Skeptic, Michael Shermer.., Not As?

[smcder]

What we seem to be dancing around is what constitutes coherent information vs what is random noise. From that question arises (I think) whether information is inherently and qualitatively different from noise without the participation of an observer to crunch patterns into meaning.

To belabor the yellow helicopter example--for anyone passing this sight on the road but someone familiar with the yellow copter and cattle mutilation scenario, no particular meaning could be possible. Is the same thing true of more sophisticated means of encoding transfer of information between conscious minds? Obvious examples would be written language or binary code.

It seems to me that for transfer of information between two parties to occur there must be some kind of third or more referent, normally accepted by human consensus as something within the boundaries of the "normal", to which it corresponds. And in fact, we live immersed in a sea of such transfer, our brains probably engaged at least as much in the act of filtering what is not meaningful to the individual as in processing what is meaningful.

Much of what we refer to as paranormal is information vividly perceived by and meaningful to the experiencer, but not accepted by society as within the bounds of the possible or "normal."

The extraordinary thing is the inescapability of narrative.

If a mind is in the forest and no tree falls ... what does it mean?

AUTHORS of the Impossible

Highly recommended ...

 

[Burnt State]

. Much of what we refer to as paranormal is information vividly perceived by and meaningful to the experiencer, but not accepted by society as within the bounds of the possible or "normal."

So then is the paranormal just all in my head? After all, it's normal for everyone else but me. I wonder how many claims of the paranormal are all merely matters of perspective? For the experiencer, what they think they saw is also accompanied by a very strong imprinting of heightened brain chemistry and its related emotions. I think this often leads to statements such as, "I know what I saw." After this it's very hard to convince an experiencer of otherwise, even if there is something normal that is the source of it all, i.e. the incredible coincidence of a yellow helicopter on the highway at a precise moment in time. So while society may not accept my definition of reality, as per how I define my experience, because it is elevated to the realms of the paranormal, I wonder whose point of view can be best used to develop more insight for future benefit & reference, or is the point where Steve tells me I'm busy chasing my own tail or would that be writing my own tale?

 

[smcder]

So then is the paranormal just all in my head? After all, it's normal for everyone else but me. I wonder how many claims of the paranormal are all merely matters of perspective? For the experiencer, what they think they saw is also accompanied by a very strong imprinting of heightened brain chemistry and its related emotions. I think this often leads to statements such as, "I know what I saw." After this it's very hard to convince an experiencer of otherwise, even if there is something normal that is the source of it all, i.e. the incredible coincidence of a yellow helicopter on the highway at a precise moment in time. So while society may not accept my definition of reality, as per how I define my experience, because it is elevated to the realms of the paranormal, I wonder whose point of view can be best used to develop more insight for future benefit & reference, or is the point where Steve tells me I'm busy chasing my own tail or would that be writing my own tale?

"I know what I saw."

Hypothetical: a person is assaulted by someone they know very well, the last person they would ever think capable of it ... heart racing, etc ... heightened emotional state ... and at the exact same time they see a UFO (in the same visual "frame" as they see the fave of the person assaulting them)

The victims testimony as to the identity of the person who committed the assault is confirmed by witnesses and other evidence.

No one else saw the UFO because their attention was drawn to the assault.

 

[smcder]

I just ran the above hypothetical by my wife, she listened and then she turned back to reading a short story to me that began:

"IT is, I confess, with considerable diffidence that I approach the strange narrative which I am about to relate. The events which I purpose detailing are of so extraordinary and unheard-of a character that I am quite prepared to meet with an unusual amount of incredulity and scorn. I accept all such beforehand. I have, I trust, the literary courage to face unbelief. I have, after mature consideration, resolved to narrate, in as simple and straightforward a manner as I can compass, some facts that passed under my observation in the month of July last, and which, in the annals of the mysteries of physical science, are wholly unparalleled."

13. What Was It? A Mystery By Fitz-James O’Brien. Matthews, Brander. 1907. The Short-Story

She picked this story by title alone and before she knew anything about my hypothetical.

And ...

After I posted to this thread yesterday, I was in the doctors office reading something in a book in the waiting room ... that story ended with a coincidence that the author took extra pains to add details to strengthen the coincidence.

 

[Polterwurst]

No idea what you guys are talking about. But I just realized I forgot to give my best wishes for Mr Shermer's marriage. I'm wondering if his ties to Germany might have something to do with the fact that there seem to be more skeptics per square kilometer than anywhere else. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[smcder]

No idea what you guys are talking about. But I just realized I forgot to give my best wishes for Mr Shermer's marriage. I'm wondering if his ties to Germany might have something to do with the fact that there seem to be more skeptics per square kilometer than anywhere else. Just my opinion, of course.

