Explain this, you empiricists

[Gothmog]

What we have here is an anecdote.

The truth of your interpretation of events is irrelevant for the obvious reason that truth is an illusion.

Unless you can reproduce this ability in a reliable fashion it remains an anecdote.

Hell, I saw a cloud that looked like a duck this morning, coincidence? I think not.

Bozo wrote:

I just believe that there are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in your philosophy

Nicely put, but you left out your desire.

 

[Sidhe]

There have been many replies, I'll try to answer them all. For the most part, people seem to believe that its just coincidence (btw, I dont claim that coincidences dont happen, they certainly do. I just dont believe that every single unexplained occurence is a coincidence) because if you do the math, then its clear that occasionally someone will dream something, and it'll happen, so thats it, the crowd can disperse, theres nothing to see here. But heres what I say: in order to reach meaningful conclusions with nothing but mathematical equations, dont you need to have complete knowledge of everything, all the parameters influencing the thing that you are calculating? Is everything known about how the brain functions on the Quantum level, about consciousness, or even about Time itself?

But lets say you know every single factor influencing a rapidly bouncing rubber ball in a large container of some kind. You know the exact wind, airpressure, gravity, mass of the ball and its exact 'bounciness', the material of the container it will be bouncing around in, the force used to throw the ball, all of that, everything. Would you be able ahead of time to successfully calculate and mark with a marker every single point in the container where the ball will make contact with?

Now. How much more complex are the natures of Time, the brain, and consciousness, than a bouncing rubber ball?

Next, lets say all your number crunching regarding dreams is completely accurate, and you can demonstrate that, lets say, every 100,000 dreams will appear to predict something that hasnt happened yet. What do your numbers say about the significance of those occurences? How do you know that what youre calculating isnt that every 100,000 dreams will be some sort of 'psychic' experience? Whats that you say? You dont believe in 'psychic' occurences? Well, thats got nothing to do with your math, thats just youre own belief system talking.


For the record, I dont believe that Im a (for want of a better word) psychic. I just believe that there are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in your philosophy, uh...Horatio.

FYI Bozo I have a great interest in parapsychology having attended conventions on such areas as diverse as men in black, UFO's, psychic phenomena, ghosts etc, from usually credible scientific establishments. I even attended a lecture on near death experieince from a guy who was doing research into it as part of his PhD at Oxford University.

And I agree their are many strange inexplicable phenomina out there, but the problem is divorcing the strange and the inexplicable from the statistical and probable or from the back ground ordinary, unless you do this science will kick you out on your arse and call you a nut. This means that anyone doing research into paraphyscology is doublly accountable for their research evidence which usually by default is considered more warranting of expectation. I'm not a skeptic just more of a Fortean. Once you dismiss the possible and the reliable what is left? What about this is statistically anomalous? Can I repeat the phenomena in an experimental form and if not, can I make a case about it from anecdotal or circumstantial or even direct first hand evidence such as video/electronic, sound recording devices?

EDIT: should of been near death experience, oops..

 

[warpus]

Prove it yourself to be otherwise.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The burden of proof is on you my friend.

It would be interseting to see how accurate it was - our memories have a habit of changing, and we remmber the correct bits more than the incorrecgt bits.

Actually I thought you were going to say it was predicting 9/11,with the skyscrapers collapsing...

Oh, that was another dream juuust kidding

I actually remember that dream pretty well, I don't think I'm misremembering anything. It's been on my mind.

There have been many replies, I'll try to answer them all. For the most part, people seem to believe that its just coincidence (btw, I dont claim that coincidences dont happen, they certainly do. I just dont believe that every single unexplained occurence is a coincidence) because if you do the math, then its clear that occasionally someone will dream something, and it'll happen, so thats it, the crowd can disperse, theres nothing to see here. But heres what I say: in order to reach meaningful conclusions with nothing but mathematical equations, dont you need to have complete knowledge of everything, all the parameters influencing the thing that you are calculating? Is everything known about how the brain functions on the Quantum level, about consciousness, or even about Time itself?

Man.. you're assigning mystical meaning to something that deserves no such reverence. If you were woken up in the middle of the night by a golden unicorn and it specifically told you that there was going to be a blackout the next day.. and then it flew out your window.. yeah, something like that defies natural law and deems to be called 'mystical'. Having a random dream about a blackout and it happening the next day - not so amazing. It's bound to happen to someone from time to time.. Hey, it happened to me

I took a big dump last night. I can bet you that somewhere in China somebody was taking a big dump at exactly the same time. There is nothing mystical about it.. it's just coincidence. It will happen from time to time.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Bozo for there to be a significance, and therefore evidence of a causal relationship, the rate of 'coincidences' would have to be higher than statistically expected because statistical analysis like this assumes the complete absence of such a causal relationship.

Imagine you toss a coin 1000 times with your eyes closed and randomly call 'heads' or 'tails' - would you attribute any significance to the fact that you were right 50% of the time? If you just bring the odds down that is what you are saying - that your call affects the toss or vice versa.

Brennan, in post #77, I posed some key questions to the Coincidence Camp, so far they havent been addressed. Could you give it a shot, so we arent just talking AT each other? You other guys too.

What we have here is an anecdote.

The truth of your interpretation of events is irrelevant for the obvious reason that truth is an illusion.

Do you believe that to be true? Your statement amounts to 'Every single thing I say is a lie'

Unless you can reproduce this ability in a reliable fashion it remains an anecdote.

