
What we have found is that chaotic systems are the product of laws of nature, but our inability to identify a pattern or to make any predictions is based solely on our inability to have access to the early conditions and the complexity of the system.
-"Do laws of nature conform to some other (more general ... ad infinitum) laws of nature?"
-Under a scientific scope, I can not really understand what that might mean.
As I already explained what a law is..is just a description of the rules that are observable between different elements interacting through their different properties. A specific property of an element (i.e. positive charged) allows a specific interaction with an other property of an element with different characteristics(i.e. negative charged). This doesn't only apply at a quantum level of reality where the properties are based on charges and kinetic attributes, but they apply to chemical properties in larger scales(molecular biological).
So our laws are descriptions that conform to rules displayed by those interactions. There is no reason to assume anything beyond that basic observation, since this mechanism is necessary and sufficient to explain the emergence of those "rules" that we describe in our laws.
-" If they don't, then the laws of nature are, in these terms, chaotic. "
-Again I don't really understand what that statement means.
Those properties of matter by definition create "rules" followed by different interactions. Even when a process of many interactions appears chaotic to us, its caused by numerous individual interactions "obeying" the same rules(physical laws) with to us, unknown initial conditions!
Thanks for your reply and links. I think that the connection between synchronicity and serependity is interesting, because it is about our own role in perception of meaning. In a way, we could say that self fulfilling prophecy is the opposite of serependity because it involves negative states affecting the pathways we navigate in creating our own destiny.I do believe that synchronicity is mostly about intuition and perceiving patterns, but it may be important in volition.
I have thought about the post which you wrote on the importance of attention and I believe that it is important but it is not just attention to the outer aspects of experience. In seeing the meaningful connections it is about the parallels within the outer world and the experience of thoughts. It may be that many people do not make links and some may not even remember their thoughts clearly enough.
I come from the perspective of noticing and remembering my thoughts. I had many experiences during adolescence, which were clear premonitions. I won't go into detail because some of them were extremely unpleasant as they were premonitions of people dying, and the individuals died shortly afterwards. At the time, I even started to worry that it was my fault that the people were dying. Fortunately, I discovered Jung's writings and it made a lot of sense.
I think that it is hard to know how far to go with Jung's theory, but it does seem to show that we can perceive patterns and it does seem to me to go beyond the physical world. I think that attention is important but it is a way of going beyond ordinary daily experience.
I am not sure about your interpretation of the idea of karma. It is an extremely complex topic and I feel that you are interpreting it is in the context of secular materialism. I am not opposed to the ideas within the secular aspects of philosophy because these predominate. However, I am also interested in esoteric thought, which includes ideas of hidden realities. However, these can be romanticized and mystified. So, I think that it is a mixture of looking towards various traditions, ranging from the ideas in various traditions of philosophy and the ideas within science, for trying to formulate the best possible understanding of 'reality' and the manifestation in experience.
Do you think that the perspective of materialism, or naturalism, is completely adequate for the explanation of the many varying aspects of human experiences?
Yes. Humans are natural creatures, sentient aspects of nature, which implies that "human experiences" are natural – figments of our meta-cognitive functions as an ecology-bound, animal species – as well. Whatever else nature is, it can only be consistently, reliably, explained (and thereby tested) in terms of nature with and by natural means. 'Super-natural' entities are mysteries and mysteries do not answer questions, they merely beg them and, therefore, are only placeholders – woo-of-the-gaps – which cannot be used to explain any aspect of nature or human experience in particular. Libraries stacked with millennia of *non-natural just-so stories* and I can't think of one which has held up under historical, scientific or conceptual scrutiny as an explanation of any phenomenon which we need explained. Can you tell me of one? Human experience, Jack, might not now or ever be "adequately explained" in natural terms alone; nevertheless, I prefer to admit that we simply don't / can't know something rather than just to make up shit and fetishize 'illusions of knowing'.
I am not entirely convinced by materialism but I thought that your answer was very good. Understanding and explaining human experiences is very complex, as there are so many aspects and variables involved.
Even as a well-defined mathematical concept, talk about chaos is too broad here perhaps.
A metaphysical naturalist wanting to talk about order emerging from disorder would take their cue from models of criticality and spontaneous symmetry breaking.
So the beginning of the system - if we are talking about a law-bound Big Bang Cosmos - would be some kind of quantum critical state. And any fluctuation in terms of an action with a direction would crystallise a breaking of its symmetry. Global order would emerge as the new rules of this cooling-expanding game. Classicality would be the general description of nature as everywhere the “other” of quantum uncertainty was being decohered out of sight.
So this is a modern view of the ancient impulse to understand nature as the imposition of global order on local chaos. We now understand plenty about critical systems and phase transitions. There are mathematical models that can be applied in efforts at constructing quantum gravity theories where the regularity of spacetime is emergent from the correlations of localised quantum fluctuations - a foamy network starting point.
This view means that the initial conditions - in terms of some particular triggering cause - become irrelevant. In spontaneous symmetry breaking, some fluctuation is always going to tip the balance. Like the fabled flap of the butterfly wing, absolutely anything at all could have set things in motion. The deterministic fantasy is to think that ascribing causality to some random butterfly is adding any useful information to the understanding of what happened.
And contrariwise, this view argues that it is indeed the intrinsic balancing act which is the causal story. The beginning state is critical because it is finely poised between two opposing limits. It is exactly balanced at the point between its correlated and uncorrelated behaviour. It is equally differentiated and integrated over all scales.
