Synchronicity: Fact or Fraud?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

Synchronicity: Fact or Fraud?

Postby Ryan Rudolph » Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:12 am

This is an article by Dr. David Peat, a quantum physcist who had a close relationship with the deceased David Bohm who introduced his theory of the "Implicate orders/Explicate orders"

The question is whether or not synchronicity is false and if it isnt then does it somehow defy the regular commonly accepted functioning of causality?

SYNCHRONICITY
THE BRIDGE BETWEEN MATTER AND MIND
by F. DAVID PEAT PhD

Carl Jung defined synchronicity as "The coincidence in time of two or more causally unrelated events which have the same meaning." His implication is clear--certain events in the universe cluster together into meaningful patterns without recourse to the normal pushes and pulls of causality. These synchronicities therefore must transcend the normal laws of science, for they are the expressions of much deeper movements that originate in the ground of the universe and involve, in an inseparable way, both matter and meaning.
The true story of synchronicity begins with the collaboration of two remarkable thinkers, the psychologist Carl Jung and the physicist Wolfgang Pauli. Their concept of synchronicity originated in a marriage between the approaches of physics and psychology. Jung writes, "In writing this paper I have, so to speak, made good a promise which for many years I lacked the courage to fulfill. The difficulties of the problem and its representation seemed to me too great...If I have now conquered my hesitation and at last come to grips with the theme it is chiefly because my experiences of the phenomenon of synchronicity have multiplied themselves over the decades". "Meaningful coincidences are unthinkable as pure chance--the more they multiply and the greater and more exact the correspondence is...they can no longer be regarded as pure chance, but, for the lack of a causal explanation, have to be thought of as meaningful arrangements."
W. Pauli writes, "There must be something else. I think I know what is coming. I know it exactly. But I don't tell it to others. They may think I am mad. So I am doing five dimensional theory of relativity although I don't really believe in it. But I know what is coming. Perhaps I will tell you some time."

Despite our appeal to a "scientific view of nature," such events do occur, and while it is true that anyone of them can be dismissed as "coincidence" such an explanation makes little sense to the person who has experienced such a synchronicity. Indeed the whole point of such happenings is that they are meaningful and play a significant role in a person's life. Synchronicities are the jokers in nature's pack of cards for they refuse to play by the rules and offer a hint that, in our quest for certainty about the universe, we may have ignored some vital clues. Synchronicities challenge us to build a bridge with one foundation derived into the objectivity of hard science and the other into the subjectivity of personal values.

Synchronicities take the form of patterns that emerge by chance out of a general background of chance and contingency and hold a deep meaning for the person who experiences them. Often these coincidences occur at critical points in a person's life and can be interpreted as containing the seeds of future growth. Synchronicities could, therefore, be said to involve the meaningful unfoldment of potential. Synchronicities are therefore often associated with periods of transformation; for example, births, deaths, falling in love, psychotherapy, intense creative work, and even a change of profession. It is as if this internal restructuring produces external resonance's or as if a burst of "mental energy" is propagated outward into the physical world.

Such synchronicities begin within the outer world and then move inward as their meaning is revealed. Such synchronicities depend on detecting a deeper meaning to the patterns and clusterings of the phenomena around us. They may involve our becoming linked with the environment in a special way, anticipating events or sensing some underlying pattern to the world. While the conventional laws of physics do not heed human desires or the need for meaning--apples fall whether we will them to or not--synchronicities act as mirrors to the inner processes of mind and take the form of outer manifestations of interior transformations.

The many examples of coincidental movements of thought, feeling, and ideas between unconnected groups and across disciplines suggests that a deeper meaning lies beyond these coincidents and synchronicities.
Such curious events may not be so much the result of a "psychic link" or mental communication but rather indicate that a mutual process is unfolding out of the same ground and that this ground must therefore lie beyond the individual consciousness that is located in space and time. It is as if the formation of patterns within the unconscious mind is accompanied by physical patterns in the outer world. Synchronicity is therefore the expression of the potential or meaning contained within a certain point of existence. It acts as an intimation of the meaning that lies hidden within a particular life, relationship, or historical moment.

