• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Skeptic, Michael Shermer.., Not As?

Maybe Shermer is not such a douchebag after all. What he says is true...

"The emotional interpretations of such anomalous events grant them significance regardless of their causal account. And if we are to take seriously the scientific credo to keep an open mind and remain agnostic when the evidence is indecisive or the riddle unsolved, we should not shut the doors of perception when they may be opened to us to marvel in the mysterious."

Nah. He's a douchebag trolling the skeptic club to generate controversy because he probably has a new book or something. His spooky wedding radio story is easily explained by Apophenia.

If you want to "open the doors of perception" and overcome apophenia, start watching for "syncs". I love spooky syncs. The more you watch for them, the more you will notice. After you notice enough spooky syncs, you'll realize that apophenia simply cannot account for all of them, and that something materialism cannot explain does indeed exist.

A good place to dive into the fascinating world of spooky synchronicities is here: The Sync Book | Myths, Magic, Media, and Mindscapes
 
I very much enjoy stories like these and while I can accept that there may be several answers to the phenomena we call synchronicity, I've always had problems with the whole law of numbers explaination as it is used. It just seems wrong to me that as part of that "law" one has to consider the multitudes of events that can happen to multitudes of people, I think that's just too large a sampling and considering that even a mere coincidence can be subjective...what I consider to be a coincidence may not be a coincidence to others...i would think that one should have to consider only the number of events that can happen to an individual not to all of humanity. Don't know if I explained that right but I think you can catch my drift.
 
I very much enjoy stories like these and while I can accept that there may be several answers to the phenomena we call synchronicity, I've always had problems with the whole law of numbers explaination as it is used. It just seems wrong to me that as part of that "law" one has to consider the multitudes of events that can happen to multitudes of people, I think that's just too large a sampling and considering that even a mere coincidence can be subjective...what I consider to be a coincidence may not be a coincidence to others...i would think that one should have to consider only the number of events that can happen to an individual not to all of humanity. Don't know if I explained that right but I think you can catch my drift.

Good questions.

Statistical analysis often "solves" the problem of what is and is not significant based on what percentage of trial results do or do not fall within a certain envelope of random probability.
But is there really an accepted scientific definition as to what constitutes a meaningful coincidence? Or is it a purely subjective and biologically based concept ?

smcder, Consance, Tyger et al, I would love to hear you "guys' " take on this.
 
Last edited:
But is there really an accepted scientific definition as to what constitutes a meaningful coincidence?

Somewhat. Have you see that experiment where people are able to use their minds to influence random number generators to be less random than they should be?

Statistics is how they prove the effect.
 
They must be poker room RNGs, because the RNG at fultilt is as random as the order of the days in a week.
And i must be an influencer, or phychic cos i can read the game/hand patterns, and i can exploit it.

I started playing there in free play, played around 1500 freerolls over a couple of years, in freerolls you get to see lots of hole cards, holecards of multiple players in the same all-in etc etc.

I started to notice patterns, i started noticing how the game was mainly built around the blinds, it was near impossible for a non-depositor to win cash in their freerolls, i eventually worked out a way to weasel 50c out of a 2000+ entry freeroll, by building a very very large stack early, and sitting out, and just blinding out into an early cash position.

So i now have my 50c, entered a 50c tourney, 70 players, won it, by avoiding the software traps, now i have $10.
Entered another, this time 130 people in it, i won that one aswell again just by avoiding the software traps, and playing tight aggressive ABC poker.

So now im flying $40+ in only 2 cash tourneys, so then i entered the 2k garranteed for $2 and i final tabled that, so now i had over $100 in the account, and to be honest i thought sticking to micro stakes i will achieve my target of $2k in the required time.

The £2k was to buy an entry into the Isle of Man EPT, which carries around 400k sterling in prize money, and is played around 6 miles up the road from me, in early october, my neighbour 2 doors down had freerolled his way to a seat in 2013, he lucked out with no prize money.

