Synchronicity; Apophenia and the 11:11 fallacy

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: spygeek

You still suggest that the universe has a vested interest in you and your life to the point of influencing the events around you to lead you.

maybe it does. it has the sae interest in you. because we are the universe. consciousness is just one thing. we are it. were just one mind splintered into many.

All I'm saying is that this is not supported by evidence and not entirely rational.

But you ignore everybody else with this suggestion, apparently starving third world citizens and ruthless dictators fall outside of the universe's jurisdiction

my god how can i begin to explain. the universe doesnt just control everything. its a simulation. free will is a thing. there is no point if everything is controlled. most everything is left to chance.

It might be a simulation, but we would never know either way, so any such assumption is irrelevant until something comes along to change that, is all I'm saying.

What exactly is the level of the universe's intervention and how exactly can an intervention be defined?

very low? could have swore i said that. ohh i did.

Apologies, I missed this.

What makes you so special that the universe itself will go out of it's way to provide you with a specific choice of path?

nothing. im not. didnt say i was. everyone is treated the same. if youre about to do a dumb thing maybe you get some sort of message. maybe you dont.

Essentially then, nothing can be said or predicted by the assumption and it is effectively moot.

A choice you might not even take anyway, rendering the whole thing pointless to begin with

you mean kind of like giving someone advice that they may or may not take? yeah so why even #ing bother. we should just stop communicating all together.

If it was an influential law or inherent mechanical property of the universe, then it wouldn't be hit and miss like this, is all I'm saying.

Logical fallacies. Confirmation bias. Magical thinking. Correlation implying causation. Arguments from ignorance. Special pleading. Argmentum ex culo. Slothful induction. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The list goes on..

no dude. lots and lots of out of body experiences leading me to think that this sh1t isnt what it looks like on the surface. whats illogical or magical about that?

"Out of body experience" explanations of psychological phenomena are arguably themselves examples of magical thinking and cognitive illusion, but that is an argument for another thread..

and seriously what are you talking about? do you think it makes you looks smart saying thing like that? please try to speak to me like a human being. its pretty #ty that im trying to convey to you my personal view and experiences and you are just sh1tt1ng all over it. i get it. you think your smarter than me because youve convinced yourself youre right. just save it dude. try to treat me with some respect instead of shooting down everything i say.

I'm merely attempting a critical analysis of what you say. It is not my intention to offend or talk down to you.

It has been pointed out to me that I have been abrasive and condescending, and you have been a recipient of this. I apologise for this, it was not my goal to hurt your feelings but clearly that is what I have done.

Please forgive me for wording some of my replies in a belittling manner. I am consciously trying to correct this.

Live long and prosper, Mr. Reason.

a reply to: spygeek

hey, wonderful answers spygeek, even if we defer like black and white about the nature of our universe. But I sense an honest curiosity in your replies, even though you seem a bit too tainted with scientific reasoning in my opinion : )

Anyway I just had to pitch in for this small detail you mentioned in this post.

"Out of body experience" explanations of psychological phenomena are arguably themselves examples of magical thinking and cognitive illusion, but that is an argument for another thread..

arguably - is the key word! But what if it is true and we can really leave our body? Why don't you try to find out on your own, after this experiment, maybe a good new challenge? I think it would blow your mind after you would manage to experiance it. You would be sure about the realness and there would be no doubt in your mind, well maybe not at first, but once you get it, you will probably have many experiences spontaneously or even consciously. A good meditator can have them consciously, but this is another level...!

I am just saying that becouse it is not hard to accomplish this with regular meditation or other practices like, dream journals. Many people all over the world have said the same after the experiance happened and scientists still think it is probably just in our head..am okey. But why don't they bother to try it on their own? you can do it very fast if you would give it your best.

And when you would have such an experiance I also wonder how would your stance change about this experiment. This is very connected in my opinion and are two sides of the same coin! It is connected to the real nature of our universe after all, if consciousness is not local to the body, than this implies a looot!

also this, I have just read it recently, but did not check the sources, so I cannot say this if story is true, but it can certainly make one think:
humansarefree.com...

sorry to post off topic, you don't have to bother with replaying, I was just posting that to tease a bit and get you thinking maybe on the next challenge

I apologise to the OP and other members for not replying sooner to their posts, I have been somewhat preoccupied the last few days. Since I don't want to go backwards, I will just make a general post in relation to the topic.

I believe synchronicity is real as I have experienced it myself. I agree that is not something that can currently be demonstrated using the scientific method, but that does not mean we should discard its existence. I could tell you that I dreamed last night about slaying a dragon while wearing plate armour. There is no way for you to verify this using the scientific method - that doesn't mean the dream did not take place.

Think of it like this: you can read a book written by an alcoholic. It can be elaborately detailed, incredibly accurate and rich in imagery. You can do much research on the scientific understanding of alcoholism and the biological/mental elements of its characteristics. You can even conduct experiments that test the findings of your research.