I lived in Germany for a year - I can se that.

"No idea what you guys are talking about."

Wie schade!

Then you've missed brilliant theoretical discourse between @boomerang and @burntstate interspersed with witty repartee by moi.

 

[Polterwurst]

LOL I'm trying to catch up, but it's not easy with all the internet dictionary looking up.

 

[smcder]

So then is the paranormal just all in my head? After all, it's normal for everyone else but me. I wonder how many claims of the paranormal are all merely matters of perspective? For the experiencer, what they think they saw is also accompanied by a very strong imprinting of heightened brain chemistry and its related emotions. I think this often leads to statements such as, "I know what I saw." After this it's very hard to convince an experiencer of otherwise, even if there is something normal that is the source of it all, i.e. the incredible coincidence of a yellow helicopter on the highway at a precise moment in time. So while society may not accept my definition of reality, as per how I define my experience, because it is elevated to the realms of the paranormal, I wonder whose point of view can be best used to develop more insight for future benefit & reference, or is the point where Steve tells me I'm busy chasing my own tail or would that be writing my own tale?

"So while society may not accept my definition of reality, as per how I define my experience, because it is elevated to the realms of the paranormal, I wonder whose point of view can be best used to develop more insight for future benefit & reference"

What we call the objective is composed of subjective viewpoints. You can talk to other people, read what they have to say, look at pictures - but all of that first comes through your subjective POV.

The hypothetical above is a case of two objects in the same visual field at the same time, one validated by objective (external subjective viewpoints) the other not.

 

[Burnt State]

What we call the objective is composed of subjective viewpoints. You can talk to other people, read what they have to say, look at pictures - but all of that first comes through your subjective POV.

The hypothetical above is a case of two objects in the same visual field at the same time, one validated by objective (external subjective viewpoints) the other not.

I guess I'm just interested in that gap, as well as subjectivity as it relates to intense experiences that are defined or labelled as paranormal. While there are external realities I would not question as having happened, i still wnder just how much paranormal is just a matter of pov?

Regarding coincidence: language, as your sharing of short fiction across the domestic able suggests, is simply bent on creating coincidence for us all the time. With a limited set of characters, words, and genres, we are bound to trip over similarities all the time. But real synchronicity, the kind that makes us literally fall over our own shock and awe, are very interesting events that almost hint at a matrix at work, a rhythmic pattern that suggests an unknown order that lurks just below the blur of conscious observation.

 

[smcder]

I guess I'm just interested in that gap, as well as subjectivity as it relates to intense experiences that are defined or labelled as paranormal. While there are external realities I would not question as having happened, i still wnder just how much paranormal is just a matter of pov?

Regarding coincidence: language, as your sharing of short fiction across the domestic able suggests, is simply bent on creating coincidence for us all the time. With a limited set of characters, words, and genres, we are bound to trip over similarities all the time. But real synchronicity, the kind that makes us literally fall over our own shock and awe, are very interesting events that almost hint at a matrix at work, a rhythmic pattern that suggests an unknown order that lurks just below the blur of conscious observation.

Regarding coincidence: language, as your sharing of short fiction across the domestic able suggests, is simply bent on creating coincidence for us all the time. With a limited set of characters, words, and genres, we are bound to trip over similarities all the time. But real synchronicity, the kind that makes us literally fall over our own shock and awe, are very interesting events that almost hint at a matrix at work, a rhythmic pattern that suggests an unknown order that lurks just below the blur of conscious observation.

I'm not sure that I see language as being so limited as to generate synchronicities all the time ... you'd have to shore that argument up a little for me and I'll do some thinking about it too. You seem to be saying now that "real" synchronicity is measured in terms of emotional reaction "shock and awe"? yet here:

For the experiencer, what they think they saw is also accompanied by a very strong imprinting of heightened brain chemistry and its related emotions. I think this often leads to statements such as, "I know what I saw." After this it's very hard to convince an experiencer of otherwise, even if there is something normal that is the source of it all

... you seem (to me) to be saying that the emotional factor makes it hard for the experiencer to be objective?

So let's look at the two coincidences in two days I posted above:

1. two days, two coincidences (let's see what happens after this post!) one the same morning I posted to another thread at Poulterwurst's mention (I rarely post outside of the C&P) and the other immediately after I posted my response last night. The coincidence in the first post was tacked on to the end of the story and was not the main point ... immediately as I finished the story I was called in to my appt.

