Rationalists vs. Synchronicity

The origins of the imperative, "know thyself", are lost in the sands of time, but the age-old examination of human consciousness continues here.

Rationalists vs. Synchronicity

Postby Parodites » Sat Sep 25, 2021 10:43 pm

The common rationalist-reductionist argument against synchronicity boils down to: the total explananda for this phenomenon can be reduced merely to the law of large numbers, to the mechanical distribution of statistics over a long enough time line with enough evaluative constraints and parameters. You think of a person and pick up the phone to call them, and when you turn the phone on and dial the numbers, nothing happens: because that person, in that exact instant, called you: they're already on the line. The argument is that enough people make phone calls every day that, statistically, this is bound to happen every so often. But, using this purely statistics-driven, mechanical model of reality... it is as certain a conclusion that, because it is statistically far more likely (infinitely more likely) that a single brain emerged from the quantum foam through random interactions between particles (a brain whose connectome or synaptic configuration just happens to contain all the memory and experience I have mistakenly believed is my life up to the moment I am typing this, none of which ever happened, corresponding to nothing 'real' behind the experience outside of my Boltzmann brain, isolated in the vacuum) than it is that an entire universe populated by billions, trillions of brains emerged from the same. But this Boltzmann brain hypothesis is ridiculous,-- and yet those who decry the idea of synchronicity (of what has been called, more ecstatically, the unus mundus, or what Bohm calls the implicate order: an order to events that emerges retrocausally, out of a determinant force beyond the mechanical interactions of one-to-one particle collisions) must, if they are to maintain the logical consistency of their world-view, (which I assume is important to them, given the rationalist, reductionist programme they advance) accept it as the most solid conclusion of their line of argument, for this conclusion is what a purely statistical model of reality necessitates.

The real problem with the Boltzmann brain hypothesis is that consciousness is simply not reducible, that is, consciousness is non-computable. Even if an exact replica of my brain, every single cell in the same place, in the same state of firing, were to be automatically produced at the same instant my own brain were to be blinked out of existence, my consciousness would not move from one to the other structure- there would be no continuity between the two. Likewise, my connectome cannot be uploaded to a computer with any hope of reproducing my own consciousness in a digital form, though a new consciousness could perhaps be engineered in this way. The same idea extends to synchronicity. Synchronicity would be some non-computable (implicate) order in the structure of causes and events. In this sense, consciousness ITSELF is a synchronicity emerging in the series of causes and events, in the causal chain, as constituted by the activity of my neurons.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: Rationalists vs. Synchronicity

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Sep 26, 2021 1:38 am

Parodites wrote:The common rationalist-reductionist argument against synchronicity boils down to: the total explananda for this phenomenon can be reduced merely to the law of large numbers, to the mechanical distribution of statistics over a long enough time line with enough evaluative constraints and parameters. You think of a person and pick up the phone to call them, and when you turn the phone on and dial the numbers, nothing happens: because that person, in that exact instant, called you: they're already on the line. The argument is that enough people make phone calls every day that, statistically, this is bound to happen every so often. But, using this purely statistics-driven, mechanical model of reality... it is as certain a conclusion that, because it is statistically far more likely (infinitely more likely) that a single brain emerged from the quantum foam through random interactions between particles (a brain whose connectome or synaptic configuration just happens to contain all the memory and experience I have mistakenly believed is my life up to the moment I am typing this, none of which ever happened, corresponding to nothing 'real' behind the experience outside of my Boltzmann brain, isolated in the vacuum) than it is that an entire universe populated by billions, trillions of brains emerged from the same. But this Boltzmann brain hypothesis is ridiculous,-- and yet those who decry the idea of synchronicity (of what has been called, more ecstatically, the unus mundus, or what Bohm calls the implicate order: an order to events that emerges retrocausally, out of a determinant force beyond the mechanical interactions of one-to-one particle collisions) must, if they are to maintain the logical consistency of their world-view, (which I assume is important to them, given the rationalist, reductionist programme they advance) accept it as the most solid conclusion of their line of argument, for this conclusion is what a purely statistical model of reality necessitates.

An invalid comparison. The likelihood of a particular complex situation having occurred somewhere in an infinite universe is always 100%. The likelihood of two particular people coinciding at a point in time - is nill - but exists.

