Synchronicity; Apophenia and the 11:11 fallacy

originally posted by: spygeek
a reply to: Peeple


I myself have experienced coincidences that in the moment seemed mind boggling, however, on (self) reflection it becomes clear that that is simply how life works, and there is no inherent meaning to be found in then without some fairly contorsional mental gymnastics.

congrats. im glad you are focusing on yourself and seeing that your thoughts hold no significant meaning to you.

i think it is wise to reflect on your own thoughts.

everyone can benefit from SELF reflection.

a reply to: spygeek

im not sure what you are asking for?

ive posted my ideas all over this thread and the 2 or 3 others that are currently circulating on this website.

you are more then welcome to click on my username and read through all of my posts concerning the topic for easier reference.

feel free to even quote them if you like.

a reply to: dreamlotus1111

Umm. No.
Putting words in my reply to someone else in an attempt to derive a different meaning and make an unrelated point does not show anything but your own inability to engage in a meaningful debate.

originally posted by: dreamlotus1111
a reply to: spygeek

im not sure what you are asking for?

Why not start with answers to the questions I directly asked of you regarding logical fallacies and their relation to synchronicity? Why not tell me how apophenia is inadequate as an explanation for things like the "11:11 phenomenon"? Why not actually address the topic instead of going on about your "special awareness", 360 vision superpower, and faulty interpretation of objectivity?

again. ill post some quick key points.

you cannot invalidate someone else experiences when you choose to perceive it in a different way.

this website is FILLED with topics i have no experience with.

i read personal accounts and stories from various people about those topics but i won’t say that i think the person is false in their claims or illogical.

have i ever come into contact with aliens? no. have i seen alien sightings? no? do i see ghosts? no. do others? yes? does that make them idiots because i have never seen any of that? no. do you understand where i am going with this?

and i think this way because i have an open mind...

i am not saying i am better then you but it is what it is.

i havent even bothered to click on your profile but i wonder how many other topics you go out of your way to claim are not reality when you have zero experience with any of it.

how old are you? how old is the world? how old is the universe? lol

yet you have all the answers.

right.

“True wisdom is knowing what you don't know”

...oh and look what time it is.
what a coincidence.

have a nice night

a reply to: dreamlotus1111

To be fair: you are attacking him, he just provided a very sound and coherent explanation.
You just act defensive because it made you feel special. Next stop the epiphany it really is all in your head and only has the meaning you give to it. Do it, it is healthy.

originally posted by: dreamlotus1111
i havent even bothered to click on your profile but i wonder how many other topics you go out of your way to claim are not reality when you have zero experience with any of it.

how old are you? how old is the world? how old is the universe? lol

yet you have all the answers.

right.

Ummm.... What??

Why didn't you answer the questions I just asked you?

I give up. You don't want to discuss the topic at all. It's pointless asking you anything, you just keep saying I'm trying to prove you wrong and not even acknowledging the simple on-topic questions I have asked you.

True wisdom is knowing what you don't know

Again, ummm.... What??

so one experiment and you will conclude this or that. Is this really scientific approach you seem to like?
me thinks you should try to get all or at least as many different variables as you can, change them and try many times.

some of the variables:
- faith
- intent/motivation
- type of energy who is behind communication (angels?, global consciousness?)
- asking a question for which you want communication
- etc...

To limit your test to just decide about certain number is too shallow to draw real conclusions in my opinion. You are now driven by egoism and you have limited worldview for such things and that is obvious in the OP. That could be a major issue in closing off the doors which may or may not exists so something could start communication with you by numbers.

I am not saying this is real or not. But if you want to honestly find out, than you must first open your mind to new possibilities. First step is always initiated in the mind! You must start the call for a sign or whatever and not the other way around or not?

What do I know ... : )

this new thread on ats is a good example of successful communication. well you can say the user in video had imagined it all, but nevertheless this is real example of this mysterious communication happening. Even if you don't share the belief, you should watch it and inspect the user to see his mental process and try it yourself if you are really up to it with experiment.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: spygeek

It appears that you have failed "to see the forest for the trees" when it comes to this topic. The occurrence of synchronicity does not mean that literally every time you look at your clock you only see 11:11. It does not mean that every time you see 11 you try to attach some meaning to it in your daily events. What it does refer to is a recognisable pattern you are able to notice that is very unlikely to occur by chance alone.

You acknowledge that coincidences occur, but at what line are you willing to concede that chance and randomness alone cannot account for some coincidences? Your claims about a specific person winning the lottery as natural and expected is garbage. If that were the case, there would never be a higher jackpot than the original sum as somebody would win it each draw.

a reply to: UniFinity

What you have described is not empirically definable or testable, so no experiment can be performed using these parameters. How can I accurately measure "faith", or "intent/motivation"? How can one objectively define the "type of energy behind the communication"? How can I even differentiate between what is communication and what is random noise, without committing logical fallacy?

You say I have a limited worldview because I do not entertain the idea that an irrational, indefinable premise can produce objective results? This is simply incorrect.