Nevertheless, you will never truly understand alcoholism unless you have been an alcoholic at some point in your life. You will never be able to relate directly to the experience of its effects in the same manner as an alcoholic has.

originally posted by: spygeek
Assuming (not implying) that you are on to something here, how do I definitively recognise what is a code and what is not?
Does the lack of the code subsequently appearing in a dream render it "not genuine"?
How do I "monitor" a dream environment or a dream character? Is lucid dreaming a prerequisite for inferring premonitious information?

Mysterious scribblings? "A secret code?" coincided with my typing of the word "code" almost exactly..

From the Pink Floyd song, it would not surprise me if the Archons (evil scumbags that control this Matrix) want you to ignore what i say and stay as a Brick in their Wall of Silence.

In terms of Mysterious scribblings, there is what is called a spiritual knowledge base that spirits have access to everyday.

This in conjunction with Numerology + Sacred Geometry + Sound (frequency) = levitation + divination, shows how 75 million people who see the 11:11 codes everyday might very well be able to fly one day once this UFO information is disclosed.

All 3 parts have been given to the public in their own form.
1) [Numerology] 11:11 Wake up call
2) [Sacred Geometry] The UFO in the final episode of the old X-Files was in the sand on a beach covered in sacred geometry
3) [Sound] In 2014 the UK Daily Telegraph showed an article on how sound frequency could be used to levitate metal balls

So an example of a dream code would be a witch giving you a Allen Key whilst working at a shop called ALAN where the A's in the name ALAN are equilateral triangles. Hence a Master code 33-6 is handed to you in the form of Triangle, Triangle, Hexagon (sides of a Allen key).

So for your code 842 you might see a 0111 titled 'Binary' near it. In binary 0111 is 14 or 8+4+2
You might see a clock counting down from 8 to 2 or even a shape halfing itself.
You could see a line inside a square inside an octagon (2 vertices line, 4 corners square, 8 points octagon)

If the dream contains a valid code or a reason why they are giving you 842 then beyond a doubt, the dream will be remembered no matter what time during the night you wake up.

From experience, when you get a car in a dream that has a registration of K KKK 666 and get told in the dream to convert the K's into English Gematria, its a bit of a shock when it turns out that K KKK 666 contains 11 x 6's as K in English Gematria = 66.

a reply to: spygeek

fair enough but to progress we have to use forward thinking. i think anyone looking at all the variables would see that the current model of the reality we live in is fundamentally flawed. i cant go a single day without reading an article that claims that weve made a new discovery that shatters everything we think we know.

if you ever become the subject of an out of body experience you might think different about it. there is nothing magical or illusory about them. they are far more real than waking up every morning.

I was talking about the assertion made by the T.O.E that consciousness is wholly separate and independent of physical reality.

that assertion is never made. consciousness is fundamental. it and time(changes in state, 1 and 0) is all there is. physical reality(or any other type of reality) is just a construct of consciousness. its basically the same thing as having a dream.

The standard model leaves open what might have caused the original expansion, it simply makes no concrete assumption. I already provided two examples regarding where it "exploded" from.

so did i. an intelligence.

Arguing from first cause, which appears to be what you are doing, is not logical. There are noncausal events in the universe, and any causality is temporal.

from my point of view ignoring it is illogical. there are only noncausal even because we ignore the question of what caused them if we cant come up with an answer. big bang what caused that? dont know? ok, lets not even think about it. seriously what is the logic in that type of thinking?

What are we talking about then? Metaphysics? The big T.O.E. claims to have unifies all physical science, quantum theory, and metaphysics..

yeah.. what else can i say? the physical and metaphysical are not separate from each other. the perception of separation is an consequence of physical reality. your fingers are not separate from your keyboard for instance. its all a part of the same thing. that thing being consciousness. the point here is that intelligence is all there is. its all one great big thinking thing.

I was only pointing out that his "product" is not what he claims it is. If he really thinks it is a scientific theory of everything, then he is not a competent physicist.

no you are trying to imply that hes a scam artist. dont bother trying to cover your a$$ like that. im not that stupid.

If you think it is legitimate science, that's fine. But try taking it to an actual scientist and see what they say. I guarantee any scientist worth his salt will conclude the "theory" does not apply the scientific method and is based on faulty understanding and misconceptions.

and im guessing if they say otherwise then they are not "worth their salt".

originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: spygeek

hey, wonderful answers spygeek, even if we defer like black and white about the nature of our universe. But I sense an honest curiosity in your replies, even though you seem a bit too tainted with scientific reasoning in my opinion : )

This is curious turn of phrase Uni, I'm finding it a little paradoxical.. Science is all about honest curiosity towards finding the objective facts of any given phenomena, and you seem to respect this, while at the same time saying it "taints" an individual's reasoning..

I am a professor after all, so yes, I am of the persuasion of giving more weight to a scientific understanding of the brain and consciousness than any unsubstantiated, invented pseudo-metaphysical explanation of them.. I'm quite happy to entertain an idea, but if there is sufficient evidence to explain it in a naturalistic way, I see no need to accept a more complicated or unverifiable explanation as fact over what can be logically deduced..

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle

Anyway I just had to pitch in for this small detail you mentioned in this post.