So in fractal fashion, a generating algorithm is what primally exists. The cosmic system begins with the duality of being neither yet integrated, nor differentiated, but at the critical point where that dichotomy could begin to emerge into being as a symmetry breaking.
In other words, order arises out of chaos as the Big Bang sees spacetime start to expand and gain the regularity of global lawful habits as its energetic contents start to cool. But also, a positive notion of disorder arises as well. The local energetic contents undergo a condensation to become material particles bumping around kinetically in a void. Randomness becomes a concrete thing in the Cosmos - the blind independent wandering of atoms with ever weakening interactions. Eventually, the Cosmos becomes a vacuum with a sprinkle of dust - a perfect blend of global law and local freedom.
My point is that methodological naturalism can indeed lead one to look at reality through a model-theoretic lens. And I agree that many have read the salvation of classical determinism into the huge success of theories about deterministic chaos.
But if you dig a little deeper, you find even better support for an “order out of chaos” metaphysics. Models of criticality and symmetry breaking in particular tells us that initial conditions - as particular acts of measurement - don’t really matter if you have a proper handle on the deeper thing of the system’s generating algorithm.
And then this generator is not a monistic law but the begetter of cosmic dialectics. It is a division that speaks to a unity of opposites. If everything is a matter or relations, then that brings with it a tension between integration and differentiation, between global correlation and its local “other”.
Methodological naturalism risks just collapsing all explanation to a classical metaphysics. Metaphysical naturalism may be better served by paying closer attention to specific aspects of generic chaos theory such as the physics of critical systems.
Since "classical metaphysics" isn't theoretical – doesn't produce testable explanatory models – I don't see how "methodological naturalism just risks collapsing all explanation". I suppose I'm mostly a nominalist / instrumentalist in this regard.
I'm not saying my talking about Will Smith affected the probability of him walking by. That's silly. I'm saying he could've walked by me at any time in a 24 hour period (1440 minutes) but that he appeared when I was talking about him (for 5 minute) is improbable. Do the math.
1440 - 5 = 1435
P(Will Smith walking by when I'm not talking about him) = 1435/1440
P(Will Smith walking by when I'm talking about him) = 5/1440
Classical metaphysics is that familiar Newtonian concoction of determinism, materialism, atomism, monism, mechanicalism and locality which we all so love.
As a reductionist metaphysical framework, it has a splendid track record for producing models that explain nature in terms of efficient/material cause.
My point is that this classical metaphysics only works within its own limits. It excludes the other two Aristotelean causes - formal/final cause. It isn’t a holistic or systems metaphysics.
So while classicality gives us elegant models of reasonably simple and reasonably complex physical systems, it runs out of steam when science wants to venture into the realms of the fundamentally simple, or the fundamentally complex. It breaks down when we get to the holism of quantum theory or the semiotics of living and mindful dissipative structure.
If by “classical” metaphysics, you instead meanancient metaphysics, you are still wrong. Or at least, Aristotle neatly divided causal explanations in a way that atomistic metaphysics could gratefully and usefully leave half of the four causes out when it came to “doing science”. :grin:
Quoting 180 Proof
Good luck trying to be a true natural philosopher while leaving formal and final cause out of your reality picture.
Even physicists have moved on from that kind of Newtonian extremism.
I won't debate the issue any more. Honestly I am confused about which of us are right.
But I'd like to ask. How do axioms like the law of non-contradiction fit into chaotic natural law? How can manifest reality conform to disorderly laws?
Edit. I guess I kind of get it. They would not be disorderly relative to manifest reality. Just in and of themselves....
You’ve misunderstood. My point was that methodological naturalism is fine, but too often that is taken to mean a classical notion of physical reality is proven by science to be correct, or the best we can get.
However, that classical picture only tries to cover material/efficient cause. It parks formal and final cause on the sidelines. I favour a science-based naturalism that attempts to engage with the larger holistic causal picture.
Well, chaotic =/= contradictory ...
"Manifest reality" is "disorderly" (e.g. second law of thermodynamics, etc).
That clarifies things a bit. In all your posts, apo, I've missed till now that you are a latter-day Aristotlean (cum Peircean). However, I am not. As a Spinozist (cum Epicurean), like him (them) I also dispense with "final causes" and conceive of "formal causes" as synonymous with (non-manifest) 'laws of nature' (i.e. natura naturans); as you point out, 'a metaphysics – in my understanding plural-aspect holism – consistent with methodological naturalism'.
Keeping all options open, I see! So, your position is that anything's possible!.
[quote=Mark Twain]Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't.[/quote]
But, the question of all questions is, is everything probable?
In fact I take the opposite position that something exists because everything was not possible. Reality is what is left over after all the other possibilities cancelled each other away by being contradictory.
I recently offered the example of a wheel. You can make a wheel any shape you like. It could be as irregular as you choose. But constrained by the purpose of getting yourself somewhere efficiently, you too will wind up designing a circular wheel.
Quoting TheMadFool
Symmetry principles are pretty good at telling us what is probable.
Oddly enough, Peirce wound up thinking Spinoza was the nearest to being a proper pragmatist like himself - on the basis of being a realist rather than a nominalist! At least according to - https://revistas.pucsp.br/cognitiofilosofia/article/download/20978/15446/0
Quoting TheMadFool
But we’re not talking about the abstract probability of an event occurring or not occurring within 24 hours here. The event is relatively improbable, sure. But it’s as improbable as any other specified five minute period.