I already addressed the subject of the thread you linked in the op, and I am in fact "trying it for myself" with my own POOMA number sequence to show how it is nothing more than a self-trained psychological delusion with no basis in objective reality. I have already had and shared one "synchronistic coincidence" earlier in this thread, according to the definition described by the fellow in the linked thread.

a reply to: spygeek

Personally, I feel no leaning towards the hypothesis of some sort of metaphysical source of synchronicity experiences,
nor to the hypothesis that there isn't, and that it is purely a result of our brains propensity for creating order out of chaos.

To me, it doesn't matter.

I consider that my unconscious, or subconscious mind sends me messages and tries to point things out to me (my conscious awareness and ego) through such events. So... even if there is no objective reality to these noticed synchronicities, they still are of importance to me, and I pay attention to them.

The example in the OP sounds like a guy who has gotten exagerratingly involved in these, to the point that his conscious awareness is no longer being receptive, but trying to to capture and control instead.
Intuition always goes haywire when you try to capture and control it. Trying to capture a bird in your hand and watch it fly at the same time is just as irrational.

I just feel it is not the messenger that is important, but the message.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: spygeek

It appears that you have failed "to see the forest for the trees" when it comes to this topic. The occurrence of synchronicity does not mean that literally every time you look at your clock you only see 11:11. It does not mean that every time you see 11 you try to attach some meaning to it in your daily events. What it does refer to is a recognisable pattern you are able to notice that is very unlikely to occur by chance alone.

You appear to have missed the point of my op and are mistaking the map for the territory. I have not suggested that every time you look at a clock you see 11:11, only that every instance of not seeing 11:11 is arbitrarily ignored.

Any "recognisable pattern" identified by synchronicity advocates is nothing more than apophenia and confirmation bias, as I have already explained. It does not exist outside of the individual's predetermined expectation. It is not chance, it is subconsciously cherrypicking a pattern from a dataset that does not actually exist.

It seems like there is an improbable pattern when in fact it is confirmation bias, the clustering illusion, the gambler's fallacy and, in extreme cases, magical thinking, that leads to the mistaken perception of there being any kind of pattern at all.

I explained all of this in the op, please revisit it if it is causing confusion for you.

You acknowledge that coincidences occur, but at what line are you willing to concede that chance and randomness alone cannot account for some coincidences? Your claims about a specific person winning the lottery as natural and expected is garbage. If that were the case, there would never be a higher jackpot than the original sum as somebody would win it each draw.

It is not "chance and randomness alone" that causes coincidences, it is a probabilistic certainty that they will occur. No coincidences at all would be far, far more unusual than any coincidences themselves could be. Coincidences have always and will always occur, according to the probabilistic and stochastic nature of reality. Improbable things happen, 100% of the time.

You also misunderstand the comparison to the lottery. Lottos often have incredible odds that seem impossible to beat, but indeed someone pretty much always wins. This is because of the sheer number of people playing. Even though an individual has a low chance of success, overall it's probabilistically almost certain that it will be won by somebody. Most people will refrain from submitting a ticket with six sequential numbers because of the rationalisation that such a draw is too improbable - despite the fact that all draws are equally likely, including sequential draws.

Winning the lotto is not "beating the odds", any more than a string of coincidences are "beating probabilistic chance".

Failure to apply statistical rationality to real-life situations is what causes the magical thinking fallacy of metaphysically synchronistic coincidences. This is something that you have so succinctly described as "chance and randomness alone cannot account for some coincidences". This is a perfect example of magical thinking.

originally posted by: Bluesma
a reply to: spygeek
I just feel it is not the messenger that is important, but the message.

I feel the most important thing is establishing that a message exists in the first place. So far, I've found no evidence of one.

a reply to: spygeek

This ought a be interesting. I am looking forward to the results of your experiment.

Noted theories in your post:
1) apophenia
2) confirmation bias
3) magical thinking
4) the clustering illusion
5) gambler's fallacy
6) laws of probability

So along with testing synchronicity of the 11:11 phenomenon, will you also test the list of 6 theories above, or are you going to begin this experiment under the notion that the pre-determination of these theories are all-ready true and valid ?

Just Wondering.

leolady

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: Bluesma
a reply to: spygeek
I just feel it is not the messenger that is important, but the message.

I feel the most important thing is establishing that a message exists in the first place. So far, I've found no evidence of one.

That can only be determined each one for themself - you cannot determine whether my following my percieved synchronicities actually led me to the opportunities I found. Only I can have a sense of whether I was going to turn left without having seen that "sign" or not.

You can only determine for yourself whether the patterns your mind creates are an aid to you in life or not.

If you mean to say you have seen no benefit to you, of paying attention to the patterns and order your subconscious puts together, I guess I cannot argue with that. I can only express that mine seem to be very helpful to me.

originally posted by: leolady
a reply to: spygeek

This ought a be interesting. I am looking forward to the results of your experiment.

Noted theories in your post:
1) apophenia
2) confirmation bias
3) magical thinking
4) the clustering illusion
5) gambler's fallacy
6) laws of probability

So along with testing synchronicity of the 11:11 phenomenon, will you also test the list of 6 theories above, or are you going to begin this experiment under the notion that the pre-determination of these theories are all-ready true and valid ?