The special flavor of a synchronicity lies in its being, at one and the same time, a unique, individual event and the manifestation of universal order. Wrapped within the temporal moment, a synchronicity exhibits its transcendental nature. It is this relationship between the transcendent and the coincidental arrangement of mental and physical happenings that the synchronicity acquires its numinous meaning.
Synchronicities represent a bridge between matter and mind and the concept of causality is clearly not appropriate to the world of mental events. By probing causality to its limit, it has been discovered that "everything causes everything else" and that each event emerges out of an infinite web or network of causal relationships. Causality therefore remains an idealization that can never be put into absolute practice.

Neils Bohr, for example, stressed that quantum theory had revealed the essential indivisibility of nature while Heisenburg's uncertainty principle indicated the extent to which an observer intervenes in the system he
observes. A contemporary physicist, John Wheeler, has expressed this new approach in particularly graphic terms: "We had this old idea, that there was a universe out there, and here is man, the observer, safely protected from the universe by a six-inch slab of plate glass. Now we learn from the quantum world that even to observe so minuscule an object as an electron we have to shatter the plate glass; we have to reach in there... So the old word observer-simply has to be crossed off the books, and we must put in the new word participator. In this way we've come to realize that the universe is a participatory universe.

Quantum theory and relativity had a revolutionary effect upon this Newtonian approach, not only in transforming the formalism of physics but also changing the worldview that was associated with it. The worldview that we have all inherited from an outmoded physics still has a profound effect on our whole lives; it permeates our attitudes to society, government., and human relations and suggests that every adverse situation can be analyzed into an isolated "problem" with a corresponding solution or means of control. It is for such reasons that synchronicity can have such a profound effect on us, for it reaches beyond our intellectual defenses and shatters our faith in the tangibility of surfaces and the linear orders of time and nature.
While quantum theory has successfully challenged the exclusive nature of this (Newtonian) worldview, the loophole it offers is simply not enough to admit synchronicity. It is only when causality is pushed to the limit that it is discovered that the actual context in which everything that happens in our universe is in fact caused by everything else. Indeed the whole universe could be thought of as unfolding or expressing itself in its individual occurrences. It is within this global view that it becomes possible to accommodate synchronicities as meaningful events that emerge out of the heart of nature.

In building the bridge between mind and matter, the notion of causality must be bypassed in favor of transformations and unfoldings. Causality and synchronicity are not contradictory but are dual perceptions of the same underlying reality. In other words, synchronicities are manifestations, in mind and matter, of the unknown ground that underlies them both. In this way similar orders are found in both consciousness and in the structuring of matter. The parallelism between the objective and the subjective aspects of the universe do not so much arise through causal connections, or linear patterns in time, but out of underlying dynamics that are common to both. Synchronicities therefore introduce meaning and value, in an essential way, into nature. The meaningful patterns of the world, which transcend all our attempts to limit and encompass them, arise not so much through the mechanisms of external orders but through the unfolding of their own internal significance.

While science has an awesome power to predict and control, it is also clear that its essential fragmentation of nature is no longer able to address all the major problems that face the world today. Synchronicity, however, with its sensitivity to harmony and the indivisibility of consciousness, humanity, and nature at least opens up the possibility of a new approach. But again this does not mean making a choice to "adopt" synchronicity or to "replace" some of the approaches of science with those of synchronicity. Rather, by being perceptive to these issues it may be possible to move, in a creative way, in an entirely new direction...One step toward becoming more sensitive to the duality between these different worldviews is to begin to question the whole current order of science and to develop new ideas and theories that have a more holistic approach.

In the present century the ultimate level of nature appears to be that of space-time and the infinite energy of the quantum field. But there is no reason to suppose that the ground of reality lies there and that there may not be an uncountable number of yet more subtle levels to be discovered. Indeed both consciousness and matter may be discovered to evolve out of a common order where the processes of matter and the activity of information are two sides of one reality.

The real message of synchronicity, for the Western scientific viewpoint, is not to throw away all that is of value within the last five hundred years, but to be sensitive to new perspectives and to allow the mind its full creative potential. In this way it becomes possible to retain a subjective experience of nature and a sense of the meaning and interconnectedness of things without needing to reject the scientific approach. Synchronicity will appear very naturally to a mind that is constantly sensitive to change, for it reveals the overall patterns of nature of mind and provides a context in which events have their meaning.