After talking to him in april this year about him freerolling another seat i thought i would have a bash at it myself, i didnt get there, but my neighbour did, only this year he satelited his ticket, and this year he finished 3rd, for £35k. [ David Hill poker ] google it.

Now i played poker back in 2002/3 intensely for 10 months, i always had around 40 dollars inplay all the time 3/4/5 tabling $11 sit and go's, for 10 hours a day, and for 10 months i finished in the top 10 sit and go players on that site [betfair], the site was under the cryto logic umbrella at the time, and after all that, i still couldnt beat the 10% rake, so i turned to tourney play, i used the profit from 10 months of sit and go's to enter the sunday quarter of a million three times [$210], and i won 5k at my 3rd attempt, [ manxman betfiar cryptologic ] google or shark it.

After that i withdrew my cash and quit online poker, even then the sites were getting more and more fish-friendly, they knew they had to keep their fish in the game.

However like with anything else you enjoy, it is hard to go cold turkey on, and i downloaded different sites over the years, played freerolls, saw lots of holecards, and witnessed the same shit over and over and over, watched the flop on merge produce aces on the flop 30%+ more times than would happen randomly, over 1000s of hands, feeding the fish with their ace rag etc, same as fultilt flopping 3 same suited cards on average every 12 flops, over 1000s of tourney hands, or just opening 4 random tables, then after an hour or so, 50/60 hands per table, running thru the hand histories and logging the actual one siuted flops against random expectation, which is one in 20.

With fulltilt, its clear to me, that the algorithm is utilising internal player stats to determine the outcome in many, but not all hands.

The sole aim of fultilt is to keep the money moving from account to account, to keep poor players with piss poor stats from going broke for aslong as possible, they may not redeposit again.

So my story with fulltilt above ends like this, i got to 200 dollars from nothing in a week, then i just bounced along, my account bounced up and down between $200 and $150 for around 300 cash tournies, then playing the same 1/2 dollar tourneys against the same players for around the next 5 weeks i coudnt get a key hand to hold up when the crunch time in each tourney arrived.

It was brutal and it was blatant, the algorithm WAS just redistributing my profit back to the player pool, and there was ZERO i could do about it, i kept thinking day after day that it would flick me a 1000 or so hands with positive 'variance', not a chance, just more brutal bad beats, then after i was beaten with a flopped straight flush from the big blind i thought fuck you and uninstalled it, there was still $43 in the account.
[ i had 45 spades .. flop 678 spades .. river 10 spades, mug-fish is holding pocket 99s, with 9 spades and had just limped from early position pre flop ] another brutal setup to a guy 22k down on the site in 5 years.

You have to sharkscope them, and avoid getting in large against losing players, which is ofcourse the anti-thesis of poker, its ok when you are a new depositor, you run like god, and straight aggressive abc poker will do, but then you will become part of the cycle.

To demonstrate my point, i play tilt under manxman21, i re-installed tilt on friday, after 5 weeks of not even having the site on my comp at 7.00pm i played the vecoleraptor $3.3 tourney, a multi-entry tourney, 700+ people, with 1200+ seats between them.

At 3am in the morning i was heads up against a guy -14k in 3 years, i had 3.7 mil in chips against his 1.2 mil, at around 5.30am i was beaten, the difference in prize money was over $350+ and i wanted the $900, instead i got second for $538.

I knew after 20 mins of watching the cards in that first tourney i played on my re-installation, that my account was now a 'new account', i knew this because my bonuses had all expired, i also figured that my crunch hands would hold up, orI would be the one getting the runner runner or miracle river if i got all my chips in bad, so i was sharkscoping the players, and getting my chips in against other profitable accounts, only semi bluffing gold account or higher players when i had drawable hands, and playing good hands strongly, by check raising the flop and taking over the betting when in a hand.

There is nothing, zero, zilch, nada, random about online poker, its not a scam either, its not rigged, its the same for everyone, you dont have to be anything other than proficient in ABC poker and realise that the site you are playing on wants all the money in rake, and it will do whatever it can to''level'' the skills advantages/dis-advantages between its clients.

The place is riddled with 'robin hood' house bots, they take[beat] profitable players funds, and redistribute them to losing players.