Just Wondering.

leolady

It needs to be noted that these points are not theories. 2 - 5 are logical fallacies. Point 1 is a cognitive illusion, and point 6 is simply representative of the stochastic nature of reality.

What I am testing is whether or not subconsciously training or priming yourself to recognise an arbitrarily chosen numerical sequence such as 11:11, (or in the case of my experiment, 842), leads to a discernable and recognisable pattern of coincidence surrounding that sequence.

If it does in fact lead to this, then the logical fallacies listed above can be said to adequately explain any and all such claimed patterns of "metaphysical synchronicities".

This would render such coincidences completely natural and unremarkable , and prove that any such synchronicity is nothing more than a subjective psychological construct with no basis in actual objective reality or any kind of proposed metaphysical dimension.

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: Bluesma
a reply to: spygeek
I just feel it is not the messenger that is important, but the message.

I feel the most important thing is establishing that a message exists in the first place. So far, I've found no evidence of one.

That can only be determined each one for themself - you cannot determine whether my following my percieved synchronicities actually led me to the opportunities I found. Only I can have a sense of whether I was going to turn left without having seen that "sign" or not.

You can only determine for yourself whether the patterns your mind creates are an aid to you in life or not.

If you mean to say you have seen no benefit to you, of paying attention to the patterns and order your subconscious puts together, I guess I cannot argue with that. I can only express that mine seem to be very helpful to me.

I accept all of this. What I am specifically trying to show is that a metaphysical collective unconscious or unseen "higher intelligence" or will, can not be used to account for any kind of synchronicity at all. It is all simply a psychological construct formed from natural cognitive processes and logical flaws.

Whether this cognitive bias is at all helpful to an individual or not is not the concern of this thread. I simply wish to positively identify the natural causes of these synchronicities through experiment and definitively rule out unnecessary and misleading supernatural justifications.

originally posted by: spygeek
You appear to have missed the point of my op and are mistaking the map for the territory. I have not suggested that every time you look at a clock you see 11:11, only that every instance of not seeing 11:11 is arbitrarily ignored.

Any "recognisable pattern" identified by synchronicity advocates is nothing more than apophenia and confirmation bias, as I have already explained. It does not exist outside of the individual's predetermined expectation. It is not chance, it is subconsciously cherrypicking a pattern from a dataset that does not actually exist.

I liked your analogy, well played. However, I still disagree with your arguments.

You say that any "recognisable pattern" detected by the subject does not exist outside the individual's predetermined expectation. Well, what if the recognisable pattern is detected by more than one person? Doesn't that discard your theory? For example, 911 days happened to have passed between the 9/11 attacks (September 11, 2001) and the Madrid train bombings (March 11, 2004). What are the odds that two terrorist attacks of such magnitude would occur exactly 911 days apart?

I don't wish to derail your thread on the above topic, but you must admit that is one hell of a coincidence that more than one individual believes.

It seems like there is an improbable pattern when in fact it is confirmation bias, the clustering illusion, the gambler's fallacy and, in extreme cases, magical thinking, that leads to the mistaken perception of there being any kind of pattern at all.

I explained all of this in the op, please revisit it if it is causing confusion for you.

I find you tend to, probably not on purpose, convolute sentences by using long noun phrases that make your sentences appear intelligent and accurate, when in reality they are just long-winded to confuse the reader and make them less willing to challenge your arguments.

It is not "chance and randomness alone" that causes coincidences, it is a probabilistic certainty that they will occur. No coincidences at all would be far, far more unusual than any coincidences themselves could be. Coincidences have always and will always occur, according to the probabilistic and stochastic nature of reality. Improbable things happen, 100% of the time.

Improbable things do happen, but certainly not 100% of the time. Again how do you explain more then one individual sharing experiences of sychronicity?

You also misunderstand the comparison to the lottery. Lottos often have incredible odds that seem impossible to beat, but indeed someone pretty much always wins. This is because of the sheer number of people playing. Even though an individual has a low chance of success, overall it's probabilistically almost certain that it will be won by somebody. Most people will refrain from submitting a ticket with six sequential numbers because of the rationalisation that such a draw is too improbable - despite the fact that all draws are equally likely, including sequential draws.

I don't believe I did. Your argument does not hold up to the fact that winners are NOT guaranteed for every draw.

Winning the lotto is not "beating the odds", any more than a string of coincidences are "beating probabilistic chance".

Failure to apply statistical rationality to real-life situations is what causes the magical thinking fallacy of metaphysically synchronistic coincidences. This is something that you have so succinctly described as "chance and randomness alone cannot account for some coincidences". This is a perfect example of magical thinking.

Isn't applying "statistical rationality" to real-life situations troublesome, though? The nature of statistics involves only comparing portions from population samples and this does not allow for reasonable widely applicable conclusions to be drawn.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I'm guessing you forgot about all the other terrorist attacks between those 2 dates?

Certain numbers only work if you ignore other things.