Synchronicity has gradually been enfolded into an entirely new dimension; in place of a causal deterministic world, in which mind and matter are two separate substances, appears a universe of infinite subtlety that is much closer to a creative living organism than to a machine. Reality, in this way, is pictured as a limitless series of levels which extend to deeper and deeper subtleties and out of which the particular, explicate order of nature and the order of consciousness and life emerge. Synchronicities can therefore be thought of as an expression of this underlying movement, for they unfold as patterns of thoughts and arrangements of material processes which have a meaningful conjunction when taken together. Paradoxically,the nothingness of the ground state, out of which the universe is sustained, is both a vacuum and a plenum. It is a vacuum because, as in the everyday idea of empty space, matter is able to move through it without interruption. But it is also a plenum because it is infinitely full of energy. Indeed, the observable material universe is nothing more that the minor fluctuations upon this vast sea of energy. And, it should not be forgotten, just as this infinite energy is used in the generation of matter, so it is also available to mind, through the deeper ground of its source.

Why should synchronicity be considered as some isolated coincidence of mind and matter when the one underlying source is constantly giving birth to the universe at every eternal moment? An answer to these questions is given in the final chapter, where it is suggested that a fragmentation in the way the mind has come to perceive the orders of time, and the growth of the self with all its attachments, has blinded our perceptions to the basic creativity in the universe. While the source of all reality is an unconditional creativity, it does appear that-human society, and the individual within it, often operate in a fairly mechanical way so that they respond to new situations from relatively fixed positions and in uncreative ways. In other words, they appear to be trapped in structures and forms of their own making, such as the beliefs, goals, and values that have become so rigid that they are unable to move in the flexible and subtle ways that characterize the general order of the universe. Is it possible therefore for the creative source to permeate the life of the individual? By no longer sustaining the mechanical order of time and attachment can the division between mind and body, individual and society, and society and nature be healed and the whole order of consciousness transformed in a creative way? Is it possible that the balance of life on this planet may be restored and a deeper sense of meaning function within the individual and society?

Within each part is enfolded the whole, so that each element becomes a microcosm of the macrocosm. In this sense, the individual truly stands as an image of a wider reality, with all its complex orders... However, as this self becomes more rigidly identified with set structures and its the sequential order of becoming, it believes itself to be the only and true source of all progress and creativity...In operating from its fixed forms and relatively limited order, the self assumes itself to be the origin and sustainer of all things... In this way the self has fragmented itself from the general field of consciousness and has become blocked from creativity so that a synchronicity now appears to be a rare and isolated incident, rather than one aspect of the general order of time and unfoldment.

Synchronicities, epiphanies,-peak, and mystical experiences are all cases in which creativity breaks through the barriers of the self and allows awareness to flood through the whole domain of consciousness. It is the human mind operating, for a moment, in its true order and extending throughout society and nature, moving through orders of increasing subtlety, reaching past the source of mind and matter into creativity itself.
Synchronicity gives us an image of what such a transformation may be like, for within the operation of its meaningful coincidences, time has its end and creativity dissolves and transcends all structures and distinction. Synchronicity is therefore an intimation of a much greater transformation. An intimation of a more creative life in which the self takes its proper place within consciousness.

Synchronicities have opened a window onto a creative source of infinite potential, the well-spring of the universe itself. They have shown how mind and matter are not distinct, separate aspects of nature but arise in a deeper order of reality. Synchronicities suggest that we can renew our contact with that creative and unconditioned source which is the origin not only of ourselves but all of reality. By dying to the self and its mechanical, reactive responses to nature, it becomes possible to engage in an active transformation and gain access to unlimited ranges of energy. In this way, body and consciousness, individual and society, mind and matter may come to achieve their unlimited potential.

Last edited by Ryan Rudolph on Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Postby Tharan » Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:17 am

Causality doesn't have to refute it. Rather, Synchronicity must prove itself irrefutably, just as Causality has done.
Tharan
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:14 am
Location: Seattle

Postby Ryan Rudolph » Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:31 am

Tharan wrote:

Synchronicity must prove itself irrefutably


It is quite difficult to prove because synchronicity is a mental state, it is a brief experience, a burst of sudden creativity or novelty that seems to operate differently than the normal functioning of causality.
Last edited by Ryan Rudolph on Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Postby Tharan » Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:39 am

All of Nature is causal until proven otherwise.
Tharan
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:14 am
Location: Seattle

Postby Ryan Rudolph » Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:01 am

tharan wrote:

All of Nature is causal until proven otherwise.