2. the short story was picked by my wife before she knew anything about this thread - we had just been discussing what new book to read next and had decided not to start Moby Dick but just pick out a short story for the night. The story she picked regarded a supernatural event and someone anticipating the questionable veracity of the event ... my wife pointed out that the opening language:

IT is, I confess, with considerable diffidence that I approach the strange narrative which I am about to relate. The events which I purpose detailing are of so extraordinary and unheard-of a character that I am quite prepared to meet with an unusual amount of incredulity and scorn. I accept all such beforehand. I have, I trust, the literary courage to face unbelief. I have, after mature consideration, resolved to narrate, in as simple and straightforward a manner as I can compass, some facts that passed under my observation in the month of July last, and which, in the annals of the mysteries of physical science, are wholly unparalleled.

As being an 1859 version of "I know what I saw." before she knew we were discussing synchronicity specifically.

3. the way the link I posted above shows, it's hard to tell the author of the short story's name ... it's Fitz-James O'Brien.

Now, what more could you ask of a coincidence ... or two? ;-)

 

[smcder]

Gibbs Williams did an interview on Shrink Rap radio #303 - I think (I'm relying on my photogeneric memory) I can't open the PDF manuscript on my comptroller but I'm pretty sure you can ogle him and find that he has some kind of scheme to metastasize synchronicities in to some kind of objectionable way.

There is also this podgasp 42 Minutes | The Sync Book which is clearly an instantiation of its predecessors migratory habilitation.

And wherewithal, you might want to check out this plenary about Stephen Kubrick's The Shinning - some funatics watched this maybe 500 times and fondued all kinds of synchro-niceties ... it's really quite placid.

Room 237 Movie | Many Ways In, No Way Out

 

[Burnt State]

I know all about Room 237 and as the byline says - many ways in, & no way out of the prison house of language except death. I'm still trying to work through that doc as many of the interpretations of that movie work for me from the commentary on indigenous peoples to the Jupiter rocket/moon narratives. But then art can be many layered and I wouldn't put it past Kubrick to weave 7 or 8 or more layers to his work as he is all about design. But then again, if you have enough images travelling aboard the same train you should be able to use them to prove the destinaion of your choice, the way the bible can be used to promote lascivious sex or declare how sacred every sperm is.

This returns me to language which is a self referential kettle of fish, and I'm sure you've heard about how in restaurants one fish is often being substituted for another with no diner or fishmonger being the wiser. Because we can make metaphor out of a hat I see the possibility of finding linguistic or even imagistic coincidences to be pretty easy. Anyone can write good poetry by just copying stuff out of newspapers at random, or picking out odd images and snatches of conversation while riding on the bus. There is an order if you perceive it there, or so says the Poet staring up into the eye of the tornado.

But yes, emotion seems to be a fact in declarations of paranormality because we are struck dumb by that which confuses, even when its underlying source is an unknown mundane weather balloon, swamp gas, ball of plasma, whatever...but I don't want to discount profound moments either. I've read some brilliant historic synchronicities that really befuddle the ole noodle, and with or without emotion, they are strange indeed on a high order. For in these moments the matrix seems to be revealed, whereas it's the emotions I really don't trust that much, as they turn the brain to highly charged soup and perhaps can not be completely trusted.

The synchronicities you cite seem to fall more towards making evidence for my point. It would not surprise me in the least if the publishing house of the story your partner read was Yellow Helicopter Press.

 

[Burnt State]

 

[smcder]

I know all about Room 237 and as the byline says - many ways in, & no way out of the prison house of language except death. I'm still trying to work through that doc as many of the interpretations of that movie work for me from the commentary on indigenous peoples to the Jupiter rocket/moon narratives. But then art can be many layered and I wouldn't put it past Kubrick to weave 7 or 8 or more layers to his work as he is all about design. But then again, if you have enough images travelling aboard the same train you should be able to use them to prove the destinaion of your choice, the way the bible can be used to promote lascivious sex or declare how sacred every sperm is.

This returns me to language which is a self referential kettle of fish, and I'm sure you've heard about how in restaurants one fish is often being substituted for another with no diner or fishmonger being the wiser. Because we can make metaphor out of a hat I see the possibility of finding linguistic or even imagistic coincidences to be pretty easy. Anyone can write good poetry by just copying stuff out of newspapers at random, or picking out odd images and snatches of conversation while riding on the bus. There is an order if you perceive it there, or so says the Poet staring up into the eye of the tornado.