"Out of body experience" explanations of psychological phenomena are arguably themselves examples of magical thinking and cognitive illusion, but that is an argument for another thread..

arguably - is the key word! But what if it is true and we can really leave our body? Why don't you try to find out on your own, after this experiment, maybe a good new challenge?

I think it would blow your mind after you would manage to experiance it. You would be sure about the realness and there would be no doubt in your mind, well maybe not at first, but once you get it, you will probably have many experiences spontaneously or even consciously. A good meditator can have them consciously, but this is another level...!

I am just saying that becouse it is not hard to accomplish this with regular meditation or other practices like, dream journals. Many people all over the world have said the same after the experiance happened and scientists still think it is probably just in our head..am okey. But why don't they bother to try it on their own? you can do it very fast if you would give it your best.

I don't wish to move off topic too far, however, the dissociative psychological effect known as an "out-of-body-experience", has been carefully examined by neuroscience, and the physiological and neurological causal factors have been identified. Oxygen deprivation is the one of most reliable ways of inducing the experience, as well as stimulation of the parietal lobe and the temporal lobes of the brain. Sensory deprivation, dehydration, dreaming while asleep, using psychedelic drugs, and brain trauma all have been shown to be causative factors.

The fact that it can be brought on through hyperventilative meditation does not not make any more mysterious in light of the above knowledge. In fact, it further supports a conclusion of it simply being a dissociative psychological state.

One in ten people experience this phenomena. I myself have in fact experienced it, and it is a strange sensation. I just feel that it is not reasonable to believe that I my mind literally left my body. My knowledge of neuroscience is rather limited, but it does account for how this phenomenon can occur through completely natural, physically material neurological processes, (i.e. inside the brain).

If the mind truly does leave the body during such a dissociative experience, I would wonder why it can be so clearly recognised through electronic imaging of the brain, right down to the specific regions of the brain that are responsible. Presumably if the mind did in fact leave the brain, such imaging would effectively 'go dark' and show no activity in any region, let alone specific lobes.

I am not familiar with the minutiae of the U.S. army's "Stargate" program that is referenced in the linked article you provided, however I do understand that it was was shut down following a CIA report that concluded it was never actually useful. The independent report of the program concluded:

"remote viewings have never provided an adequate basis for ‘actionable’ intelligence operations-that is, information sufficiently valuable or compelling so that action was taken as a result (...) a large amount of irrelevant, erroneous information is provided and little agreement is observed among viewers' reports. (...) remote viewers and project managers reported that remote viewing reports were changed to make them consistent with know background cues (...) Also, it raises some doubts about some well-publicized cases of dramatic hits, which, if taken at face value, could not easily be attributed to background cues. In at least some of these cases, there is reason to suspect, based on both subsequent investigations and the viewers' statement that reports had been "changed" by previous program managers, that substantially more background information was available than one might at first assume."

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Nevertheless, you will never truly understand alcoholism unless you have been an alcoholic at some point in your life. You will never be able to relate directly to the experience of its effects in the same manner as an alcoholic has.

You seem to be assuming that everyone who experiences "synchronicity" immediately accepts it as an objective fact independent and separate to any psychological state, and that those who question its validity have never experienced it.

In my experiment I am attempting to reproduce synchronicity and experience it for myself, so I can indeed have a first hand account to inform my conclusions. We shall see if I change my position based on what I experience.

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: spygeek

fair enough but to progress we have to use forward thinking. i think anyone looking at all the variables would see that the current model of the reality we live in is fundamentally flawed. i cant go a single day without reading an article that claims that weve made a new discovery that shatters everything we think we know.

Fundamentally flawed in what way? Is the scientific method that we use to build up our understanding of reality fundamentally flawed?

You must be made aware that sensationalist headlines and articles in media often misrepresent what has actually been discovered, or inferred by a given study. "New study x shows previous conclusion y is completely wrong, turns everything we know on it's head", and other such headlines do a good job of grabbing attention, but very, very rarely accurately represent what is being inferred by the study in question. Reading articles in the media is no substitute for reading the actual studies they are written about.

if you ever become the subject of an out of body experience you might think different about it. there is nothing magical or illusory about them. they are far more real than waking up every morning.

As I mentioned in a previous reply, I have in fact been the subject of an O.B.E, it did not change what I understand it to be, only informed my idea of what it actually feels like.

I was talking about the assertion made by the T.O.E that consciousness is wholly separate and independent of physical reality.

that assertion is never made. consciousness is fundamental. it and time(changes in state, 1 and 0) is all there is. physical reality(or any other type of reality) is just a construct of consciousness. its basically the same thing as having a dream.

From your reply in which dualism was raised:

the purpose of the simulation is so that consciousness(us) has a place to experience itself. without physical reality we cant be aware of anything other than our own consciousness. we dont learn anything. we dont know anything. we dont do anything. without a place to play we are just intelligence without a purpose.

From the big t.o.e itself:

"It's not about the body; you are consciousness. That's what you are. Your consciousness is already out of your body. You don't need to get out of your body, you just need to get into your consciousness."