Parodites wrote:The real problem with the Boltzmann brain hypothesis is that consciousness is simply not reducible, that is, consciousness is non-computable. Even if an exact replica of my brain, every single cell in the same place, in the same state of firing, were to be automatically produced at the same instant my own brain were to be blinked out of existence, my consciousness would not move from one to the other structure- there would be no continuity between the two.

I don't see why that would be true.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just the same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --

The prospect of death weighs naught upon the purpose of life - James S Saint - 2009
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4235
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Rationalists vs. Synchronicity

Postby Parodites » Sun Sep 26, 2021 2:56 pm

What's an invalid comparison?

" The likelihood of a particular complex situation having occurred somewhere in an infinite universe is always 100%. The likelihood of two particular people coinciding at a point in time - is nill - but exists."
^ I don't know what you're trying to say with that. What do you mean "the likelihood of two people coinciding at a point in time"? What do you mean "it's nil but still exists"?

If consciousness IS computable, then the Boltzmann brain hypothesis is true. My brain is just a mass of interacting particles- a very complex thing, but it is far less complex than an entire universe in which there exists trillions of other, equally complex brains in other organisms' heads. Therefor it is more likely that a single brain containing all of my experience up to this moment in "time" spontaneously emerged from random fluctuations in the quantum foam than it is that a whole universe came to be out of the same, a universe containing a "reality" with a bunch of other independent brains in it.

As a matter of fact, if consciousness is computable, the quantum immortality hypothesis is true as well. When I die, I (and by "I", I mean my consciousness) simply moves into a parallel world-line where whatever happened that led to my death in this universe, didn't occur, with no seeming discontinuity from my perspective, as if I was deconstructed atomically in one universe and immediately reconstructed in the other,- though of course, everyone else left behind in the universe I died in sees that, well, I'm apparently dead.

Both of these ideas strike people as ridiculous even if they cannot exactly say why or refute the hypothesis. But proposing that consciousness is a fundamental interaction, that is, it is not computable, resolves these thought experiments. And plenty of people have proposed consciousness to arise from some fundamental interaction of matter, much like one of the four classical forces themselves; that is, that it not simply an epiphenomenon. Integrated Information Theory, you have Chalmers' panpsychist thesis, etc.

I have my own version of this fundementality argument when it comes to consciousness, which I have written about at length before in other threads, and which I simply assume to be true, having never been given an adequate counter-argument by anybody. If you believe otherwise, if you believe that consciousness IS computable, you are forced to accept a bunch of thought experiments and paradoxes that are patently stupid.
Last edited by Parodites on Sun Sep 26, 2021 8:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: Rationalists vs. Synchronicity

Postby Meno_ » Sun Sep 26, 2021 4:04 pm

Parodites says :

"As a matter of fact, if consciousness is computable, the quantum immortality hypothesis is true as well. When I die, I (and by "I", I mean my consciousness) simply move into a parallel world-line where whatever happened that led to my death in this universe, didn't occur, with no seeming discontinuity from my perspective, as if I was deconstructed atomically in one universe and immediately reconstructed in the other,- though of course, everyone else left behind in the universe I died in sees that, well, I'm apparently dead."



This probibility varience is connected to Peacegirl's determinative varience with 'free will' or even the liberation of the will's approximated power structures which have no identifiable powe.
Identities that are differentiable.


In other words, the will and it's re-presentational significances depend, or are conditional upon the level of structural efficacy between inner and outer modes of signification.

This is born out by Buddhist relevance to karmic effects which offer various levels of determination relating to the inner and outer determinations, by way of constructive willful and deconstructive transferred sequences , as they are 'weighed down' by more generalized-compacted series of associatiations, or are progressively induced to expand toward and into looser and less temporal, more spatial and expansive modules.
The limits of these transpire into the multi universe's replication, which resemble the biochemical splitting that occurs in
living structures.*

The human faith in the inorganic world serves a stronger source of security ( contrasted with quantum processds of uncdrtainty); than the organic, tends to form a reverse trend in the objectivization - (materialization )behind the process of evolution.