On monday it will again be uninstalled, as later im going to play in another $2.20 multi entrie tourney, tommorow i will take I.D. to their offices here on the island and ask for a cheque for $500, i will leave the rest of the funds in the account, and in another5/6 weeks i will have another bash, and im confident that i will be 'new account' rated, and run good again.


All the above is verifiable with a simple sharkscope search.
 
Last edited:
Synchronicity is so caught up in making subjective meaning about our information based lives that it is very difficult to speak to statistically. Vallée's cab story in his TED talk about the information based universe is infamous in that only he would be able to find such significant meaning in the cab driver's name, as it related to his field of study. Such moments of coincidence are simply moments of coincidence. I would predict that in an age of excessive and increasing stimulus of information a watchful, attentive person should be able to construct all manner of mundane synchronicities out of their day's encounters with great frequency. Chance allows it when so many more variables are at play.

But why we feel synchronicities are significant and worthy of paranormal attributes can be found in these stories of high emotional investment like the wedding radio, and because these stories occur, and are recorded for posterity, we hold them up perhaps a little too high over daily, unnoticed synchronicities. So it's really only a phenomenon of significance because we claim it to be so, then log it for posterity.

I remember listening to Chris O'Brien telling his yellow helicopter story for the first time on the Paracast while commuting home. Immediately following this what do I pass by on the highway but someone pulling a very old yellow helicopter body on a trailer, one that matched O'Brien's description. This is meaningful only to me at that moment, and no one else on the road. But then we all choose to invest emotion and meaning to random events that we connect together all the time. Some stories are just more impossible sounding than others, but chance should be that way.

The phnenomnon of synchronicity would be more interesting if everyone was experiencing significant emotional coincidences every day all the time exposing an underlying structure or fate to our lives that is simply not there. No one has designed an algorithm for our lives though, and random chance will remain just an odd thing to talk about.
 
and therein lies the problem. The fact is one can't collect a sample of synchronicity in a specimen jar and take it into a lab and subject it to tests under controlled conditions to see if it measures up to the scientific method.

I recogonize myself that i have a very strong built in predisposition to aprophenia. I've even been told by several people that i almost have a need to find patterns in things, right off the bat that would make anything i consider as a synchronistic event suspect. Also i live in a large city and make myself available to all kinds of input from around me. It seems logical that between those two factors everything that i would consider much of what comes across my radar as a possible synchronistic event, but it doesn't. I have over the years applied my own filters. Again, that may make some people dismiss the phenomena but it seems that in...from what i have read here...is that in some ufo cases a person's recall of an event could very well be based on that person's filter. If one is still willing to accept that the event could be real despite that person's possible objectivity then cannot one give that same consideration to allowing a person to make the same distinction between a coincidence and a synchronistic event ?

For the record, and i'm going to name drop here, i have heard Andrew Colvin on this program a couple of times and i PERSONALLY ( my opinion) thought that he made too big a deal about some of the things he considers a synchronicity. To paraphrase Freud sometimes a tree is just a tree. On that same note , of late Loren Coleman has been putting out what i consider a remarkable number of posts regarding the trident symbol in many news events going back to this spring with the first Malaysian Air disappearance, but i felt Loren tripped up more recently when in posting about the recent attack on the Canadian Parliment that he pointed out that the Canadian flag (maple leaf) bore a strong resembalance to a trident. I felt that was over the top and he may have been trying to hard, my point is not everything is a synchronistic event to many of us.

If i hear someone use the word spectacular in a sentence and someone use that same word a few minutes later, i"m not even inclined to consider that a coincidence. By the way has anyone looked at the dictionary term for the word " coincidence"? Go ahead, do so, and ask yourself that if you can't accept the possibility of a synchronicity then you should accept that coincidences don't even happen, these two concepts are pretty much joined at the hip, if you give consideration that coincidences happen you should also give some weight to synchronicities as well. I had what i consider the mother of synchronicities a few years back involving a mantis, which i posted in the your personal experiences thread a year or two ago, i invite you to read it. It was this series of events which brought me here, as i never really paid too much attention to the whole ufo thing (we are being visited by other beings ? In other news water is wet) but when i heard that there semed to be a correaltion between UFOs and synchronicity that made me pay attention. By now anybody that has read this far has probably got a pretty good notion of where i stand on the issue, but i'll try to sum it up by this as far as my filters...This hasn't happened...YET.