"You are a creator that exhibits, uses, and manipulates the evolution of consciousness and you are the result of that same process at both the nonphysical and physical levels."

That is dualism: an individual's consciousness is separate from the physical body and material reality.

The standard model leaves open what might have caused the original expansion, it simply makes no concrete assumption. I already provided two examples regarding where it "exploded" from.

so did i. an intelligence.

So where is the conflict between our current understanding and the big t.o.e? Our "standard model" does not rule out an intelligence, it only finds no evidence of one.

Arguing from first cause, which appears to be what you are doing, is not logical. There are noncausal events in the universe, and any causality is temporal.

from my point of view ignoring it is illogical. there are only noncausal even because we ignore the question of what caused them if we cant come up with an answer. big bang what caused that? dont know? ok, lets not even think about it. seriously what is the logic in that type of thinking?

It isn't ignored at all, it is simply left unanswered at this point. An argument from first cause insists that everything is temporal, and yet by definition the "first cause" must not be temporal. This is illogical. Before time, temporal causality could not exist, so it can not be logically said that a "first cause" existed.

What are we talking about then? Metaphysics? The big T.O.E. claims to have unifies all physical science, quantum theory, and metaphysics..

yeah.. what else can i say? the physical and metaphysical are not separate from each other. the perception of separation is an consequence of physical reality. your fingers are not separate from your keyboard for instance. its all a part of the same thing. that thing being consciousness. the point here is that intelligence is all there is. its all one great big thinking thing.

Metaphysical = nonphysical. I don't know how to respond to this.

I was only pointing out that his "product" is not what he claims it is. If he really thinks it is a scientific theory of everything, then he is not a competent physicist.

no you are trying to imply that hes a scam artist. dont bother trying to cover your a$$ like that. im not that stupid.

I am indeed implying that he is either deliberately scamming people, or that if he sincerely believes his t.o.e. is a scientific theory of everything, then he is an incompetent scientist.


Here's one of many examples of his logical contradictions:

“If it is not your truth, based on your experience, then don’t believe it.”
vs.
"Only real measurable, bona fide objective results are acceptable."


His misunderstanding of scientific method is summed up neatly with this quote:

"Scientific assumptions in particular are so hard to overturn because they are based on belief. Beliefs are so hard to overcome because they are irrational and therefore do not yield to logical argument.”

"Scientific assumptions" are inferred from evidence and empirical data, not "based on belief" at all.
Ironically, his own t.o.e. is completely "based on belief", and therefore defines itself as "hard to overcome because it is irrational and therefore does not yield to logical argument".

If you think it is legitimate science, that's fine. But try taking it to an actual scientist and see what they say. I guarantee any scientist worth his salt will conclude the "theory" does not apply the scientific method and is based on faulty understanding and misconceptions.

and im guessing if they say otherwise then they are not "worth their salt".

If they say otherwise, they are not being logically critical. It appears that every scientist who has looked into it has indeed been critical, as not a single one has said anything positive, if they have said anything at all.

originally posted by: Rapha

originally posted by: spygeek
Assuming (not implying) that you are on to something here, how do I definitively recognise what is a code and what is not?
Does the lack of the code subsequently appearing in a dream render it "not genuine"?
How do I "monitor" a dream environment or a dream character? Is lucid dreaming a prerequisite for inferring premonitious information?

Mysterious scribblings? "A secret code?" coincided with my typing of the word "code" almost exactly..

From the Pink Floyd song, it would not surprise me if the Archons (evil scumbags that control this Matrix) want you to ignore what i say and stay as a Brick in their Wall of Silence.

In terms of Mysterious scribblings, there is what is called a spiritual knowledge base that spirits have access to everyday.

This in conjunction with Numerology + Sacred Geometry + Sound (frequency) = levitation + divination, shows how 75 million people who see the 11:11 codes everyday might very well be able to fly one day once this UFO information is disclosed.

All 3 parts have been given to the public in their own form.
1) [Numerology] 11:11 Wake up call
2) [Sacred Geometry] The UFO in the final episode of the old X-Files was in the sand on a beach covered in sacred geometry
3) [Sound] In 2014 the UK Daily Telegraph showed an article on how sound frequency could be used to levitate metal balls

So an example of a dream code would be a witch giving you a Allen Key whilst working at a shop called ALAN where the A's in the name ALAN are equilateral triangles. Hence a Master code 33-6 is handed to you in the form of Triangle, Triangle, Hexagon (sides of a Allen key).

So for your code 842 you might see a 0111 titled 'Binary' near it. In binary 0111 is 14 or 8+4+2
You might see a clock counting down from 8 to 2 or even a shape halfing itself.
You could see a line inside a square inside an octagon (2 vertices line, 4 corners square, 8 points octagon)

If the dream contains a valid code or a reason why they are giving you 842 then beyond a doubt, the dream will be remembered no matter what time during the night you wake up.

From experience, when you get a car in a dream that has a registration of K KKK 666 and get told in the dream to convert the K's into English Gematria, its a bit of a shock when it turns out that K KKK 666 contains 11 x 6's as K in English Gematria = 66.