P(Will Smith walking by during a 5min period when you’re talking about him) = 5/1440
P(Will Smith walking by during a 5min period when you’re not talking about him) = 5/1440
This is not about him walking by, then, but about his appearance: you noticing him walking by, which has more to do with how your attention is distributed during that five minute period.
Where A = attention directed toward qualitative aspects of the concept ‘Will Smith’ during a 5min period, then
A(talking about Will Smith) > A(not talking about Will Smith)
So, given that the probability of Will Smith walking by during any 5min period is equally negligible, then the remote probability of attention directed toward Will Smith walking by during any 5min period is relatively higher when talking (or thinking) about Will Smith during that same 5min period, than not talking about Will Smith.
I do think that it’s at least possible to direct our qualitative attention narrowly or broadly and in consolidated or interrelational structures in each moment (with practise), but that this then impacts on the effort/intensity and diversity we can bring to that attention. And by attention I’m certainly not referring only to the outer world, but also to our thoughts, feelings and intentions, and how they change in relation to each other.
I’m with you that some people may not notice or remember their thoughts. My son prefers to attend narrowly to consolidated structures - he acts decisively in the face of uncertainty, is systematic or mathematical in his process, and yet draws a blank when asked to retrace his thinking or consider alternatives. My daughter prefers to attend more broadly to interrelational structures - she is often paralysed by uncertainty, yet is well aware of her thinking process, and can track her thoughts from origin to conclusion, including exploration of paths not taken. It’s much more of a concerted effort for my son to notice or remember his thoughts, let alone critique them. But it’s much more of a concerted effort for my daughter to determine a course of action and take it.
I think part and parcel of a more open awareness is worrying about unconsolidated possibilities that capture our attention for one affective reason or another. This seems to be what occurred with your premonitions. I’m not familiar with Jung’s theories, but I think we need to develop accurate methodologies to both open our awareness of the world and consolidate towards reliable, effective action, rather than simply go with our preference every time. That way leads to ignorance, isolation and exclusion.
So start again with much more strict criteria for meaning and you will be closer to what Jung intended, which was something more like a deep structure to human experience at the psycho-spiritual level.
I am not sure how Will Smith has become the focus in the thread. I see synchronicity as being more an aspect of the psycho-spiritual experience. My own premonitions weren't pleasant but it did give me awareness of interconnectedness and patterns within nature and life. More recently, I do have some synchronicities and they are usually more pleasant. Often, what happens is that I am out and think I see someone and get close up and realise it is not them. A short while later, I really meet the person who I had mistaken a stranger for. It is not as if I am always mistaking strangers for people who I know so I do find it unusual.
Ok. What does that mean? What makes it a meaningful coincidence rather than just a coincidence.
It is a kind of foreshadowing of meeting the person I know in a premonitionary way. The premonitions I had as a teenager were scary though, such as the death of the headmaster at school, the deaths of two people in church and of the father of someone I barely knew, and several others. I had a few strange ones as an adult. For example, I kept having fears that one of my friends was going to kill himself even though he had not mentioned this to me at all and, then, he really did.
Also, when I have spoken to some people I know about my experience of premonitions, some have admitted to having some themselves. I wonder if more people have these but simply don't talk about them because it is a bit out of the norm to speak of such matters.
I don't think we are in same library, yet alone on the same page. I don't think I can engage with you.
I have been reading your ideas on chaos. I think that it is especially relevant to the idea of chance. As far as I am aware chaos theory is about a background of chaos, but with some emergence of order amidst this. I am not sure how correct chaos theory is, but it does seem to me that there is some underlying interplay within life between chaos, uncertainty and some emergent order. We may ask why does one thing happen rather than something else?
I agree with you about the problematic nature of methodological naturalism. I think that some of the issues about chance and determinism and our perception of it do go back to our metaphysical assumptions. I believe that many people are going in the direction of science for explanations, but all the underlying theories begin with metaphysics at some level.
This "background of chaos" you are referring has to do with our inability to know initial conditions and non local variables in most of the quantum systems we try to measure. So again we don't really deal with "chaos" in a colloquial sense(chaos behind order) but probably with limits in our nature and methods of investigation.
And this leads us to your agreement with apokrisis on Methodological Naturalism. Methodological Naturalism(MN) doesn't have a "problematic nature". A problematic nature would be if it was based in arbitrary metaphysical principles (like many worldviews) that in turn produced unfalsifiable metaphysical speculations.
MN is NOT a metaphysical worldview. Its an Epistemic Acknowledgement of our Limits as empirical beings based on the rules principles and criteria of Logic.
MN identifies our limits on verifying or falsifying claims free of fallacies or assumptions and doesn't accept unverifiable causal agents in any of our Descriptions.
In short MN's limits are based on human limits to produce absolute proofs or to investigate hypothesized and unfalsifiable realms or agents.
MN's principles are not based on arbitrary philosophical principles but on Pragmatic Necessity of our limits in observing, testing and verifying our theoretical frameworks.
Every mental concepts needs a "piece of theory" and in the case of MN it begins by accepting metaphysical presuppositions based on direct observations (we share a common reality,this reality displays mental and physical properties with a specific contingency, by making objective evaluations we can produce credible knowledge claims etc).