1. I am eating breakfast at my table, when i hear a loud thump on the window i go out and investigate and see that a bluebird has flown into my window, i would consider this an accident the result of two things trying to occupy the same space at the same time.

2. I am eating my breakfast at my table when i decide i could use a little fresh air and i open my window just as the a bluebird flies into my window, my feeling, a coincidence.

3. I am eating breakfast at my table and listening to the radio or reading the paper when i come across a story about a recent influx of bluebirds ( or in some other context ) and i open the window only to have the bluebird fly in. I would chalk that up as a synchronicity at least until i see the term supercoincidence in the dictionary.

My point here, if you can accept the fact that there may be more than one cause in cattle mutilations...chris pointed this idea out pretty well, and if you can accept there may be several factors in alien visitations, ( ET, Multi-dimensional, Break away civilization, future earthlings )if you can accept that there may be several factors behind hauntings and ghosts ( time slips, someone's spirit, ectoplasm ) if you are on the fence or even could see both points of views that Bigfoot is a multi-dimensional being or a yet to be "discovered" off shoot of humanity or for that matter even a tulpified being created from years of Native American mythology :) then consider that the concepts of coincidence, accidents, synchronicity and yes, aprophenia may be butting heads and you just have to sort it all out on your own.

As for me, even though i do at times try to compartamentalize and file these events into their proper category when i get hit with one, i don't stress over it, nor do i concern myself what anyone else would label it, i just relish it when it happens, it makes me feel i am in tune with something, myself, gaia, reality, the trickster, i don't know what "it" would be, i just savor it.
 
Last edited:
Wade, I want to push option three away from synchronicity as given the influx of bluebirds, the likelihood of a bluebird flying into the window, or right into you, makes more sense than any other bird. However, if while you are eating breakfast while wearing your Toronto Bluejays baseball cap, listening to a random radio show about bird watching, specifically bluebirds, and then you open the door as the bluebird hits the window, or even better, knocks your cap off, then i would say that's a pretty bizarre series of conncections. But some might accurately just speak to bird patterns of behaviour during autumn.

I went to Coleman's site once and was unimpressed by the various stretches he makes to find odd connections that stretch reason and logic. 9-11 as an inside job makes more sense to me than most of his acausal connections, and I think the 9-11 conspiracy only gets legs because there is just so many variables and data in play that it's pretty easy to draw straight lines through so many data points.

Re: savouring the connections....I really appreciate this feeling as it's a good way to feel grounded in some ways in an age of excess stimulus. Making sense of the sometimes senseless information is how we make meaning in our lives. Choosing what you value, and what you pay attention to vs. what you ignore helps to get a little more purpose and direction. Are those acausal or causal? Who cares. I like feeling connected in a disconnected, & overstimulated, schizophrenic, digital age of urbanity.
 
Last edited:
From C.G. Jung: “Synchronicity, An Acausal Connecting Principle”

“The concept of synchronicity indicates a meaningful coincidence of two or more events, where something other than the probability of chance is involved. Chance is a statistical concept which “explains” deviations within certain patterns of probability. Synchronicity elucidates meaningful arrangements and coincidence which somehow go beyond the calculations of probability. Pre-cognition, clairvoyance, telepathy, etc. are phenomena which are inexplicable through chance, but become empirically intelligible through the employment of the principle of synchronicity, which suggests a kind of harmony at work in the interrelation of both psychic and physical events.”
 
Good questions.

Statistical analysis often "solves" the problem of what is and is not significant based on what percentage of trial results do or do not fall within a certain envelope of random probability.
But is there really an accepted scientific definition as to what constitutes a meaningful coincidence? Or is it a purely subjective and biologically based concept ?

smcder, Consance, Tyger et al, I would love to hear you "guys' " take on this.