A physicist like David Bohm wrote books such as Causality and Chance in Modern Physics, but then he would also dabble in the supernatural and and ponder more fantasic theories.

It may have been the child within him that wanted to be gratified by something otherworldly. - in other words - weakness.

Or he could have been discontent with casuality as an all encompassing theory because there were experiments he performed that left him with more questions than all encompassing answers.

Bohm was attracted to the mystical after he noticed that an atom will behave differently when not observed compared to when it is observed.

It was after these experiments that Bohm tried to incorporate consciousness into his theory of the universe in conjunction with causality.

Rupert Sheldrake has also suggested that components of an ecosystem will communicate from miles and miles away and actually affect each other's behavior without direct contact.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Postby sky » Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:33 am

cp

Rupert Sheldrake has also suggested that components of an ecosystem will communicate from miles and miles away and actually affect each other's behavior without direct contact.


The Hundredth Monkey

by Ken Keyes, jr.

The Japanese monkey, Macaca fuscata, had been observed in the wild for a period of over 30 years.

In 1952, on the island of Koshima, scientists were providing monkeys with sweet potatoes dropped in the sand. The monkeys liked the taste of the raw sweet potatoes, but they found the dirt unpleasant.

An 18-month-old female named Imo found she could solve the problem by washing the potatoes in a nearby stream. She taught this trick to her mother. Her playmates also learned this new way and they taught their mothers too.

This cultural innovation was gradually picked up by various monkeys before the eyes of the scientists.

Between 1952 and 1958 all the young monkeys learned to wash the sandy sweet potatoes to make them more palatable.

Only the adults who imitated their children learned this social improvement. Other adults kept eating the dirty sweet potatoes.

Then something startling took place. In the autumn of 1958, a certain number of Koshima monkeys were washing sweet potatoes -- the exact number is not known.

Let us suppose that when the sun rose one morning there were 99 monkeys on Koshima Island who had learned to wash their sweet potatoes.

Let's further suppose that later that morning, the hundredth monkey learned to wash potatoes.

THEN IT HAPPENED!

By that evening almost everyone in the tribe was washing sweet potatoes before eating them.

The added energy of this hundredth monkey somehow created an ideological breakthrough!

But notice.

A most surprising thing observed by these scientists was that the habit of washing sweet potatoes then jumped over the sea --

Colonies of monkeys on other islands and the mainland troop of monkeys at Takasakiyama began washing their sweet potatoes.

Thus, when a certain critical number achieves an awareness, this new awareness may be communicated from mind to mind.

Although the exact number may vary, this Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon means that when only a limited number of people know of a new way, it may remain the conscious property of these people.

But there is a point at which if only one more person tunes-in to a new awareness, a field is strengthened so that this awareness is picked up by almost everyone!

(from the book "The Hundredth Monkey" by Ken Keyes, jr. The book is not copyrighted and the material may be reproduced in whole or in part.
User avatar
sky
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:19 am

Postby Ryan Rudolph » Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:46 am

sky wrote:

But notice.

A most surprising thing observed by these scientists was that the habit of washing sweet potatoes then jumped over the sea --

Colonies of monkeys on other islands and the mainland troop of monkeys at Takasakiyama began washing their sweet potatoes.

Thus, when a certain critical number achieves an awareness, this new awareness may be communicated from mind to mind.

Although the exact number may vary, this Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon means that when only a limited number of people know of a new way, it may remain the conscious property of these people.

But there is a point at which if only one more person tunes-in to a new awareness, a field is strengthened so that this awareness is picked up by almost everyone!


interesting sky, so the presence of this ‘novelty energy field’ creates a momentum that can be communicated across vast space to susceptible members.

This theory seems to leave a gaping hole in the QRS’s all encompassing causality framework...
Last edited by Ryan Rudolph on Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Postby AlyOshA » Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:54 am

I read about a similar phenomena with E=MC squared. Have y’all read ‘bout that? Supposedly, when E=MC squared was originally taught, it took a really long time to understand and only the highest academic elite could comprehend it, but after a certain amount of people learned it, lets say 500, an incredible leap of understanding occurred and it became easily comprehendible to the average grad student. Has anyone heard this or do I need to hunt down the actual source?
lost child
AlyOshA
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:23 am

Postby sky » Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:15 am

cp
This theory seems to leave a gaping hole in the QRS’s all encompassing causality framework...


yes so it seems
User avatar
sky
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:19 am

Postby wookie » Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:39 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphic_field

A morphic field (a term introduced by Rupert Sheldrake, the major proponent of this concept, through his Hypothesis of Formative Causation) is described as consisting of patterns that govern the development of forms, structures and arrangements. The theory of morphic fields is not accepted by mainstream science.