*https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21079-6


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21079-6
Last edited by Meno_ on Sun Sep 26, 2021 4:41 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13260
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Rationalists vs. Synchronicity

Postby Parodites » Sun Sep 26, 2021 4:15 pm

Aw man I think I have a drug and alcohol problem. I don't think I misspelled one thing looking over my last post. Just realized how functional I am after an entire 750ML bottle of Crown. That's a whole bottle of whiskey, plus 140MG OXYNT, and however much phenobarbital. An old school barbiturate-- FUCK that pussy-ass XANAX shit. And what time is it.. 11:15 AM. Just warming up for the day. If you wanna see me misspell, just tune back in this evening on the Parodites I DON'T GIVE A FUCK channel.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: Rationalists vs. Synchronicity

Postby Meno_ » Sun Sep 26, 2021 4:24 pm

Parodites wrote:Aw man I think I have a drug and alcohol problem. I don't think I misspelled one thing looking over my last post. Just realized how functional I am after an entire 750ML bottle of Crown. That's a whole bottle of whiskey, plus 140MG OXYNT, and however much phenobarbital. An old school barbiturate-- FUCK that pussy-ass XANAX shit. And what time is it.. 11:15 AM. Just warming up for the day. If you wanna see me misspell, just tune back in this evening on the Parodites I DON'T GIVE A FUCK channel.




This reminds me,.....of something.Paro, but I don't really know exactly what.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13260
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Rationalists vs. Synchronicity

Postby Meno_ » Sun Sep 26, 2021 4:40 pm

Meno_ wrote:
Parodites wrote:Aw man I think I have a drug and alcohol problem. I don't think I misspelled one thing looking over my last post. Just realized how functional I am after an entire 750ML bottle of Crown. That's a whole bottle of whiskey, plus 140MG OXYNT, and however much phenobarbital. An old school barbiturate-- FUCK that pussy-ass XANAX shit. And what time is it.. 11:15 AM. Just warming up for the day. If you wanna see me misspell, just tune back in this evening on the Parodites I DON'T GIVE A FUCK channel.




This reminds me,.....of something.Paro, but I don't really know exactly what.




The point being , in my mind, is that the syncronistc/ rationalist divide may be something of an early sense of a misguided divide, hence, a more progressive ground (literally -soil , per brought back to ground); may cyclically overcome the weighed down pressures caused by the power of deconstruction -decompositon - toward disintegration.

As power motives/processes interact , determening spatio-temporal varience, , it may not be surprising to hold that synchronistic effects could be generated from rationally fixed precepts that are long overdue for revision.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13260
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Rationalists vs. Synchronicity

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:17 am

Parodites wrote:What's an invalid comparison?

" The likelihood of a particular complex situation having occurred somewhere in an infinite universe is always 100%. The likelihood of two particular people coinciding at a point in time - is nill - but exists."
^ I don't know what you're trying to say with that. What do you mean "the likelihood of two people coinciding at a point in time"? What do you mean "it's nil but still exists"?

If consciousness IS computable, then the Boltzmann brain hypothesis is true. My brain is just a mass of interacting particles- a very complex thing, but it is far less complex than an entire universe in which there exists trillions of other, equally complex brains in other organisms' heads. Therefor it is more likely that a single brain containing all of my experience up to this moment in "time" spontaneously emerged from random fluctuations in the quantum foam than it is that a whole universe came to be out of the same, a universe containing a "reality" with a bunch of other independent brains in it.

You keep comparing things that have 100% probability to things that have a limited calculated probability.

Every "particular complex" situation has 100% probability of existing somewhere in the infinite universe. That is a very different concern from whether 2 particular people on a particular planet will interact in any way. Perhaps the 2 people will interact - perhaps not - it depends on many things so a probability guess has to be made. But within an infinite universe EVERY complex situation will occur - SOMEWHERE.

Your consciousness had 100% probability of occurring - somewhere. If it didn't happen here - you would be asking the same questions wherever it did occur and not know the difference - so wherever it was to occur - is necessarily wherever you are - "here".

Parodites wrote:As a matter of fact, if consciousness is computable, the quantum immortality hypothesis is true as well. When I die, I (and by "I", I mean my consciousness) simply moves into a parallel world-line where whatever happened that led to my death in this universe, didn't occur, with no seeming discontinuity from my perspective, as if I was deconstructed atomically in one universe and immediately reconstructed in the other,- though of course, everyone else left behind in the universe I died in sees that, well, I'm apparently dead.

- Just quantum fairy tales.