Boomerang, the position that 'there is really an accepted scientific definition as to what constitutes a meaningful coincidence' is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding.

... and you would have had to ask the Buddha three times just to get that answer!

Oh, to have my own lonely mountaintop! ;-)

I can though (and @Tyger will laugh) give you a couple of LINKS:

http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

JESSICA UTTS' HOME PAGE

Someone mentioned Robert Jahns work at PEAR and I recommend his book Margins of Reality.

Whoever has ears to hear here, let them hear.

Hear, here.
 
I remember listening to Chris O'Brien telling his yellow helicopter story for the first time on the Paracast while commuting home. Immediately following this what do I pass by on the highway but someone pulling a very old yellow helicopter body on a trailer, one that matched O'Brien's description. This is meaningful only to me at that moment, and no one else on the road. But then we all choose to invest emotion and meaning to random events that we connect together all the time. Some stories are just more impossible sounding than others, but chance should be that way.

I can't think of a better kind of example with which to prompt a thought experiment on the subject of synchronicity. Even if you where the only person on the road for whom the sight of an old yellow copter would coincide with Chris' story, the odds of these events happening would seem to be quite high. Are the odds high enough to suggest more going on than uncorrelated chance? I don't know.

Let's say for the sake of argument the towing vehicle had painted on its side something like "Obrien's Moving Service". Would this still be inside the envelope of "mere" coincidence? Or if, in addition, the towing vehicle was a pickup with a cow in the back? This is what I was driving at in asking whether statistical frequency and coincidence are properties inherent in nature, or just a way the human mind constructs models of order from chaos.
 
I can't think of a better kind of example with which to prompt a thought experiment on the subject of synchronicity. Even if you where the only person on the road for whom the sight of an old yellow copter would coincide with Chris' story, the odds of these events happening would seem to be quite high. Are the odds high enough to suggest more going on than uncorrelated chance? I don't know.

Let's say for the sake of argument the towing vehicle had painted on its side something like "Obrien's Moving Service". Would this still be inside the envelope of "mere" coincidence? Or if, in addition, the towing vehicle was a pickup with a cow in the back? This is what I was driving at in asking whether statistical frequency and coincidence are properties inherent in nature, or just a way the human mind constructs models of order from chaos.

The odds a particular thing will happen on a given day may be a million to one (an eagle drops a fish on your head) but the odds any thing that is a million to one will happen to you are probably quite high - how many things happen in a day to you? How many instances are there? How long is a moment of attention? How many million to one events do we even know to watch for ... or simply miss?

I've read something like a billion bits of info in the environment that we could pick up at any given time ... and we consciously process I think four bits at a time.

I don't see an obvious way to measure background levels of coincidence or to control for them.

And it seems if you had said beforehand I will next see a yellow helicopter - I think that could be measurable ... but it would then be classed as a different kind of event - precognition maybe.

You could still call it a strong coincidence if the tow truck said OBriens and the next day you find out the owner is a helicopter pilot or his son ... Or if a yellow cab had struck a cow and traffic was held up and only cleared when they sent a helicopter to pick it up ... no one way to define a coincidence although I think the more elements the stronger the sense of coincidence... But again if you go looking for details after the fact ...

So I think there's no unambiguous way to measure these events ... not that I can immediately see.
 
http://stat-www.berkeley.edu/~aldous/157/Papers/diaconis_mosteller.pdf

http://www.cut-the-knot.org/do_you_know/coincidence.shtml

(scroll down past the birthday problems to get to the gist of the article)

"Surely no cosmic conclusions may be drawn from the fact that I recently and quite by accident met someone in Seattle whose father had played on the same Chicago high school baseball team as my father had and whose daughter is the same age and has the same name as my daughter. As improbable as this particular event was (or as particular events always are), that some event of this vaguely characterized sort should occasionally occur is very likely."