Ok. Now i see where you are coming from. Thanks for clarifying.

a reply to: spygeek

thanks for such a detailed answer, I have learned a few new things!

Why the brains are active even if we are supposedly not in the body is strange, it looks like that our connection with the body is never totally separated only when we are dead and also we just don't know the true nature and workings of consciousness in science. I don't even think this is the right word for it? What consciousness means today might just be tip of the iceberg in my opinion. If you read what buddhism is teaching or other spiritual text in advaita vedanta or such philosophies.

Also It seems very similar to an experiment, where they have measured the brains of a blind painter. The part of the brains which is used for vision in normal people was active also within him during painting. How come, if he is blind from birth and his eyes are of no use since birth?

I feel this is the same thing. And for me it just points to something deeper that we still have not discovered by science.
But in can be discovered by personal experiance in my opinion. For me at least this is clear and not a matter of doubt. And not just becouse of OBE but also others experiences which defays current science.

If you like to read, than here on ATS is a VERY large thread on remote viewing by member issackoi. In there he writes extensively in it and things are not as black and white around CIA and military as you seem to think. If you like to read about this stuff, than this thread is for you.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anyway have a nice day and I will not say more about OBE as they are not the subject of this discussion. Although I think this is very connected and if all is one "consciousness" as the ancients spiritual teachers were saying than it makes sense and all these things can be explained and even are in various teachings such as yoga or buddhism...

a reply to: spygeek

As I mentioned in a previous reply, I have in fact been the subject of an O.B.E

i guess i missed that. so let me guess you just think it was akin to hallucination?

an individual's consciousness is separate from material reality.

no an individual consciousness is experiencing the reality it created. where do you get that its separate from the physical? wheeeeeere?

just because you say something does not make it so. you continuously misinterpret what tom says.

Your consciousness is already out of your body

yes consciousness is all there is. you are a slice of it experiencing itself subjectively from the viewpoint of an avatar. the meaning behind this is that when you are out of body you are experiencing yourself from another perspective, a perspective that is not possible to experience from a "normal" physical state.

Before time, temporal causality could not exist, so it can not be logically said that a "first cause" existed.

so because you can not apply your logic to it it doesnt matter or it doesnt exist? the basis of your argument is that since you cant explain it there is no reason to even give it a second thought. how do you not see that this is fu@#ing crazy?

Here's one of many examples of his logical contradictions:

no thats you making judgement. hes talking about beliefs such as there being a heaven/hell or having an obe and speaking to an entity who claims its from another plant and believing it. hes saying there is nothing useful in doing so. those are beliefs.

"Scientific assumptions in particular are so hard to overturn because they are based on belief

yeah such as basically any scientific theory that we can not objectively prove. macro evolution for instance. we assume it happens because we see micro evolution so we believe that macro evolution happens gradually over long periods of time through micro evolution. but we have not proved this.

"Scientific assumptions" are inferred from evidence, not "based on beliefs". Ironically, his own t.o.e. is completely "based on belief

no his TOE is based on years and years of out of body research. theres no belief about it, yes its based on personal experience but that does not mean its not true.

If they say otherwise, they are not being logically critical.

you arent a machine. so why do you try to imitate how one would think? it might not be logical but it is rational to think that something came before the big bang. its rational to think that there may be an intelligence behind the functions of the universe. its like youre so scared of being wrong that you dare not think past what you can objectively prove. even if that means completely ignoring your own personal experiences.

It appears that every scientist who has looked into it has indeed been critical, as not a single one has said anything positive, if they have said anything at all.

well ill think for myself.

a reply to: spygeek

lol apophenia-
Humans are so tiny

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: spygeek

As I mentioned in a previous reply, I have in fact been the subject of an O.B.E

i guess i missed that. so let me guess you just think it was akin to hallucination?

kind of, but not really. it is materially explainable as a dissociative psychological state caused by definite neurological factors.

an individual's consciousness is separate from material reality.

no an individual consciousness is experiencing the reality it created. where do you get that its separate from the physical? wheeeeeere?

consciousness creates reality? is this the argument now? objective reality does not exist outside of the mind of the observer?

I get that it is separate from the physical from the quotes I referenced in my reply, amoung other assertions in the T.O.E.

just because you say something does not make it so. you continuously misinterpret what tom says.

If Tom would be so good as to explain his ideas conclusively, without leaving so much to open interpretation, this would not occur, (if indeed i have misinterpreted his meaning). A theory must be definitive in its terminology if it is to be accepted.

Your consciousness is already out of your body

yes consciousness is all there is. you are a slice of it experiencing itself subjectively from the viewpoint of an avatar. the meaning behind this is that when you are out of body you are experiencing yourself from another perspective, a perspective that is not possible to experience from a "normal" physical state.

Again, this appears to be metaphysical woo, without any supporting basis in material reality. If I am to accept this kind of proposition, I need there to be a proposed biological mechanism of how it occurs, and how it can be definitively identified.