There are no "alternate universes" - except in the comics.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just the same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --

The prospect of death weighs naught upon the purpose of life - James S Saint - 2009
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4235
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Rationalists vs. Synchronicity

Postby Motor Daddy » Mon Sep 27, 2021 12:45 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
There are no "alternate universes" - except in the comics.



...that we know of, YET.

First there were no other planets.
Then there were no other solar systems.
Then there were no other galaxies.
and now there are no other universes.

In the future there will be no other multiverses...

If and when a different universe is discovered, orbiting the same central body that our universe orbits, which in total is called a multiverse, will you then admit you were talking crap?

But you won't admit to talking crap until they find it, right?
User avatar
Motor Daddy
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:32 pm

Re: Rationalists vs. Synchronicity

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Sep 27, 2021 2:14 pm

- :lol:
A flat-Earther who denies Relativity (doesn't seem to even know what it is) really shouldn't be criticizing.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just the same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --

The prospect of death weighs naught upon the purpose of life - James S Saint - 2009
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4235
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Rationalists vs. Synchronicity

Postby Motor Daddy » Mon Sep 27, 2021 2:20 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:- :lol:
A flat-Earther who denies Relativity (doesn't seem to even know what it is) really shouldn't be criticizing.


Flat-Earther? Is that BS from the same book you learned how to count? What's the name of it, "Mass, Distance, and Time For Dummies?"
User avatar
Motor Daddy
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:32 pm

Re: Rationalists vs. Synchronicity

Postby felix dakat » Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:31 pm

Meno_ wrote:
Meno_ wrote:
Parodites wrote:Aw man I think I have a drug and alcohol problem. I don't think I misspelled one thing looking over my last post. Just realized how functional I am after an entire 750ML bottle of Crown. That's a whole bottle of whiskey, plus 140MG OXYNT, and however much phenobarbital. An old school barbiturate-- FUCK that pussy-ass XANAX shit. And what time is it.. 11:15 AM. Just warming up for the day. If you wanna see me misspell, just tune back in this evening on the Parodites I DON'T GIVE A FUCK channel.




This reminds me,.....of something.Paro, but I don't really know exactly what.




The point being , in my mind, is that the syncronistc/ rationalist divide may be something of an early sense of a misguided divide, hence, a more progressive ground (literally -soil , per brought back to ground); may cyclically overcome the weighed down pressures caused by the power of deconstruction -decompositon - toward disintegration.

As power motives/processes interact , determening spatio-temporal varience, , it may not be surprising to hold that synchronistic effects could be generated from rationally fixed precepts that are long overdue for revision.


A precept is a general rule for guiding behavior or thought. What is a precept have to do with synchronicity? I'm not sure if that's a category error or just a malapropism.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10953
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Rationalists vs. Synchronicity

Postby Meno_ » Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:54 pm

Felix dakat wrote :

"A precept is a general rule for guiding behavior or thought. What is a precept have to do with synchronicity? I'm not sure if that's a category error or just a malapropism."




>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13260
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Rationalists vs. Synchronicity

Postby Meno_ » Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:55 pm

Meno_ wrote:Felix dakat wrote :

"A precept is a general rule for guiding behavior or thought. What is a precept have to do with synchronicity? I'm not sure if that's a category error or just a malapropism."




>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>





Neither or both , but I thinking in terms of a conjunction, where the question needen't be asked.
That is my precept, or perception of it, and reduced to it's common denominator a retesting of hypothesis.

Hypothesis tend to confirm data whereas day a at times conforms hypothesis , if the belief that simple hunches can best sophisticated workeable criteria at times.

Sometimes a grain of truth in a menue of a complex set of events can upturn the whole gamut of predictable probable set of events. Case at hand : the two slit physics experiment frames the meta-event of uncertainty into 'real' parameters.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13260
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Rationalists vs. Synchronicity

Postby felix dakat » Mon Sep 27, 2021 5:33 pm

Meno_ wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Felix dakat wrote :

"A precept is a general rule for guiding behavior or thought. What is a precept have to do with synchronicity? I'm not sure if that's a category error or just a malapropism."




>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>





Neither or both , but I thinking in terms of a conjunction, where the question needen't be asked.
That is my precept, or perception of it, and reduced to it's common denominator a retesting of hypothesis.

Hypothesis tend to confirm data whereas day a at times conforms hypothesis , if the belief that simple hunches can best sophisticated workeable criteria at times.