In a manner similar to Platonic idealism, morphic fields are defined as the universal database for both organic (living) and abstract (mental) forms, while morphogenetic fields (term that was already in use in environmental biology from 1920's after unrelated research of three biologists - Hans Spemann, Alexander Gurwitsch and Paul Weiss) Sheldrake defined as the subset that deals only with living things.

“The term [morphic field] is more general in its meaning than morphogenetic fields, and includes other kinds of organizing fields in addition to those of morphogenesis; the organizing fields of animal and human behaviour, of social and cultural systems, and of mental activity can all be regarded as morphic fields which contain an inherent memory.” - Sheldrake, The Presence of the Past (Chapter 6, page 112)
According to this concept, the morphic field underlies the formation and behavior of holons and morphic units, and can be set up by the repetition of similar acts and/or thoughts. Supposedly, the form belonging to a certain group with their already established (collective) morphic field, itself tunes into that morphic field, storing and reading the related information through morphic resonance.



wookie
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 5:08 pm

Postby David Quinn » Tue Sep 05, 2006 2:59 pm

Cosmic Prostitute wrote:

sky: But notice.

A most surprising thing observed by these scientists was that the habit of washing sweet potatoes then jumped over the sea

Colonies of monkeys on other islands and the mainland troop of monkeys at Takasakiyama began washing their sweet potatoes.

Thus, when a certain critical number achieves an awareness, this new awareness may be communicated from mind to mind.

CP: This theory seems to leave a gaping hole in the QRS’s all encompassing causality framework...

A critical mass of behaviour reached on one island causes a change of behaviour on another island - this is supposed to be an argument against causality? I think you've lost your thinking cap there, dear boy.

Let me stress again that the truth of causality can never be challenged or undermined by anything observed in the world - not unless we arbitrarily reduce the concept of causality to mean a more specific, narrower expression of causality, such as equating it with Newtonian laws of physics or whatever.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Postby Tharan » Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:05 pm

Emergent Properties are a fundamental part of Nature and they do not usually follow a linear path like a 2 dimensional trail. They are multi dimensional. In fact, the name "Emergent Properties" is really any phenomenon that cannot or does not have a an obvious linear, causal chain.

But this does not mean it was not caused to exist. It simply means we can't yet follow it. Emergent Properties (phenomenon of apparently "more than sum of its parts") are well known along with phase shifts (i.e. water to ice). We see the same patterns in Nature. All Causal.
Tharan
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:14 am
Location: Seattle

Postby AlyOshA » Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:12 pm

David Quinn:
Let me stress again that the truth of causality can never be challenged or undermined by anything observed in the world - not unless we arbitrarily reduce the concept of causality to mean a more specific, narrower expression of causality, such as equating it with Newtonian laws of physics or whatever.


Synchronicity is used in conjunction with causality, but it is diametrically opposed to causality. It is a simple question David. Are you denying the possibilities of synchronicity? And if so under what grounds?
lost child
AlyOshA
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:23 am

Postby AlyOshA » Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:16 pm

It simply means we can't yet follow it.


Hence your proof is nonexistent Tharan. Be careful what you ask for when you demand proof.
lost child
AlyOshA
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:23 am

Postby David Quinn » Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:55 pm

Alyosha wrote:

Synchronicity is used in conjunction with causality, but it is diametrically opposed to causality. It is a simple question David. Are you denying the possibilities of synchronicity? And if so under what grounds?

I don't deny the possibilities of synchronicity (or more accurately, the appearance of certain kinds of causal phenomena that some people currently like to label as being examples of synchronicity). However, there is no way in the world that any of these instances of synchronicity involve non-causal processes.

Even Rupert Sheldrake, as wacky as he is, doesn't subscribe to non-causation. His theory of morphic fields fully adheres to the principle of causation. His theory conflicts, not with the principle of causation, but with current mainstream science, which is a different issue entirely.