Those presuppositions may be unprovable but they are not arbitrary, they are objectively verified every single time we use them and most importantly they have predictive and practical value (instrumental value).
So we need to understand that the "problematic nature" is our intellectual and methodological limitations..MN just acknowledges that problems, works with anything available and produces the best job compared to any philosophical set of principles out there.
I’m fine with methodological naturalism as a fallback position. But it is a little much to claim the virtues of being both objective and instrumental.
A pragmatist would remind that we are only after all modelling the world, and doing that with a vested interest.
That's a thought I had not long ago. Nothingness is, literally, the apotheosis of potential - with not a thing in nothing, there can be no contradictions and thus, anything's possible.
That's all I have to say for now. Good day. Do leave a comment if it's all the same to you.
One can see thus, how on one hand the chaotic movement of gas molecules gives rise to the order of constant pressure, and on the other, how the ordered movement of the wave produces the chaotic event of the breaker.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Right, so one might understand it as a backward causation if such a thing were possible; the meeting in the future sets up an expectation in the mind in the past. Which would make sense if there were a spiritual aspect to consciousness that is beyond time. And since we already have no satisfactory physical theory of consciousness anyway, we need not rule it out a priori.
That's about as far as I can go with it, except to suggest that such premonitions might well be proportional to the 'importance' in terms of communication, of the future meeting. This would explain why premonitions about horse races are fairly rare.
Objectivism is and insturmentalism are important values for Methodological Naturalism. We can easily verify they are not as you said "a little much to claim" by just watching the standards of Science (objective independent verification) and the produced outcome (Testable predictions and technical applications). For those you don't know, MN is the philosophical backbone of Science.
So none of the rest of our philosophical worldviews have the power to fuel our epistemology like MN has been doing the last ~500 years.
With those facts in mind I can point out that your objections are unfounded but I am willing to challenge this conclusion if you are able to provide Objective, Empirical evidence for this not being the case.
It appears chaotic to the observer. If we had the technology to track every single interaction we would observe that none of the interactions defy the laws of nature.
After all this was the definition someone (I don't remember who) gave about "chaos".
I will create a thread just for people to learn why MN is a superior position IF our goal is to accept Knowledge claims that are supported by currently available facts of reality.
It doesn't guide to absolute knowledge but it ensures that our epistemology is free of fallacious artifacts and in line with all the Basic Rules of Logic.
That's deep! Convergence, as determined by matters such as convenience, efficiency, to name a few of the possibly many factors involved.
Quoting apokrisis
More on this please. Gracias.
Careful, however, not to fall forward into a 'transcendental illusion' (no matter how "rational" it is).
Quoting Jack Cummins
Well-tested 'scientific explanations' work, Jack, independent of whatever "most people" believe or disbelieve. "Underlying theories?" You've lost me. :confused:
So don't look! Really, this is a bit silly, isn't it? You reject what can be observed in favour of what we would observe if... according to the theory you are trying to demonstrate the truth of. Not very scientific or logical, I fear. But I have no problem anyway with noticing that the laws of physics do not impose any particular universal order, and are mainly statistical in nature - as witness the gas laws for instance. On the contrary, it is the laws of nature themselves that produce the conditions of stability of the wave at sea AND the chaotic dissipation of the wave energy at the shoreline.
-"So don't look! Really, this is a bit silly, isn't it? "
-No it only sounds to you silly because you are missing the scientific observation by which the definition of chaos comes from.
I quote...again:
Chaos: "Dynamical systems whose apparently random states of disorder and irregularities are actually governed by underlying patterns and deterministic laws that are highly sensitive to initial conditions."
Chaos theory IS the study of apparently random or unpredictable behaviour in systems governed by deterministic laws.
-"You reject what can be observed in favour of what we would observe if....according to the theory you are trying to demonstrate the truth of."
-Wrong.Theories are not used to demonstrate truths but to describe causal roles and relation within a system. The systematic and methodical observations of science has provided information on the underlying deterministic laws governing these dynamic systems. Technology(new super computers) has allow us to go deeper in those systems and verify our "suspicions".
-"Not very scientific or logical, I fear."
-Yes, but I would say that for your objection... not the scientific definitions and field of study of Chaos and I hope after reading the above definitions you'll agree and understand.
-" But I have no problem anyway with noticing that the laws of physics do not impose any particular universal order, and are mainly statistical in nature - as witness the gas laws for instance."
-Sure, they can describe rules displayed by specific processes within the universal process.
-" On the contrary, it is the laws of nature themselves that produce the conditions of stability of the wave at sea AND the chaotic dissipation of the wave energy at the shoreline. "
-if by "laws of natures" you mean the rules we observe emerging in the interactions of different elements of matter with different properties then yes. Everything you see is undermined by those rules. THe difference between ordered and chaotic systems is that in the case of the later we don't have access to the initial conditions and non local variables that affect the systems... making themr appear random and disordered.
Just because Science split from the rest of the Academia and acquired a wide set of empirical methodologies to test our epistemology that doesn't mean that Science stopped being, In principle, a Philosophical Category.
Science and Philosophy both attempt to explain the world through Theoretical models.
The theories that aren't verified yet (beyond our current knowledge) are Metaphysics for both fields.
Scientists are still awarded with PhDs (Doctor of Philosophy).
So metaphysics is an intrinsic part of Science and science is the best way to do philosophy when data are available.
Metaphysics is what scientists do when they form Hypotheses.