Before time, temporal causality could not exist, so it can not be logically said that a "first cause" existed.

so because you can not apply your logic to it it doesnt matter or it doesnt exist? the basis of your argument is that since you cant explain it there is no reason to even give it a second thought. how do you not see that this is fu@#ing crazy?

This is not what I am saying. I am saying that if we cannot apply logic to it, it has little logical or rational value. Simply put; we don't know, we can't make any kind assertion one way or the other with any kind of certainty, and to claim something is fact without a logical basis or rational explanation of why it is a fact, it is redundant.

Here's one of many examples of his logical contradictions:

no thats you making judgement. hes talking about beliefs such as there being a heaven/hell or having an obe and speaking to an entity who claims its from another plant and believing it. hes saying there is nothing useful in doing so. those are beliefs.

he categorically states that you should not believe anything that is incompatible with your own subjective experience, while also stating that only objective, measurable results are acceptable. This is a contradiction. What if the objective, measurable results are incompatible with my subjective experience? Where does that leave me?

"Scientific assumptions in particular are so hard to overturn because they are based on belief

yeah such as basically any scientific theory that we can not objectively prove. macro evolution for instance. we assume it happens because we see micro evolution so we believe that macro evolution happens gradually over long periods of time through micro evolution. but we have not proved this.

We have found nothing to suggest that there is anything to prevent macro evolution from occurring, and we have found plenty of evidence to support the suggestion that it does happen. Macro and micro evolution are the same process.

"Scientific assumptions" are inferred from evidence, not "based on beliefs". Ironically, his own t.o.e. is completely "based on belief

no his TOE is based on years and years of out of body research. theres no belief about it, yes its based on personal experience but that does not mean its not true.

It completely ignores the findings of neurology and cognitive psychology, so the "years and years of research" have neglected any findings that oppose its predetermined conclusion.

"Yes its based on personal experience but that does not mean its not true", it does not mean it is true either. Without objective and empirical data to support the assertion, no conclusions can be drawn on it's truth at all.

Besides, science is about facts, not necessarily truths. There are no absolutes in scientific inquiry, only more or less likely explanations, based on empirical evidence.

If they say otherwise, they are not being logically critical.

you arent a machine. so why do you try to imitate how one would think? it might not be logical but it is rational to think that something came before the big bang. its rational to think that there may be an intelligence behind the functions of the universe. its like youre so scared of being wrong that you dare not think past what you can objectively prove. even if that means completely ignoring your own personal experiences.

I am being critical. I am not saying anything is impossible, or ignoring anything. I am only saying that it not reasonable or logical to assume every claim is possible or likely, in the absence of evidence.

There's nothing wrong with entertaining the idea that the universe might have an inherent intelligence, but there is something wrong with asserting that it is an absolute fact without anything more than speculation to support it.

It appears that every scientist who has looked into it has indeed been critical, as not a single one has said anything positive, if they have said anything at all.

well ill think for myself.

Continue to do this and Godspeed.

a reply to: spygeek

Well, that's how it may have come across but that was not my intention. You seemed rather certain before that synchronicity does not exist, but now it appears you are stating that it's a possibility?

As long as you are open to the idea that it's a possibility, then I agree with your approach. It's like the God debate: do most people who don't believe in God assert definitively that such an entity does not exist, or do they await evidence first of God's existence before believing?

a reply to: spygeek

vaccination hysteria

All of these have damaged real science and physically or emotionally harmed people. They have misled people with ignorance and lies.

sounds to me like you are preaching. there is sufficient cases that show how vaccinations have harmed people. WHats your beef? You talk about failures in logic and yet cant be bothered to look at injuries caused by vaccinations.

By the way Eugenics was practised by "real scientists" so they damaged the god of "SCIENCE" by their own hand. Real woo

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: spygeek

Well, that's how it may have come across but that was not my intention. You seemed rather certain before that synchronicity does not exist, but now it appears you are stating that it's a possibility?

It is my personal opinion that synchronicity can be wholly explained through psychological bias, in other words, yes, I'm fairly certain it does not objectively exist outside of the experiencer's own mind. Of course I am willing to change my opinion on evidence to contrary.

The point of the experiment is to test my opinion and see if it is in fact justified.

As long as you are open to the idea that it's a possibility, then I agree with your approach. It's like the God debate: do most people who don't believe in God assert definitively that such an entity does not exist, or do they await evidence first of God's existence before believing?

Depends on the kind of atheism really..

Some outright reject any and all claims of belief in gods or God, and any claims of their existence, (explicit, strong atheism). Others simply live as though no gods exist and do not subscribe to such a belief, without a direct renunciation of their existence, (implicit, weak atheism and agnostic atheism).

Others simply do not care about the question and feel it is irrelevant, (apatheism), while others are strongly opposed to any idea or belief or claim of such existence, (antithesim).

Strong and explicit atheists and antitheists reject that there could even be evidence of gods or God, and claim there is evidence to the contrary. Weak and implicit atheists and agnostic atheists feel the burden of proof is on those claiming existence and await definitive proof. Apatheists don't care either way and ignore the question altogether.