But yes, emotion seems to be a fact in declarations of paranormality because we are struck dumb by that which confuses, even when its underlying source is an unknown mundane weather balloon, swamp gas, ball of plasma, whatever...but I don't want to discount profound moments either. I've read some brilliant historic synchronicities that really befuddle the ole noodle, and with or without emotion, they are strange indeed on a high order. For in these moments the matrix seems to be revealed, whereas it's the emotions I really don't trust that much, as they turn the brain to highly charged soup and perhaps can not be completely trusted.

The synchronicities you cite seem to fall more towards making evidence for my point. It would not surprise me in the least if the publishing house of the story your partner read was Yellow Helicopter Press.

Actually, it's Brandstetter and Steinberg ...

odd capitalization scheme ...

I had a boss who insisted on using the term "spouse" much as you seem to insist on "partner".

Not all wives are partners, not all partners are wives. - Henry the Eighth

And that shows you the limitations of logic in regards to language or why we can't write good jokes in predicate logic. (I've tried.)

The best trick the Devil played was to convince the world he didn't exist ... the second best was the invention of language. (third place - New Jersey?)

It seems to me historic synchronicities would have more time for language to work its effects? And much the same or more can be said of film as literature ... all Kubrick had to do was establish himself as a "genius" (how easy is that in a world of cut and paste poetry? ... and I disagree there too ... pop me up a good poem in the next five minutes cobbled from today's newspaper, please) or, easier still, a "cult" director and then he can sit back and let the fanatics do the rest ...

I was watching a documentary the other night that referenced The Big Sleep and how the script never made sense .. they even called up Raymond Chandler and asked him about who killed so and so and Chandler replied and then they pointed out the guy was at the beach at the time and Chandler confessed he didn't know ... and it didn't matter.

 

[boomerang]

No idea what you guys are talking about.

My problem too. But it hasn't stopped me from posting.

If the premise is that great art is only a matter of cachet, I would disagree. The problem of course is that there is no universal operational definition for what constitutes great art vs. lesser entertainment based on social promotion. But, I will go all Jungian on us again and say I believe great art has a power inherent in its connection with the collective unconscious. It is "culture bearing", and has the power to change entire societies. The closest thing to an objective test of its value I can think of is one of durability. It's my personal feeling--maybe not much more--than truly powerful art retains its transformational power over time. Don't ask me to prove it !

Consciousness and the meaning of information:
There must be ( in addition to what has been excellently explored on this forum re the nature of consciousness) uncountable volumes of philosophical speculation and even hard research regarding the sentient observer's role in the sharing or transfer of information. I personally have a hard time imagining the very concept of information without some kind of sentience to give it meaning. But I would not be surprised if physics or higher math says otherwise.

The concept of natural law is based on %100 repeatability of cause and effect behaviors. Does this make natural law also statistically based ? Or does it arise from principles beyond statistical law?

To belabor an earlier segment: In an odd kind of way, the yellow helicopter example skirts the meaning of the individuated vs mass consciousness. On the one hand, many thousands if drivers must have observed the yellow helicopter that particular day, of which possible meaning was conveyed only to Burnt. Seen as the larger event, the old yellow copter should easily fall within "reasonable" statistical expectation. On the other hand, for one particular observer, the temporal intersection of the copter and what was experienced aurally by Burnt would seem to meet accepted criteria for personal meaning.

 

[manxman]

All this synchronicity stuff, is just an odd occasion of 'important person' syndrome imo.

 

[Burnt State]

The Big Sleep

The script never asked him about who killed so and so,
But how easy is that in a world of cut and paste poetry?
Chandler confessed he didn't know...and it didn't matter;
He can sit back and let the fanatics do the rest.

The best trick the Devil played was to convince the world
he didn't exist, the same or more can be said for film as literature.
Historic synchronicities, the next five minutes cobbled
from today's newspapers, or why we can't write good jokes.

"Not all wives are partners, not all partners are wives."
"I had a boss who insisted on using the term, spouse."
Actually it's an odd capitalization scheme,
And that shows you the limitations of logic.

I was watching a documentary the other night that referenced
Predicate logic, a "cult" director - the inventor of language.
You seem to insist the world didn't exist the other night,
Pop me up a good poem, third place, New Jersey.

by Brandstetter and Steinberg

(steve, sorry, I saw your request just now. I used just the language from your post and stopped after five minutes ~ all my best, Burnt)

 

[smcder]

The Big Sleep

The script never asked him about who killed so and so,
But how easy is that in a world of cut and paste poetry?
Chandler confessed he didn't know...and it didn't matter;
He can sit back and let the fanatics do the rest.