Even the very term "synchronicity" implies a link between the two phenomena in question, which automatically implies causality.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Postby Ryan Rudolph » Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:16 am

Quinn wrote:

A critical mass of behaviour reached on one island causes a change of behaviour on another island - this is supposed to be an argument against causality? I think you've lost your thinking cap there, dear boy.


You’re missing my point, when the ‘novelty of consciousness’ enters the picture, this variable changes the normal functioning of cauasality as modern science understands it.

For instance: Suppose I drop a glass on the floor because it’s slippery so the slippery glass causing me to drop it.

This is basic causality.

Now if a group of humans suddenly discover a more efficient type of arrowhead that will better increase their chances of killing a mammoth, and then over the next two weeks that information is transmitted across continents to all the other tribes that hunt mammoth, you must admit that this is causality functioning much differently than if I drop a glass on the floor?

I am posing the question: Does the normal functioning of causality change when the variable ‘novelty of consciousness’ enters the picture?

Because the end result is you have information that is transmitted over great distances and received by brains that do not have direct contact with each other.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

One Hundred Monkeys

Postby DHodges » Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:02 am

It boggles my mind that someone might still be referring to
The Hundredth Monkey without realizing it is bullshit.

Seriously, this is a well-known and well-debunked example of "voodoo science".
User avatar
DHodges
 
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Postby AlyOshA » Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:31 am

Off subject (or is it off subject?)

DHodges do you consider the (U.S.) government developed and scientifically proven method of Remote Viewing to be “voodoo science”? Look it up friend and you might reconsider what constitutes “voodoo science”.
lost child
AlyOshA
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:23 am

Postby AlyOshA » Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:34 am

oops. I said proven. Forget the word proven and let me replace that with validated.
lost child
AlyOshA
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:23 am

Postby Ryan Rudolph » Wed Sep 06, 2006 3:43 am

AlyOshA wrote:

oops. I said proven. Forget the word proven and let me replace that with validated.


I agree; the validation is only as good as the one doing the validating.

Many of the accepted scientific critics in the States are fairly cowardly because they lack an openness to consider possibilities outside the narrow box that contemporary science has laid down for them.

A good example is Martin Gardener. He maybe retired now, but he was a generally accepted critic in the States that was notorious for his harsh criticisms on those he suspected were indulging in voodoo science.

Overall the guy is incredibly conventional and therefore his criticisms are widely accepted by the academic world.

Here is one of Gardener's critiques where he criticizes David Bohm for maintaining a relationship with Jiddu Krishnamurti.

Some of his observations of Bohm and Krishnamurti are indeed accurate/true/funny as both of them were not free from deluded adventures, but Gardener possesses a worse ignorance in my view because he doesnt take any mystical teachings seriously thus making him an incredibly stunted intellectual.

http://thinkg.net/david_bohm/martin_gar ... murti.html
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Postby Nick Treklis » Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:05 am

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Quinn wrote:

A critical mass of behaviour reached on one island causes a change of behaviour on another island - this is supposed to be an argument against causality? I think you've lost your thinking cap there, dear boy.


You’re missing my point, when the ‘novelty of consciousness’ enters the picture, this variable changes the normal functioning of cauasality as modern science understands it.

For instance: Suppose I drop a glass on the floor because it’s slippery so the slippery glass causing me to drop it.

This is basic causality.

Now if a group of humans suddenly discover a more efficient type of arrowhead that will better increase their chances of killing a mammoth, and then over the next two weeks that information is transmitted across continents to all the other tribes that hunt mammoth, you must admit that this is causality functioning much differently than if I drop a glass on the floor?

I am posing the question: Does the normal functioning of causality change when the variable ‘novelty of consciousness’ enters the picture?

Because the end result is you have information that is transmitted over great distances and received by brains that do not have direct contact with each other.


How is what you describe not causality? You seem to consider "basic causality" a chain of events we can witness. What about all the infinite events that have happened in the totality up until now? Because we can't witness them and see them with own eyes it some how defies causality? Sounds pretty ridiculous right? Whether people can send information directly to eachothers brains without the use of phones or somethings else doesn't mean it's not causality. Even if we never end up explaining exactly how a process works it will never defy causality. It all boils down to one thing happening which causes another thing to happen, regardless of if we can see how they are physically connected, there is always connection. Cause and effect is the perfect trap, nothing can escape it.
User avatar
Nick Treklis
 
Posts: 1674
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Postby Ryan Rudolph » Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:17 am

Nick wrote:

Even if we never end up explaining exactly how a process works it will never defy causality.