Towards the concept of synchronicity being the resulting manifestation of an underlying collective consciousness or universal will, I guess you could say I am weakly atheistic, or an agnostic atheist.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: spygeek

vaccination hysteria

All of these have damaged real science and physically or emotionally harmed people. They have misled people with ignorance and lies.

sounds to me like you are preaching. there is sufficient cases that show how vaccinations have harmed people. WHats your beef? You talk about failures in logic and yet cant be bothered to look at injuries caused by vaccinations.

You seem to be equating my position against unwarranted vaccination hysteria with a complete denunciation of there being any possible side effects or injury..

Vaccine hysteria has led people to believe falsehoods ranging from vaccines being inherently harmful and more dangerous than the illnesses they prevent, to vaccines being directly responsible for causing autism and such.

I'm not denying there are health risks and in rare cases, injuries resulting from vaccinations. I am stating that general hysteria over lies, unscientific claims, and exaggeration and misrepresentation of the facts has lead to people holding misinformed and down right unscientific views about the subject in general.

By the way Eugenics was practised by "real scientists" so they damaged the god of "SCIENCE" by their own hand. Real woo

Lots of things have been practiced by "real scientists" that ultimately led to unethical practices and damages to the reputation of science as a whole. I have never said anything to the contrary.

I'm not defending unethical practices of scientists or implying they are absolved of guilt because they were perusing scientific knowledge.. The fact that eugenics was studied and advocated by scientists, while the concept itself was pretty unscientific to begin with, serves to illustrate my point about pseudoscience damaging real science pretty clearly.

It doesn't all fall on the layperson; scientists are just as susceptible to drawing false conclusions as the rest of us. This does not take anything away from genuine scientific discovery or make it all "Real woo" though, as in time such conclusions are exposed as the falsehoods they are.

Pseudoscience is pseudoscience, false assertions are false assertions, regardless of who advocates them.

There is no "god of SCIENCE", by the way.. I'm not sure what you think science is if you are equating it to a theistic belief system..

a reply to: spygeek

kind of, but not really. it is materially explainable as a dissociative psychological state caused by definite neurological factors.

Thats what i call mistaking the map for the territory. sure the brain is going to process whatever information its fed during an obe, that does not mean it is producing it. there is no definite answer to the phenomenon. but ive never felt anything like it. plus people have confirmed physical events during obe. such as going to another room and reading a card, or seeing someone do something and then confirming it. there are dozens on near death experiences like this. patiens hearing exactly what doctors and nurses say while they are unconscious(or even dead) and then repeating it after the fact. its anecdotal evidence but its hard to ignore.

consciousness creates reality? is this the argument now? objective reality does not exist outside of the mind of the observer?

thats been the argument the whole time. and objective reality doesn't exist at all, its just information. the observer (consciousness) interprets and processes that information.

If Tom would be so good as to explain his ideas conclusively, without leaving so much to open interpretation, this would not occur, (if indeed i have misinterpreted his meaning). A theory must be definitive in its terminology if it is to be accepted.

i dont see that at all. i understand what he says perfectly. maybe it just takes a special way of thinking to do so. thats what im telling you. you make every attempt to think like a robot and these concepts go right over your head.

Again, this appears to be metaphysical woo, without any supporting basis in material reality. If I am to accept this kind of proposition, I need there to be a proposed biological mechanism of how it occurs, and how it can be definitively identified.

why? youve had out of body experiences. you can read about other peoples out of body experiences. when you take a moment to look at all the evidence, empirical or not, there is no reason not to accept this as a perfectly logical model for reality.

This is not what I am saying. I am saying that if we cannot apply logic to it, it has little logical or rational value. Simply put; we don't know, we can't make any kind assertion one way or the other with any kind of certainty, and to claim something is fact without a logical basis or rational explanation of why it is a fact, it is redundant.

yet your entire post is based on the assertion that synchronicity, something thats almost inevitable if tom and i are right, is nonsense.

the model is basically we are immortal-ish. we reincarnate to further our evolution as an intelligence. love/cooperation is a low entropy state. fear is high entropy. no heaven no hell. and on and on. this type of thinking is completely trans formative. if we knew the truth of what we are our entire way of thinking would change.

i think thats very useful.

and i have to correct you once again. you cannot apply YOUR logic to it. logic is based on understanding and perspective. if someones logic prevents them from accepting reality for what it is then what good is it? its like using a hacksaw to hammer a nail.

he categorically states that you should not believe anything that is incompatible with your own subjective experience, while also stating that only objective, measurable results are acceptable. This is a contradiction.

yes. like if you have an obe and speak to someone you shouldn't believe that they are real. you should simply take the information you got and apply it if it was useful. believing that the entity was real is irrelevant. the only thing that was real was the data/information.

What if the objective, measurable results are incompatible with my subjective experience? Where does that leave me?

the leaves you in an impossible situation that would never happen. name one example of this.

We have found nothing to suggest that there is anything to prevent macro evolution from occurring, and we have found plenty of evidence to support the suggestion that it does happen. Macro and micro evolution are the same process.

plenty of evidence is not the same thing as definitive proof. you know this, and i know this. we have a belief based on a certain type of logic that macro evolution is micro evolution stretched out over a long period of time. that belief is not wrong(as far as i know) but it is still a belief.

