Synchronicity; Apophenia and the 11:11 fallacy

a reply to: saadad

Something to occur with some probability will happen or never happen since there is no limit of it happening. So how can you use probability in scientific research?

Probability and statistics are used in science to help determine if there is reason to believe that correlations may be due to given causative effects. If there is no difference from what would be expected from random occurrences causation is not indicated.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

None of this is particularly scientific. Quantum consciousness woo is unhelpful to this topic .

There is a reason why legitimate scientists shy away from such concepts, they are not necessary to explain anything. It is not because they supposedly "counter a materialistic view", it is because they have zero explanatory power.

If consciousness were in fact a quantum construct then such an explanation it would have to be able to explain the findings of current neuroscience, not counter it, anyway.

Quantum cognition is a real mathematical investigation of psychology, but it does not assume that human consciousness is itself quantum mechanical.

There is no need to "leave materialism behind and go for theories that include quantum theory". You cannot just substitute materialism with quantum mysticism, it does not work. Besides, quantum theory is not opposed to materialism.

There is no "mind/body problem", where mind does something the body or brain does not. There is no basis for rejection of a materialistic explanation.

Quantum mechanics does not disprove or undermine materialism.

a reply to: spygeek

Ok...the reason I called them theories are because you are theorizing that because of those "logical fallacies" the 11:11 phenomenon can be ruled out, so theories may not have been the right word choice on my part.

You say those are logical fallacies...but what if I were to say they may not be logical yet: We kinda need to see your data in order for them to become logical toward your experiment.

A Priori Argument: Also, "rationalization." Starting with a given, pre-set dogma, doctrine, "fact" or conclusion and then searching for an argument, any reasonable or reasonable-sounding argument, in order to rationalize, defend or justify it

Logical Fallacies List

Stay tuned, and you will see how anyone's subconscious can be trained to see a pattern in any random noise

Your Logical Fallacies:
1) apophenia - the tendency to perceive a connection or meaningful pattern between unrelated or random things
2) confirmation bias - is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses
3) magical thinking - is the attribution of causal or synchronistic relationships between actions and events which seemingly cannot be justified by reason and observation.
4) the clustering illusion - The clustering illusion is the tendency to erroneously consider the inevitable "streaks" or "clusters" arising in small samples from random distributions to be non-random
5) gambler's fallacy - is the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, it will happen less frequently in the future, or that, if something happens less frequently than normal during some period, it will happen more frequently in the future
6) laws of probability - measures the likelihood of an event occurring

Also, What kind of variables will you use in the experiment ? independent, dependent and controlled ? Can you please define each variable prior to starting ?


leolady

originally posted by: spygeek
There is no "mind/body problem", where mind does something the body or brain does not. There is no basis for rejection of a materialistic explanation.

It seems like it's time to bring out the 3 major enemies of the materialist - Consciousness, Dreams and Emotions. Science struggles very hard to measure directly these phenomena and offer a reasonable explanation for their functions.

Might there be a mind-body problem after all?

originally posted by: leolady
a reply to: spygeek

Ok...the reason I called them theories are because you are theorizing that because of those "logical fallacies" the 11:11 phenomenon can be ruled out, so theories may not have been the right word choice on my part.

I'm not attempting to rule out the fact that the "11:11 phenomenon" occurs, only that these logical fallacies adequately explain how is occurs and rule out any unnecessary metaphysical explanations. To reiterate, I propose that the "11:11 phenomenon" and "synchronicity" can be wholly explained by cognitive bias and flaws in logic alone, and that this can be demonstrated through experiment.

You say those are logical fallacies...but what if I were to say they may not be logical yet: We kinda need to see your data in order for them to become logical toward your experiment.

A Priori Argument: Also, "rationalization." Starting with a given, pre-set dogma, doctrine, "fact" or conclusion and then searching for an argument, any reasonable or reasonable-sounding argument, in order to rationalize, defend or justify it

Logical Fallacies List

Are you suggesting errors in logic are in fact indicative of the concept of logic itself being false? Are you saying I need to provide data to show that sound formal logic exists, in order for these fallacies to exist? Are you suggesting that it is not an accepted "given" that logical fallacies exist and I need to prove that they do before commencing the experiement?

Stay tuned, and you will see how anyone's subconscious can be trained to see a pattern in any random noise

Your Logical Fallacies:
1) apophenia - the tendency to perceive a connection or meaningful pattern between unrelated or random things
2) confirmation bias - is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses
3) magical thinking - is the attribution of causal or synchronistic relationships between actions and events which seemingly cannot be justified by reason and observation.
4) the clustering illusion - The clustering illusion is the tendency to erroneously consider the inevitable "streaks" or "clusters" arising in small samples from random distributions to be non-random
5) gambler's fallacy - is the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, it will happen less frequently in the future, or that, if something happens less frequently than normal during some period, it will happen more frequently in the future
6) laws of probability - measures the likelihood of an event occurring

Yes, I contend that all of these are all that is needed to explain the aforementioned phenomena. I intend to demonstrate this through my experiment. If I don't experience the same results as an 11:11 phenomenon advocate such as John St Julian with my own arbitrarily chosen number, then it can be said that these are insufficient explanations of the phenomena, and more investigation is required.