Quoting TheMadFool
The examples I gave above are inappropriate for what I want to say but they're not a total loss in a manner of speaking.
Anyway, here's one particular scenario that elucidates the matter.
Imagine the two of us are in a restaurant and are sharing a meal together.
Possibility 1: Will Smith (the black actor) walks by. We both see him. Our conversation then drifts into his movies, his acting prowess, black actors, black history, blah, blah, blah. Nothing's amiss. This isn't synchronicity.
Possibility 2: For some reason we discuss Will Smith, say he's my favorite black thespian. As we're talking about him, Will Smith walks by the window next to which the two of us are seated. This is synchronicity.
What's the difference between possibility 1 and possibility 2? My intuition tells me that what's odd/strange/uncanny about possibility 2 is causal reversal - talking about Will Smith AND Will Smith's presence occurs as a matter of routine in the lives of hundreds of thousands of people but the usual way, the natural order, this takes place is first see Will Smith and second talk about Will Smith. In synchronicity, the situation is exactly the opposite i.e. first talk about Will Smith, second see Will Smith. This produces a causal illusion - you and I going over Will Smith's life had the amazing effect of Will Smith walking by just as we were doing so.
This scenario can be adapted to simultaneous events as causation requires for the cause to --temporally precede its effect.
Also, to cover some of the scenarios I described above, we have to also consider the fact that in some instances that fit the description of synchronicity the special nature of the event has nothing to do with causality, directly at least. In the Coca Cola example, there isn't any reason to think the Coke advertisement can/should produce the effect of meeting the CEO of Coca Cola or vice versa. Why is this synchronicity then? My hunch is that it's unexpected to the point the phrase "never in my wildest dreams" would be applicable and this in mathematical circles is what's known as extremely improbable event.
To sum it all up, synchronicity is about,
1. Cases of apparent causal reversal.
2. Highly unlikely events
3. Simultaneous events in which case causality is N/A
I hope this helps Jack Cummins
I definitely think that the foreshadowing of premonitions is connected to the nature of time and its direction of flow or arrow. When I first spent time reading about premonitions, I began reading a book by JB Priestley called, Man and Time' which suggests that time can be seen as dimension in which the details of time are placed and the nature of premonitions shows the way of stepping out into timelessness, at which everything can be seen as arising in the sequence of causal reality.
More recently, I have read Stephen Hawking's,
'A Brief History of Time', which speaks of the arrow of time and of imaginary time. He said,
'Imaginary time is indistinguishable from directions in space. If one can go north, one can turn around and head south; equally, if one can go forward in imaginary time, one ought to be turn round and go backward. This means that there can be no important difference between the forward and backwards of imaginary time. On the other hand, when one looks at "real" time, there's a very big distinction between the forward and backwards directions as we know it'. Perhaps, the nature of premonitions and experience of synchronicity involves stepping outside of what is experienced as causal reality into the dimension of imaginary time.
It is interesting that it is not easy to use premonitions for advantage, such as knowing lottery numbers. In most cases, they appear as almost useless fragments. However, I am aware of a couple of people who have said that they have experienced intuitive flashes that someone they knew was in need of some medical attention, such as a friend who I knew who had an intuition to go to see someone and found him in a diabetic coma and she was able to facilitate the necessary medical support needed.
I think that there are various kinds of synchronicities, some more important than others. On a basic level, it is just simple patterns. I can give a very basic one. I was on the bus recently and I happened to be reading a book which was giving a description of a tattoo and as I glanced up, I saw a woman standing beside me covered in a tattoo. It was a mirroring of my own thinking in relation to a book, but it was extremely mundane and I would not call it a real synchronicity because the description of a tattoo or the woman walking past me seemed of little connection and it was a mere mirror of what I was reading.
It would be possible to see all synchronicities in this way and it is the understanding of the significance for the personal experiences which makes them what they are. What Jung argued was that they are more likely to be manifest in archetypal aspects of life. I think that is why they are noticed more in relation to aspects of life such as death, and I think that premonitions of death are most commonly reported. It may be a tuning in to the archetypal dimensions of existence.
I agree that the relationship between science and metaphysics is complex. As a child I was so puzzled by so much, especially the nature of time and science brings knowledge and the idea of relativity makes the nature of time so much easier to understand. I think that the level of scientific knowledge informs metaphysical assumptions, which can be verified through empirical searching and researching. The findings may be a starting point for revision of initial metaphysical assumptions, which lie behind all models and theories.
I am all in favour of scientific explanations and theories and do not think we should just make up beliefs. However, I think that even scientific evidence is often swayed by the intention of the researcher and biases exist on so many levels. I think that this is being recognised within critical analysis of evidence based research and practice.
I never said its complex. Far from it. Andronicus of Rhodes made it really simple for us. While classifying Aristotle's work, Andronicus realized that the philosophy in the books following the work on "PHYSIKA"( physics aka modern science) Aristotle's speculations and hypothesis were based on what he realized while doing his "physics".
So metaphysics in science is nothing more than constructing testable hypotheses based on our current available data.
-"However, I think that even scientific evidence is often swayed by the intention of the researcher and biases exist on so many levels."
-Sure, this is human nature...and this is why we came up with a method to monitor and prevent that behavior. Its known as....science and it comes with high standards and a self correcting mechanism.
This is why bad science doesn't survive long(usually is put down before peer reviewing) and when it does manage to sneak in our epistemology is good science that brings it down.