It all boils down to one thing happening which causes another thing to happen, regardless of if we can see how they are physically connected, there is always connection. Cause and effect is the perfect trap, nothing can escape it.


Yes, yes I know there is always connection, but if we cannot ultimately understand how these deeper processes function then we don’t have an ultimate understanding of reality.

There is still mystery and as long as there is mystery there lacks a complete understanding.

So how can one claim to have an ultimate understanding of reality if this the case?
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Postby Nick Treklis » Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:25 am

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Nick wrote:

Even if we never end up explaining exactly how a process works it will never defy causality.

It all boils down to one thing happening which causes another thing to happen, regardless of if we can see how they are physically connected, there is always connection. Cause and effect is the perfect trap, nothing can escape it.


Yes, yes I know there is always connection, but if we cannot ultimately understand how these deeper processes function then we don’t have an ultimate understanding of reality.

There is still mystery and as long as there is mystery there lacks a complete understanding.

So how can one claim to have an ultimate understanding of reality if this the case?


It's impossible to understand all the intricacies of everything. For instance, we will never know exactly how every single event unfolded up until this very moment. Sure, go ahead and try to figure them all out, you have until you die, which could be at any moment. Even if you live to be 100 you wouldn't make dent on the infinite scale your dealing with. Leave the small beans to scientists. In the mean-time I'll be focusing directly on the nature of the totality itself.
User avatar
Nick Treklis
 
Posts: 1674
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Postby Cory Duchesne » Wed Sep 06, 2006 5:16 am

cosmic prostitute wrote:

Yes, yes I know there is always connection, but if we cannot ultimately understand how these deeper processes function then we don’t have an ultimate understanding of reality.

There is still mystery and as long as there is mystery there lacks a complete understanding.

So how can one claim to have an ultimate understanding of reality if this the case?


This is really the crux of my problem with Quinn and Solway.

I've even heard Quinn say he wasn't 100% sure if consciousness was extinguished at death. He speculated consciousness might be some sort of alogrithm that gets transfered to a greater computer following death.

how can there be ultimate understanding of reality AND uncertainty about the mind?

Furthermore, I find the fact of there being anything at all "un-rational".

Yes, you can say causality is the fundamental principle governing all things - -but it is still a mind boggling, perplexing and non-rational situation.

However, I value Quinn, Solway, Rowden and other G forum members because they agree that its important to be as free from sensuality and emotinalism as possible in order to have a calm clear mind.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
 
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada

Postby AlyOshA » Wed Sep 06, 2006 6:17 am

DQuinn:
However, there is no way in the world that any of these instances of synchronicity involve non-causal processes.


Nick:
It all boils down to one thing happening which causes another thing to happen, regardless of if we can see how they are physically connected, there is always connection. Cause and effect is the perfect trap, nothing can escape it.

Cause and effect creates a narrative, and narrative is mankind’s favorite way of viewing the world (just look at how we invented our history in the various history books). Synchronicity, Remote Viewing, and the I Ching, all acknowledge cause and effect, but they provide an alternative way of analyzing the exactness of the moment. Yes, Cause and effect are dependant on connections, but Synchronicity argues that connections are not limited to being merely cause and effect. If we were to analyze a dissection of this exact moment we would undoubtedly be analyzing connections, but are connections solely defined as cause and effect? Synchronicity and the I Ching acknowledge the psychic connections (/interventions and interdependencies), the coincidences, the simultaneous manifestations in totally separate areas and circumstances, the interdependence of the exact surroundings in dictating those manifestations, as well as the unconscious, totally unpredictable elements of chance. These elements are in fact connected to but not limited by the cause and effect narrative. Effect requires a past (cause), and when you freeze an exact dissection of the moment, you realize that there is more going on than just the accumulation of past causes. Do you believe in chance? Doesn’t chance go against cause and effect? Isn’t it possible to understand the randomness and unpredictability of chance elements separately from (but not in disagreement with) the cause and effect narrative?
lost child
AlyOshA
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:23 am

Next

Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest

cron