It completely ignores the findings of neurology and cognitive psychology, so the "years and years of research" have neglected any findings that oppose its predetermined conclusion.

as far as i can tell there are no findings that adequately explain consciousness. what ive seen is alot of mistaking the map for the territory.

and while were on the subject of ignoring findings obe and NDE are completely ignored. shouldn't they be studied? its a well documented phenomenon and since the scientific community cant easily explain it they ignore it and usually even mock it.

"Yes its based on personal experience but that does not mean its not true", it does not mean it is true either. Without objective and empirical data to support the assertion, no conclusions can be drawn on it's truth at all.

Besides, science is about facts, not necessarily truths. There are no absolutes in scientific inquiry, only more or less likely explanations, based on empirical evidence.

well then maybe science isnt as useful as we would like to think it is. i can only hope that somehow someone figures out a way to empirically prove this model. and if that cant happen science is blocking us from making progress.

I am being critical. I am not saying anything is impossible, or ignoring anything. I am only saying that it not reasonable or logical to assume every claim is possible or likely, in the absence of evidence.

There's nothing wrong with entertaining the idea that the universe might have an inherent intelligence, but there is something wrong with asserting that it is an absolute fact without anything more than speculation to support it.

arent you asserting that it is an absolute fact that synchronicity is woo based on a speculation that it is just the human brain finding patterns? its highly speculative to say that synchronicity isnt real because the human brain recognizes and seeks out patterns. you are clearly trying to prove something in this post and subsequently telling me that i cant prove something based on speculation.

and no, not godspeed. youre too much fun to talk too.

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: spygeek

[...snip snip snip too many illogical contradictions and unrealistic, off topic arguments to individually counter without encouraging derailment of the thread even further...]

arent you asserting that it is an absolute fact that synchronicity is woo based on a speculation that it is just the human brain finding patterns?

Nope, I am asserting the synchronicity is completely explainable as the result of cognitive bias and is easily understandable materially as a psychological construct. This is supported only by evidence, not speculation.

I intend for my experiment to demonstrate this fact first hand.

its highly speculative to say that synchronicity isnt real because the human brain recognizes and seeks out patterns. you are clearly trying to prove something in this post and subsequently telling me that i cant prove something based on speculation.

Again, I am relying on nothing more than the current understanding of neurology and related fields and no speculation is necessary. I do not accept that there is a requirement for there to be a "collective unconscious" or some undefined "metaphysical intelligence" to explain anything.

Synchronicity does exist, I am not denying that. All I am saying is that it can be shown to not be the result of supernatural or metaphysical intelligence, and such explanations are contradictory, extremely convoluted in their arguments (as you continue to demonstrate), and unfalsifiable.

and no, not godspeed. youre too much fun to talk too.

The quality of a conversation's factual legitimacy and scientific value are not dependant on the level of the participants' enjoyment. I find the justifications presented for your belief to be in conflict with what we actually know and can infer about reality and the product of self-defeating circular arguments relying on personal bias.

You are welcome to hold the beliefs you do, but please discontinue your attempts to force me to accept them as anything more than subjective pseudophilosophical assertions based on nothing materially verifiable or demonstrable.

By occam's razor alone, (without even using mathematics and physics to show the idea's unfeasibility), reality is not a simulation, and consciousness as we know it is specific and independent to individuals. There is no need to implement extra unknowable assumptions when we already understand enough to confidently explain the nature of reality.

You can indulge in thought experiments like "is reality actually a simulation?", or, "is all matter part of one complete, intelligent, conscious system?", but you will never come up with anything that is more than curiously hypothetical and completely unfalsifiable.

a reply to: spygeek

snip snip snip too many illogical contradictions and unrealistic, off topic arguments to individually counter without encouraging derailment of the thread even further

derail the thread? no it because you cant counter them. it not in your personality to not counter every single thing i say, and when you dont i know you got nothin.

arent you asserting that it is an absolute fact that synchronicity is woo based on a speculation that it is just the human brain finding patterns?

Nope, I am asserting the synchronicity is completely explainable as the result of cognitive bias and is easily understandable materially as a psychological construct

um what is the difference in those two statements?

Again, I am relying on nothing more than the current understanding of neurology and related fields and no speculation is necessary.

so basically you dont like asking questions. your afraid of not knowing something so you pretend as if we have it all figured out.

such explanations are contradictory, extremely convoluted in their arguments

yet any time i point out that there is no contradiction and you just made it up you just keep repeating that there are contradictions. its hard to talk to someone when they dont actually inject any validity to the things they say.

There is no need to implement extra unknowable assumptions when we already understand enough to confidently explain the nature of reality.

WHAT?! since when? what about reality can we confidently explain? name one #ing thing.

You can indulge in thought experiments like "is reality actually a simulation?", or, "is all matter part of one complete, intelligent, conscious system?", but you will never come up with anything that is more than curiously hypothetical and completely unfalsifiable.

why do you think that?