This is why meta analysis and objective independent verification are so valuable tools.
If in a general way you take an evolutionary or process view of reality - what exists is what is self-stabilising - then symmetry principles explain what is likely to be the case because it is the most stable and persistent outcome of symmetry breaking.
So a wheel emerges as the shape that exemplifies rotational symmetry. If you want something to roll smoothly and with the least friction, then a circle is as simple as it gets. It doesn't get simpler. The circle is the limit towards which all else tends.
This is the general story behind all physics - the search for the ultimate simplicity in terms of breaking possibilities down to the point where they have got as simple as it is possible to be. At that point, flux becomes stability.
So in a state of thermal equilibrium, all the particles are in busy motion. But it no longer makes a difference. The distribution of the momenta has converged on a stable Gaussian distribution. The system has a stable temperature and pressure.
Or if we are talking about Newtonian mechanics, reality boils down to the simplicity of zero D points that then have the irreducible freedoms of translation and rotation. Point particles are constrained to a location, but remain free to move inertially in a straight line or spin on the spot.
Symmetry principles - Noether's conservation symmetries - predict the limits of geometric constraint. You can limit the motion of a ball in many ways, but - in a frictionless world - you can't stop it rolling in a straight line forever.
Gauge or permutation symmetry in particle physics explains why protons and electrons exist. Again, starting with all possible arrangements, only some particular arrangement winds up being the simplest achievable. Once you arrive at that state, you can't go further. There is no north of the north pole, as they say.
Existence is change meeting its match in the shape of a limiting state of indifference. Change might continue, but it makes no real difference.
The particles of a gas at equilibrium are as restless as ever. But their distribution remains the same in terms of its collective average.
A wheel might wear with use, but it doesn't continue to evolve into another shape.
The problem for a metaphysics of order out of chaos is explaining why the evolution of unbound possibility arrives at bounded terminus. Symmetry maths explains that. Things get simple to the point that fluctuations can't produce an arrangement that is any simpler.
The problem as to mathematical probability is rather simple - the answer to the question, what is the probability of the conjunction of two events, 1) I should talk/think about/of Will Smith and 2) Will Smith happening to walk by at that particular moment?
For simplicity but without affecting the strength of my argument, let's assume that I know only 4 people, one of them being Will Smith and let's assume that the probability of me thinking about any of the 4 is equal. Ergo, the probability that I'll have Will Smith on my mind is [math]\frac{1}{4} = 25\%[/math]
Come now to the probability that Will Smith should be in the same location as I am. Suppose there are only 4 spots Will Smith can be and him being at any one of them is, again, [math]\frac{1}{4} = 25\%[/math]
Therefore,
Scenario 1:
The probability that I should be thinking of Will Smith AND Will Smith walking by is = [math]25\% \times 25\% = 6.25\% [/math]
What about the opposite scenario?
Scenario 2:
The probability of Will Smith walking by when I'm not talking about him = [math]75\% \times 75\% = 56.25\%[/math]
56.25% > 6.25% [It's relatively improbable that scenario 1 should occur rather than scenario 2]
Intriguingly, if I know only 2 people and any of these two can be at one of only 2 possible locations, the concept of synchronicity has no leg to stand on.
To begin with, thanks for keeping it simple. Can we then say that simplicity (I don't know how it's defined but my understanding is that it means something like if a certain phenomenon starts off with, say, a hexagon and if a triangle should also work insofar as the phenomenon in question is concerned, nature will ultimately settle on a triangle) is some kind of telos for the natural world. If yes, how does that relate to synchronicity?
As a telos, it would be a material tendency rather than a sentient purpose - what Salthe calls teleomaty rather than teleology.
And rather than just being a drive towards simplicity, it would be a drive towards generality.
To be simple is merely to lack a mess of particulars. To be generic is when every particular ceases to make a difference. So the general is a limit on change not because change is halted, but because it becomes a matter of indifference.
An equilibrium system fluctuates, but the fluctuations all average out.
A disc sitting on a surface could be rotating at any speed, or even be at rest. Unless the disc has its symmetry broken by some kind on tell-tale mark, or we will see is that it is circular. The particulars of its rotation are absorbed into the generality of its rotational symmetry.
(A triangle looks exactly the same every third of a rotation, a hexagon on every sixth rotation. A circle in fact has an infinite number of edges, so always looks the same. A triangle in fact makes a worse wheel than a pentagon for that reason ... but is the simplest answer for producing strong structures or describing networks of relations.)
Quoting TheMadFool
My comments have nothing to do with synchronicity. Although physics certainly has good models of synchrony.
I see but...speaking from how humans think and how we're so bowled over by efficiency, is it wrong to say that there's an uncanny resemblance between teleology and teleomaty? Wouldn't an intelligent sentience design (teleology) a world in which teleomaty is a priority?
No doubt, but biases =/= "underlying theories ... metaphysics" which you conflate. Peer review, though not without implicit biases itself, and rigorous repeatable experiments mitigate the distorting effects of the "intention of the researcher and biases" as much as practically possible, which is a far greater methodological corrective than employed individually or collectively by any other non-scientific (or merely subjective) endeavor. I think your stubborn attempts at 'deflating the natural sciences' (more than fallibilsts-pragmatists do) is both gratuitous and unwarranted, Jack. The alternatives, such as they are, do not work remotely as well theoretically or experientially, though, for most with a folk mentality, are more existentially sarisfying (like myths, fairytales, self-flattering ego-fantasies, and other fetish-like placebos). Idle, unwarranted, suspicions like yours (& other woo-seekers) tend only to stupify and not clarify matters as warranted doubts usually do.