Sometimes a grain of truth in a menue of a complex set of events can upturn the whole gamut of predictable probable set of events. Case at hand : the two slit physics experiment frames the meta-event of uncertainty into 'real' parameters.


I don't get it. How is the slit experiment related to synchronicity?

Jung did say that the psyche and matter are contained in one in the same world. They are in continuous contact with one another and ultimately rest on your representable transcendental factors. He thought it probable that psyche and matter are two at different aspects of one and the same thing--the dual aspect theory. Synchronicity then shows that the non psychic can behave like the psychic and vice versa without there being any causal connection between them.

He did work on the problem with the physicist Pauli. I'm not sure that anyone has gotten substantially further than noting amazing coincidences that remain unexplained. Kind of like the status of UFOs. People perceive them but nobody knows what they are.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10953
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Rationalists vs. Synchronicity

Postby Meno_ » Thu Sep 30, 2021 3:56 am

felix dakat wrote:
Meno_ wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Felix dakat wrote :

"A precept is a general rule for guiding behavior or thought. What is a precept have to do with synchronicity? I'm not sure if that's a category error or just a malapropism."




>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>





Neither or both , but I thinking in terms of a conjunction, where the question needen't be asked.
That is my precept, or perception of it, and reduced to it's common denominator a retesting of hypothesis.

Hypothesis tend to confirm data whereas day a at times conforms hypothesis , if the belief that simple hunches can best sophisticated workeable criteria at times.

Sometimes a grain of truth in a menue of a complex set of events can upturn the whole gamut of predictable probable set of events. Case at hand : the two slit physics experiment frames the meta-event of uncertainty into 'real' parameters.


I don't get it. How is the slit experiment related to synchronicity?

Jung did say that the psyche and matter are contained in one in the same world. They are in continuous contact with one another and ultimately rest on your representable transcendental factors. He thought it probable that psyche and matter are two at different aspects of one and the same thing--the dual aspect theory. Synchronicity then shows that the non psychic can behave like the psychic and vice versa without there being any causal connection between them.

He did work on the problem with the physicist Pauli. I'm not sure that anyone has gotten substantially further than noting amazing coincidences that remain unexplained. Kind of like the status of UFOs. People perceive them but nobody knows what they are.




Felix wrote:

"don't get it. How is the slit experiment related to synchronicity?



Just a equabalance between quantum uncertainty and rational certainty, as like on moving each toward a frlcrun. The relational dependency of moving one toward, the other away from a fulcrum.

Or, leaving both ends whete they are, abd moving thr fulcrum toward one and away from the either.

The balance between uncertainty abd certainty is the same, metaphysically, but appears different phenemonologically.

Of course there is more to the relagionship, but that is probable relativitidtic mathematics.

The metaphysical aspect, is similarly related nh metaphoric llnks.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13260
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Rationalists vs. Synchronicity

Postby Meno_ » Thu Sep 30, 2021 5:37 am

From wiki:


"Jung, in turn, received a schooling in quantum physics. He learnt how measuring the state of one particle can seem to influence the state of another instantly, a property called entanglement.""

Before meeting Pauli, Jung had coined the term synchronicity to describe the principle of acausal connections.Aug 26, 2020
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13260
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Rationalists vs. Synchronicity

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Sep 30, 2021 5:41 am

Meno_ wrote:Before meeting Pauli, Jung had coined the term synchronicity to describe the principle of acausal connections.Aug 26, 2020

So Jung never learned the word "coincidence"?
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just the same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --

The prospect of death weighs naught upon the purpose of life - James S Saint - 2009
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4235
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Rationalists vs. Synchronicity

Postby Meno_ » Thu Sep 30, 2021 3:51 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Before meeting Pauli, Jung had coined the term synchronicity to describe the principle of acausal connections.Aug 26, 2020

So Jung never learned the word "coincidence"?



More then likely he did, but the difference as far as probability goes between coincidence and syncronacity is far more nearer to certainty in the case of the later
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13260
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Rationalists vs. Synchronicity

Postby felix dakat » Fri Oct 01, 2021 1:05 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Before meeting Pauli, Jung had coined the term synchronicity to describe the principle of acausal connections.Aug 26, 2020

So Jung never learned the word "coincidence"?


That's funny. But it's also a good starting point. What if anything did Jung add to the common sense understanding of coincidences with his concept of synchronicity?