Also, What kind of variables will you use in the experiment ? independent, dependent and controlled ? Can you please define each variable prior to starting
leolady

The independent variable is the selection of the numbers 842.
The dependent variable is the frequency and accumulation of coincidences surrounding the above number in relation to non-coincidental and "non-842" coincidental events.
The controlled variable is the probability that any coincidences will occur in the first place. It is expected to remain constant regardless of how many "specifically 842" coincidences occur. I will be keeping a record of "non-842" coincidences to keep track of this.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: spygeek
There is no "mind/body problem", where mind does something the body or brain does not. There is no basis for rejection of a materialistic explanation.

It seems like it's time to bring out the 3 major enemies of the materialist - Consciousness, Dreams and Emotions. Science struggles very hard to measure directly these phenomena and offer a reasonable explanation for their functions.

Might there be a mind-body problem after all?

I suggest you acquaint yourself with what material science actually says about these things in order to remove this misconception. These are not "enemies of the materialist" in any way, shape, or form. All of them have reasonable material explanations. All of them have been measured through the fields of biochemistry and neurochemistry, neurology and neuroelectrophysiology, to name a few.

These things can only be "measured" or explained metaphysically or non-materialistically, if it is indirectly through a philosophical viewpoint. Claims like those that state "quantum consciousness bridges the gap between philosophy, metaphysics, and material science" misunderstand what, metaphysics and philosophy, quantum mechanics and consciousness actually are, and often attribute to quantum mechanics all manner of unscientific horseradish.

a reply to: spygeek

synchronicity is nothing more than a subjective psychological process

so says you. while i personally think that while many things are left to simple coincidence sometimes the universe of consciousness does push for things to happen if there is a reason to do so. you saying its impossible is nothing more than baseless conjecture.

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: spygeek

synchronicity is nothing more than a subjective psychological process

so says you. while i personally think that while many things are left to simple coincidence sometimes the universe of consciousness does push for things to happen if there is a reason to do so. you saying its impossible is nothing more than baseless conjecture.

Ironic. "The universe of consciousness pushing for things to happen" is itself baseless conjecture.

I'm not saying it is impossible, I am saying there is no rational, logical reason to assume it is a fact. I am also saying that any synchronistic explanation to justify such a belief is the result of logical fallacy and psychological bias.

There is no requirement or need for it be a fact, to explain anything that we observe in reality.

If you were in fact a voice of reason, you would accept this.

a reply to: spygeek

There seems to be a strong propensity to avoid the idea that there is such a thing as random occurrences. There is a need to perceive order (and purpose). That need manifests itself in superstition.

a reply to: spygeek

not as baseless as you would think. if you want to do some research look up Tom Campbell.


and no there is no need for it to be a fact. but it very well could be. whats more reasonable than that? pushing your belief that its silliness is pretty unreasonable to me.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: spygeek

There seems to be a strong propensity to avoid the idea that there is such a thing as random occurrences. There is a need to perceive order (and purpose). That need manifests itself in superstition.

Precisely.

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: spygeek

not as baseless as you would think. if you want to do some research look up Tom Campbell.

The "My big T.O.E." guy? Yeah, I should've expected this to come up at some point. There is a reason his conjecture is completely ignored by the scientific community, leaving him to peddle his claims to the layman in books for as little as only $29.99!

He does not understand what can be reasonably inferred by quantum mechanics, and his theory is pseudoscience of the highest order:

If and when the Big TOE conceptual brain-train begins to move and pick up speed, it may well initiate the beginning of an independent outpouring of Big TOE science, social science, and philosophy that will begin to take root immediately, and slowly produce fruit over time at ever greater levels of specificity.

Riiiiight... Tom Campbell is not a reputable physicist, and his qualifications are rather suspect.

and no there is no need for it to be a fact. but it very well could be. whats more reasonable than that? pushing your belief that its silliness is pretty unreasonable to me.

It could very well be a fact, but without any need for it be a fact outside of general personal whimsy, what would be the point of it? It offers nothing by way of explanatory power, is not testable or falsifiable in any way, and is therefore not a legitimate claim.

By your logic, pushing the belief that the existence of Russell's Teapot is silliness is unreasonable. Would you say it is reasonable to assume Russell's Teapot exists? Is it unreasonable to believe it is silly?