Did you know?
Carl Gustav Jung was only 1 of 3 people involved in the exploration of synchronicity as a subject in its own right. The other two were preeminent physicists of their time. They were [hide]Albert Einstein and Wolfgang Pauli[/hide]
:100: :fire:
There maybe something to synchronicity as in it may not be just some crazy idea that popped out of an overactive imagination. Albert Einstein and Wolfgang Pauli weren't village idiots; that they gave synchronicity some weightage, even if only a little, in their weltanshcauungs must mean synchronicity needs to be investigated seriously, scientifically. That's all. What say you?
You have a point and you make it with exceptional alacrity.
If you have the time, why don't we simply engage in an open-ended discussion on the subject? Perhaps we might discover a truth or something interesting in the pile of, what you think is, bullshit (synchronicity).
First off, what does synchronicity mean?
It's defined as a meaningul coincidence which, prima facie, seems reasonable but, on closer examination, is a tautology - coincidences are, by definition, meaningful and that's why they're coincidences. The simple conjunction of events is an everyday affair e.g. my turning on the faucet in my toilet and my next door neighbor playing his drums but these are not what we call coincidences. Ergo, if a coincidence, necessarily meaningful. That's that.
Why are coincidences important to us? Why does it enthrall us so much?
One possible reason:
Lottery winning: To experience a coincidence (rarest of rarities) is similar to winning a lottery (near-zero probability) and here's where it gets interesting. Highly unlikely is very close, too close I suppose, to impossible. Mathematically, impossible simply means 0% probability of occuring or, another way of saying that is, not chance.
The concept of chance only applies if given a possibility space consisting of all possibile outcomes in a scenario under consideration. Certain & impossible, though expressible as probabilities of 100% and 0%, aren't probabilistic i.e. events that are certain/impossible are outside the universe of chance/probability.
Well, if it's not chance, what is it?
This is where you come in (if you consider this a worthwhile enterprise). What say you?
Look for faces in clouds, you'll "see" some. That's it.
It cannot be confirmation bias because that would mean people are selecting events that confirm a hypothesis and brushing aside disconfirming evidence.
In the case of synchronicity, there's no list of events to choose from in which case you could accuse someone of confirmation bias.
Even a single event qualifies as a coincidence. Most coincidences are of this sort, they have to be. You know that!
I have read your recent posts and I can see the problem of bias, in interpretation of synchronicity as one aspect of life, but I think that the issue goes deeper than that. I think that what it amounts to is the fact that it may not be possible to go beyond bias completely at all. I would argue that in relation to the issue of chance, on the topic of chance, which is an area of speculation mostly people who believe that in the idea of synchronicity and those who don't believe in are probably both coming from specific vantage points which are laden with personal interpretations. I think that it is probably related to our basic philosophy premises and experience of how we have experienced life. For someone who experiences synchronicity, the idea makes sense whereas I am sure that for many, especially those who come from a scientific materialist perspective, I am sure that the idea probably appears as rather absurd.
Confirmation bias: Requires a hypothesis that is erroneously, well, confirmed.
Synchronicity is a hypothesis: Coincidences occur; I'm excluding the other associated beliefs which you might feel is woo-woo.
Coincidences do occur.
I fail to see the confirmation bias.
Right!
Quoting TheMadFool Apparently.
I think that the point about 'private conviction without corroborative issues'raises an interesting but slightly different discussion insofar as it is not about scientific backing but about shared aspects of experience. I come from the background of working in psychiatric care, which is concerned with what is regarded as valid or acceptable basis of belief, or what is regarded as delusion.
I think that people forming ideas on the basis of a hallucination is problematic, especially when people begin to pay more attention to such aspects of life. For example, an extreme would be if someone begins to pay attention to voices and this can even lead to people following them, with all kinds of potential disastrous consequences. However, the theory of synchronicity is not this at all. In particular, if a person had premonitions of someone' s death and went on to believe that they were responsible for the death that would be the translation of experience into delusion. The theory of synchronicity, is, on the other hand a theoretical framework from which to understand the experience rationally.
We first have to know the different kinds of bias. Here's a list of 10 cognitive biases:
https://www.verywellmind.com/cognitive-biases-distort-thinking-2794763
Quoting Jack Cummins
It's us being human...
Quoting Cognitive biases distort thinking
Are we so busy looking for the motes in the eyes of others that we fail to notice our own ?
Despite no longer holding a Christian faith - the Bible still holds wisdom in its pages:
***
Look at this:
Quoting Jack Cummins
N.B. The following is not meant as an attack on your person:
Have you noticed the frequency of certainty phrases in your writing, even as you pose questions ?
At one point, the most common was 'I do believe...' Repeated ad nauseam.
If I had a whisky every time I heard it, I would have been in an alcoholic coma
Here in a single paragraph: 'I am sure...' - even if you throw in a 'probably' to qualify.
Perhaps to take the hard edge off...a conviction you hold almost sacred...?
A pattern is observed.
Quoting 180 Proof
I suggest that those from a 'scientific materialist perspective' or those who undertake research have more knowledge of the cognitive biases and will acknowledge such in reports. It is part of their training and education.