In his paper "On Synchronicity" he stated that the phenomena can be grouped into three categories:

1 "The coincidence of a psychic state in the observer with a simultaneous objective external event that corresponds to the psychic state or content where there is no evidence of a causal connection between the psychic State and the external state and where considering the psychic relativity of space and time such a connection is not even conceivable"

2 The coincidence of a psychic state with a corresponding more or less simultaneous external event taking place outside the observer's field of perception i. e. at a distance and only verifiable afterwards.

.
3 The coincidence of a psychic state with a corresponding not yet existing future event that is distant and time and can likewise only be verified afterward.

Jung described extraordinary events that occurred in his psychotherapeutic practice that fell into these categories.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10953
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Rationalists vs. Synchronicity

Postby Meno_ » Fri Oct 01, 2021 5:23 pm

felix dakat wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Before meeting Pauli, Jung had coined the term synchronicity to describe the principle of acausal connections.Aug 26, 2020

So Jung never learned the word "coincidence"?


That's funny. But it's also a good starting point. What if anything did Jung add to the common sense understanding of coincidences with his concept of synchronicity?

In his paper "On Synchronicity" he stated that the phenomena can be grouped into three categories:

1 "The coincidence of a psychic state in the observer with a simultaneous objective external event that corresponds to the psychic state or content where there is no evidence of a causal connection between the psychic State and the external state and where considering the psychic relativity of space and time such a connection is not even conceivable"

2 The coincidence of a psychic state with a corresponding more or less simultaneous external event taking place outside the observer's field of perception i. e. at a distance and only verifiable afterwards.

.
3 The coincidence of a psychic state with a corresponding not yet existing future event that is distant and time and can likewise only be verified afterward.

Jung described extraordinary events that occurred in his psychotherapeutic practice that fell into these categories.





"Jung described extraordinary events that occurred in his psychotherapeutic practice that fell into these categories."

Yes and the unreported #3 , is like an prophetic expectation of things hypothetically will most probably happen, as his subsequent work fold out toward a new trio of analysis, #4, #5, and #6, the "6 of which will morph into a newer yet, #7, #8 & # 9.

In other words, each part will conceivably break down into subsequent triads.

There is then a new configuration consisting in more and more synaptic cross 'polinizaton' where the hypothetical will adhere to more certainty


The 'third circuit' will for most practical purposes will deconstruct the last inditerminate variable into indiscernible units of measure.

Jung will ultimately be acknowledged, when #10, 11, &#12 complete the total resistence to patterns that invariably recur.

Just off the wall.


Until then, Ayer, Skinner , Ryle & Co. rules with an iron fist.


Elementary dear Watson
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13260
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Rationalists vs. Synchronicity

Postby Meno_ » Sat Oct 02, 2021 7:18 pm

Or, not so :

As in a Freudian split with Jung ; if in fact that is an element, over magic and magical thinking.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13260
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Rationalists vs. Synchronicity

Postby felix dakat » Mon Oct 04, 2021 2:55 pm

Meno_ wrote:Or, not so :

As in a Freudian split with Jung ; if in fact that is an element, over magic and magical thinking.


Or was the split just over thinking? Or over overthinking?
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10953
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Rationalists vs. Synchronicity

Postby Meno_ » Mon Oct 04, 2021 3:55 pm

felix dakat wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Or, not so :

As in a Freudian split with Jung ; if in fact that is an element, over magic and magical thinking.


Or was the split just over thinking? Or over overthinking?




probably beyond it. as evident by a more or less specific split between the good and evil discrepency, reduced all the way toward the redemptive effort to restrain an angry god from forcing an answer.

The answer to the most existential questions imaginable that children use to get back at their parents, by pushing them to The Wall.

Why did you create me in the first place?

Can You over think that, or, are we to acquiesce to speak, do or hear no evil?
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13260
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Rationalists vs. Synchronicity

Postby Meno_ » Mon Oct 04, 2021 4:16 pm

All of that has to do with the currently , even now!, asked philosophical question : whether thought written or not is a 'thing', as much as all other descriptions are: and if not, or if they are, what relationship exists between them, ?

That relationship may factor in the 'is-ought' controversies as well as defining the mass movements' tangency and borderING situations, whereby a lot of effects are determined .
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13260
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum


Return to Psychology and Mind



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users