This is an interesting way to look at it:

"Even our biology conspires to make coincidences appear more meaningful than they usually are. Since the natural world of rocks, plants, and rivers does not seem to offer much evidence for superfluous coincidences, primitive man had to be very sensitive to every conceivable anomaly and improbability as he slowly developed science and its progenitor, "common sense." Coincidences, after all, are sometimes quite significant. In our complicated and largely man-made modem world, however, the plethora of connections among us appears to have overstimulated many people's inborn tendency to note coincidence and improbability and led them to postulate causes and forces where there are none. People know more names (not only family members' but also those of colleagues and a myriad of public figures), dates (from news stories to personal appointments and schedules), addresses (whether actual physical ones or telephone numbers, office numbers, and so on), and organizations and acronyms (from the FBI to the IMF, from AIDS to ASEAN) than ever before.

*Thus, although it is a very difficult quantity to measure, the rate at which coincidences occur has probably risen over the last century or two."
 
:eek: Well, whaddaya know.

My own skeptical side keeps nagging that he may be conducting an experiment to see how many people will just accept the story uncritically. But I hope it's wrong. :rolleyes:

To be honest, I always thought he was the kind of skeptic who would never admit to an experience of his own, even if it was genuinely unexplainable (which this isn't, I guess, it's just really weird).

Must have taken some courage to "go public" with that story, I bet he's catching lots of flak for it. Kudos to you, Mr Shermer. You're my favorite skeptic now. Well, at least it's a head-to-head race with Angelo and James Randi.
 
:eek: Well, whaddaya know.

My own skeptical side keeps nagging that he may be conducting an experiment to see how many people will just accept the story uncritically. But I hope it's wrong. :rolleyes:

To be honest, I always thought he was the kind of skeptic who would never admit to an experience of his own, even if it was genuinely unexplainable (which this isn't, I guess, it's just really weird).

Must have taken some courage to "go public" with that story, I bet he's catching lots of flak for it. Kudos to you, Mr Shermer. You're my favorite skeptic now. Well, at least it's a head-to-head race with Angelo and James Randi.

I've got the same nagging feeling ...
 
I've got the same nagging feeling ...
Yeah, I can tell by the way your hand is holding up your chin in doubt. Though next month this statement will be useless once your mutable avatar mutates.

I too feel that in an age of so much information we are bound to make coincidences out of the bits of information we try to catalogue.
Let's say for the sake of argument the towing vehicle had painted on its side something like "Obrien's Moving Service". Would this still be inside the envelope of "mere" coincidence? Or if, in addition, the towing vehicle was a pickup with a cow in the back? This is what I was driving at in asking whether statistical frequency and coincidence are properties inherent in nature, or just a way the human mind constructs models of order from chaos.
I'll be honest, after this event happened I immediately caralogued it under genuine synchronicity, but now I just think, as S.R.L.'s reminder of Jung's definition tells us, it's only me making meaning out of my life and some moments of meaning I will imbue with more or less value depending on how I feel that day, or just whatever happens to be my current psychological mindset. When my dad died I noticed suddenly just obsessed our society is with death. I never saw this before, but for the weeks that followed I could not get over how all aspects of our society spin around mortality from information systems to entertainment mediums; it's all about death, or so I thought.

Everyone should have at least two or three "can you believe that actually happened" stories about moments in their lives. I see no great order to the universe through such moments, only human beings who choose to bring extra colour to their lives by noticing things.

But if that truck said O'Brien's Cow Butchery & Towing Service on it then yes, I would be singing a much different tune. These stories own their heightened excitement in such moments and often allow for chance, which is far weirder that we can know, to cause us to think otherwise about notions of order or fate.
 
Last edited:
Your disclaimer above about the truck's business name is a good example of the treacherous waters we all sail in when we try to quantify to our own satisfaction what does and does not count as a synchronicity or any of the other choices we have when we need to label these events.

We all have a different bar on these occurances and to try to flesh out a mutually acceptable barometer to all concerned is like debating the whole (non) global warming/cooling climate change magnetic field switch thingee, we would be forever trying to convince one another that each others standard might be too high...or too low.
 
Back
Top