The best trick the Devil played was to convince the world
he didn't exist, the same or more can be said for film as literature.
Historic synchronicities, the next five minutes cobbled
from today's newspapers, or why we can't write good jokes.

"Not all wives are partners, not all partners are wives."
"I had a boss who insisted on using the term, spouse."
Actually it's an odd capitalization scheme,
And that shows you the limitations of logic.

I was watching a documentary the other night that referenced
Predicate logic, a "cult" director - the inventor of language.
You seem to insist the world didn't exist the other night,
Pop me up a good poem, third place, New Jersey.

by Brandstetter and Steinberg

(steve, sorry, I saw your request just now. I used just the language from your post and stopped after five minutes ~ all my best, Burnt)

Ok ... now convince me:

1. It's a poem ...
2. A good one

I'm not a poetry guy so maybe you can ... so I appeal to any poetry people reading this? I don't see any structure and it doesn't seem to even make sense (of course look at what you had to work with!)

If you write a sonnet that would be impressive to me.

If your point was there are no standards anymore - it seems like you'd clarify that instead of taking the challenge?

 

[smcder]

I know all about Room 237 and as the byline says - many ways in, & no way out of the prison house of language except death. I'm still trying to work through that doc as many of the interpretations of that movie work for me from the commentary on indigenous peoples to the Jupiter rocket/moon narratives. But then art can be many layered and I wouldn't put it past Kubrick to weave 7 or 8 or more layers to his work as he is all about design. But then again, if you have enough images travelling aboard the same train you should be able to use them to prove the destinaion of your choice, the way the bible can be used to promote lascivious sex or declare how sacred every sperm is.

This returns me to language which is a self referential kettle of fish, and I'm sure you've heard about how in restaurants one fish is often being substituted for another with no diner or fishmonger being the wiser. Because we can make metaphor out of a hat I see the possibility of finding linguistic or even imagistic coincidences to be pretty easy. Anyone can write good poetry by just copying stuff out of newspapers at random, or picking out odd images and snatches of conversation while riding on the bus. There is an order if you perceive it there, or so says the Poet staring up into the eye of the tornado.

But yes, emotion seems to be a fact in declarations of paranormality because we are struck dumb by that which confuses, even when its underlying source is an unknown mundane weather balloon, swamp gas, ball of plasma, whatever...but I don't want to discount profound moments either. I've read some brilliant historic synchronicities that really befuddle the ole noodle, and with or without emotion, they are strange indeed on a high order. For in these moments the matrix seems to be revealed, whereas it's the emotions I really don't trust that much, as they turn the brain to highly charged soup and perhaps can not be completely trusted.

The synchronicities you cite seem to fall more towards making evidence for my point. It would not surprise me in the least if the publishing house of the story your partner read was Yellow Helicopter Press.

"But if that truck said O'Brien's Cow Butchery & Towing Service on it then yes, I would be singing a much different tune."

"It would not surprise me in the least if the publishing house of the story your partner read was Yellow Helicopter Press."

You seem to have a personal standard of synchronicity ... but it's not clear what that standard is, what the rules are?

You argue that the finitude of language makes synchronicity commonplace but both examples involve words (written and spoken) and your example says words alone would take the first synchronicity to the significant level ... whereas in the second you wouldn't be surprised ... so what makes the difference for you?

 

[Wade]

You seem to have a personal standard of synchronicity ... but it's not clear what that standard is, what the rules are?

And i'm just as guilty of that as anyone else except maybe my standards are looser than Burnt's standards but more stricter than someone like andy colvin, whose books i've never read but has made a couple of appearances on the paracast and imo seems to find a synchronicity behind every tree.

The problem here...as you both would acknowledge is that we are dealing with a perception based (biased?) phenomena and we all have different standards. To be fair I really don't have the right to judge Mr. Colvin's standards because i wasn't there, although i would be curious in ascertaining what does and does not make up a meaningful concidence to him i really can't fault him for coming to whatever outcome he arrived at.

To me if one "believes" in coincidences than one should "believe" in synchronicity because what constitutues a coincidence is also pretty ambiguous, as you both noted the dictionary definition...which seems to be the only general accepted standard for either coincidence or synchronicity...it's the only metric we have to go on, although Gibbs William is having a go at it and note to steve i haven't fully read the whole thing but he is breaking new ground here

Synchronicity is the bastard offspring of coincidence either accept both (and accept that a internationally accepted barometer will never be fashioned) or deny both at your own whim, in lieu of that maybe give some thought to considering that everything is an accident but some accidents come with different levels of window dressing.