Quoting Cognitive biases distort thinking
Shared aspects of experience are fine...up to a point.
It depends on what, with whom and why they are important. How do you assess ?
Synchronicity theory
Quoting Synchronicity meaning and examples: Reality or Bias
So, how biased is this article ?
If it is about belief as in religion, then some will hold it as a matter of faith
Others will not. Some will reserve judgement or not see it as terribly important.
We can ask the question: We sometimes have these feelings. What, if any, are the implications ?
What is at stake? Psychological comfort ?
But, do you think that everything can be proved or disproved through official 'experiments'. The main reason why I chose not to do a degree in psychology was because I did 'A' level psychology and felt that experimental psychology was so shallow. I am not dismissing experiments completely but just don't think that it is all about laboratory and statistics. I think that life itself is the greatest experiment.
You feel and judge from a single experience. I am reminded of your swift assessment of a short story.
Dismissing it - from its title alone. In that case, fairly unimportant consequences.
Consider how your habits of thinking/decision-making might appear 'shallow' to others ?
What are the implications in your 'life experiment' ?
Experimental psychology.
Isn't that how Jung came to his conclusions. The ones you admire so much ?
Quoting What is Analytical Psychology of Carl Jung ?
:up: I try not to cop-out and lean explicitly on my old (long unused) graduate degree in cognitive psychology when discussing philosophical topics. Conceptual clarity is – should be – more persuasive than stroking our credentials.
Okay. As I thought, there's no "theory of synchronicity" in any publicly accessible, or corroborative, sense, and you're just gassing about a story you tell yourself. I wish people would just be honest about merely speculating, or waxing poetic, and stop trying to pass off wholly subjective beliefs or feelings as "theories" which whither under the most casual critical scrutiny. Much of human experience, like nature itself, is fragmented witth epistemic cracks and gaps of unknowns and uncertainties which our species neurotically over-interpret (i.e. buries with confabulated denials) in order to cope with existential anxieties and, often, psychological maladies. Folks are welcome to their subjectivities; you're not, however, entitled to us treating them as if they're also factual or explanatory. Philosophical dialectics is neither "theory" nor "therapy", my friend, and without intellectual honesty we're just chasing our own smelly tails (tales) endlessly ad nauseam.
Okay, I won't force the issue. I only opened the thread with a view to discussion of Jung's idea of synchronicity, to know what people think about the idea. I understand that many on the forum do not find it useful at all.
Quoting Jack Cummins
:roll:
It isn't about you 'forcing' an issue.
It's about what you and others take from the discussion.
Considering points, carefully.
A thoughtful weighing-up.
Do I take it that you will not be responding to my last two posts ?
It's not so much that I don't wish to respond to your posts but some of it seems more about me as a person, which goes beyond philosophy. I will look at your links and reflect on what you are saying. I am sure that I have many weaknesses and some may think that I am shallow in thinking, although I am not sure that this can be established on the basis of forum discussion. As it is, I try to keep a critical awareness, and do wish to think with as much clarity of thought and engage in philosophy discussion. I hope that I don't drive you to need whiskey on account of using the expression, 'I believe', and I will take the feedback on board in thinking about what I write. It is good to be aware of the personal aspects of belief, with a mixture of honesty and ability to think and evaluate ideas.
The questions I raised are about your thoughts.
Some analyse what you write as an expression of your self and beliefs.
Tell me, how does this 'go beyond philosophy'?
Quoting Jack Cummins
Nobody is trying to establish anything.
My point and questions related to this 'personal' exchange, initiated by you :
Quoting Amity
A more careful response to this and other specific questions would be appreciated.
***
Quoting Jack Cummins
OK. 'I do believe' this is an attempt at humour. I do believe... * slurps * :party:
Quoting Jack Cummins
Indeed. And words are easy. It's all in the action, baby.
Elvis Presley - A Little Less Conversation (Album Master)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWVMXLSS1cA
Take care :flower:
Your questions do raise the question as to what extent are ideas related to autobiographical constructs? On this forum, it varies so much how much people disclose and it is probably more related to choice than anything else. But, it may also be connected to the expression of ideas as academic ones or in connection with experience. Some people write from a more detached point of view whereas others make more links with personal experience. One writer who has written philosophy more as an autobiographical expression is Bryan McGee. Jung himself wrote his autobiography, ' Memories, Dreams and Reflections', but this was towards the end of his life.
In connection with Jung and criticism of his work, his writings have been a source of inspiration for some but attacked fiercely by others. Of course, he was writing on psychoanalysis, but his writings explored so much more, especially in relation to esoteric philosophy, such as alchemy and Gnostic thinking, alongside reflections on his own clinical work.
From the standpoint of philosophy, he is a bit of a 'fringe' writer, and I think that this needs to be taken into account when thinking about his ideas about synchronicity. It would probably be hard for him to present his ideas in the cultural context of the twentieth first century, although a lot of people do write all kinds of ideas which appear in 'mind, body and spirit' sections of bookshops. Such ideas may be regarded as 'woo woo' by some, but there is academic philosophy, on the other hand, which can be seen as an intellectual pursuit. But, how real is the split in construction of thinking about experience and do the ones who write academic texts hide behind the cloak of theory, and how much is separate from the pursuit of philosophy as a way of making sense of life experiences? How much is the preference for the academic or other expression of written ideas bound up with an underlying personal philosophy position firstly?