Just because something might exist, doesn't make its existence a logical proposition. Employing the balance fallacy to justify a belief like this won't cut it.

a reply to: spygeek

"is not empirically definable or testable"

I know that science can not test or measure that, but that is its "fault"! But you are a person, you can show and manifest all of the stuff mentioned in the list, you are not a machine after all, so a proper simulation should be made for the accuracy? : )
Or are you are saying becouse there is no measure in science we can just ignore this things, even while I am certain you know that if 11:11 stuff is true it is very possible that it depends mainly on those things in the list.

If they are indeed real, than this is why word view supported by current science is lacking in some aspect in my opinion. These things matter even to humans and their end results after all and also if unknown things like 11:11 or global consciousness, angels and gods exists even if science can't currently detect them, how can it be so arrogant to just ignore variables it cannot measure. You will never get accurate result by ignoring something...or I just don't get it.

a reply to: spygeek

what specifically do you have against Campbell's work?

edit: oh and please dont bombard me with reasons you dont think tom is legitimate, i want to know what about his theory you dont agree with and why.

It could very well be a fact, but without any need for it be a fact outside of general personal whimsy, what would be the point of it?

whats the point of bashing it? you dont agree with something or you dont understand it so you belittle the very idea of it. real rational.

a reply to: UniFinity

I'm not ignoring anything, I am testing and ruling out unnecessary metaphysical explanations of perfectly normal, natural phenomena.

If science can't detect something, like this collective unconscious for example, and every evidence used to support this thing has either its own natural explanation or relies on fallacy, what positive logical case can be made for it?

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: spygeek

what specifically do you have against Campbell's work?

Specifically, its lack of scientific merit.

edit: oh and please dont bombard me with reasons you dont think tom is legitimate, i want to know what about his theory you dont agree with and why.

Simply put, I don't agree with his claim that his conjecture unifies general relativity, quantum mechanics, metaphysics, and the origins of consciousness. His "theory" has not been peer reviewed, and it does not make logical sense.

His theory rests on two basic assumptions about consciousness that are pretty much standard and accepted, but from there he introduces inferences that have no epistemological relevance to the original assumptions or related fields of science.

Mix in some metaphysical woo, a generous helping of misinterpretation of quantum mechanics, and season liberally with mixed metaphors that make no logical sense and only serve to confuse the reader, and you have one big rather smelly T.O.E.

It could very well be a fact, but without any need for it be a fact outside of general personal whimsy, what would be the point of it?

whats the point of bashing it? you dont agree with something or you dont understand it so you belittle the very idea of it. real rational.

I'm not bashing or belittling it because I don't understand it. I'm bashing it because it is categorically false and not what it claims to be. It's actually even worse than categorically false, it's not even wrong.

If it were a legitimate theory, why do no legitimate scientists want to touch it? Why would he have to promote and sell it for profit to uneducated laypeople like an online drug pusher? If it really is the one true and perfect answer to everything, why is it not demonstrably so? Wouldn't such a theory stand up to critical scrutiny? His big T.O.E. certainly doesn't.

If you don't find him to be a crank, that's fine. Just don't call me irrational when I see through his nonsense:
"Your belief systems limit your reality to a sub-set of the solution space that does not contain the answer." -Tom Campbell

a reply to: spygeek

also you ask what the reason for it would be. well its fairly simple. if we live here in a simulated reality it can be inferred that we do so to gain experience. things happen mostly randomly and we experience and learn from it. well sometimes its in the best interest of consciousness to give a little push. say i have a job interview and this would lead me to a stagnant life where i dont learn much. so the universe pulls some strings and it leads me in another direction. i might find a flyer for a program or have a conversation with someone about how they went to Africa to study or whatever.

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

so the universe pulls some strings and it leads me in another direction. i might find a flyer for a program or have a conversation with someone about how they went to Africa to study or whatever.

Cool. No personal responsibility.
The Universe made me do it. No matter what the outcome.

Not my fault, the Universe did it.
I had nothing to do with my success, the Universe did it.

a reply to: spygeek

and it does not make logical sense.

specifically?

His theory rests on two basic assumptions about consciousness that are pretty much standard and accepted

those being what?

a generous helping of misinterpretation of quantum mechanics

what did he misinterpret?

mixed metaphors that make no logical sense and only serve to confuse the reader

doesn't confuse me at all. and i have a feeling you havent read much of anything from him.

btw thanks for doing the exact same thing i asked you not to do.

I'm bashing it because it is categorically false

it is? why? because you say so? or because you see no logical purpose for such a mechanic? or because other scientists say so?

why do no legitimate scientists want to touch it?

i dont know. i wish to know exactly this. everyone's got something to say about it but no one wants to actually study it.

Wouldn't such a theory stand up to critical scrutiny?

it would if anyone in the scientific community actually looked into it.

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

it would if anyone in the scientific community actually looked into it.

Look into what? What can be measured? What can be tested? That's what science is.