If youre a scientist, and can only think in scientific terms.

Hell, I saw a cloud that looked like a duck this morning, coincidence? I think not.

Maybe it wasnt a coincidence. You'll never know though

Bozo wrote: Nicely put, but you left out your desire.

I think we can take desire for granted. We all have desires, even scientists.

FYI Bozo I have a great interest in parapsychology having attended conventions on such areas as diverse as men in black, UFO's, psychic phenomena, ghosts etc, from usually credible scientific establishments. I even attended a lecture on after life experieince from a guy who was doing research into it as part of his PhD at Oxford University.

And I agree their are many strange inexplicable phenomina out there, but the problem is divorcing the strange and the inexplicable from the statistical and probable or from the back ground ordinary, unless you do this science will kick you out on your arse and call you a nut. This means that anyone doing research into paraphyscology is doublly accountable for their research evidence which usually by default is considered more warranting of expectation. I'm not a skeptic just more of a Fortean. Once you dismiss the possible and the reliable what is left? What about this is statistically anomalous? Can I repeat the phenomena in an experimental form and if not, can I make a case about it from anecdotal or circumstantial or even direct first hand evidence such as video/electronic, sound recording devices?

Sidhe, Im very happy to hear that you keep an open mind and are open to new ideas and ways of looking at things. Thats how we keep growing as human beings.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The burden of proof is on you my friend.

Im not trying to prove anything, Im merely introducing questions, and stating my belief that theres much more we dont know, than we do know.

Man.. you're assigning mystical meaning to something that deserves no such reverence.

Ive said nothing about mysticism or reverence. If under certain circumstances, occasionally people experience random precognitive events, whether in a dream or not, I believe it would be a completely natural phenomenon, just one we dont understand yet. Youre willing to concede that there are things about reality that we dont understand yet, right?

 

[brennan]

Next, lets say all your number crunching regarding dreams is completely accurate, and you can demonstrate that, lets say, every 100,000 dreams will appear to predict something that hasnt happened yet. What do your numbers say about the significance of those occurences? How do you know that what youre calculating isnt that every 100,000 dreams will be some sort of 'psychic' experience? Whats that you say? You dont believe in 'psychic' occurences? Well, thats got nothing to do with your math, thats just youre own belief system talking.

You are simply saying that coincidences are significant. When they are not. I see no point to argue here i'm afraid. If you can demonstrate any falsifiability here it might be worth discussing, as it stands...

I don't believe in Psychic occurrences because these things have been exhaustively explored in the past and there is simply no substantiated evidence in support of such theories.

 

[Phlegmak]

For you, Bozo Erectus:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/09/05/telepathy.reut/index.html

 

[C~G]

Coincidences aren't fascinating and they don't need further study.

Really?

I think then you don't want to study the whole concept and structure of our reality and consciousness and how our brains produce it.

It has to do with such things as chaos theory, pattern of our thoughts and model of our behaviour.

If we even put this all time and space thing aside I believe such things as "coincidences" has lot to with things we like. Example after few "coincidences" we learn we are good at some issue or start to value something that before didn't mean anything to us.

It's fascinating how much attention we pay to certain things and others don't.

I have strong believe we don't pay enough attention to small insignificant things or that appear as such which have great affect to our lifes though. You may think your life is all about logical following consequences of your actions but then there are things that happen which you don't have simple explanations. Or you do have, but I'm pretty sure our brain play trick on us so we don't feel confused.

Would you be able ahead of time to successfully calculate and mark with a marker every single point in the container where the ball will make contact with?

Now. How much more complex are the natures of Time, the brain, and consciousness, than a bouncing rubber ball?

I was about do the same example only with dices.
Some people are ready to call someone just statiscally probable winner when he has beaten the crap out of everyone in game of Yathzee ten times in a row.
In other words "lucky bastard".

Im not trying to prove anything, Im merely introducing questions, and stating my belief that theres much more we dont know, than we do know.

I stand with this statement.

Especially nowadays since everything has become more "real" and "logical" to everyone where things are proven to be scientifically something it seems people are forgetting how little we actually know, about our reality, how it's constructed and percepted.

You are simply saying that coincidences are significant. When they are not. I see no point to argue here i'm afraid. If you can demonstrate any falsifiability here it might be worth discussing, as it stands...

Neither do I other way around.

 

[Gothmog]

Do I believe that truth is an illusion?
Yes, human truth as it relates to external reality at least.

I can't see how that amounts to 'every single thing I say is a lie' though.
Please explain.

I'm not saying I can only think in scientific terms, I'm saying your story is an anecdote. i.e. anecdote, n. The narrative of a detached incident, or of a single event, told as being in itself interesting or striking.

Nothing wrong with an anecdote, it just doesn't have any explanitory power. By its self it adds nothing to the state of human understanding besides perhaps some personal understanding.

So for precognition - I can't rule it out but neither do I see any evidence to make me think it might be real.

And to carry on my duck/cloud anecdote:

I believe it was not a coincidence that's all that matters. The duck/cloud deepened my appreciation for life because it reenforced my belief that I am central to the workings of reality.

 

[CartesianFart]

Do I believe that truth is an illusion?
Yes, human truth as it relates to external reality at least.

I can't see how that amounts to 'every single thing I say is a lie' though.
Please explain.

I'm not saying I can only think in scientific terms, I'm saying your story is an anecdote. i.e. anecdote, n. The narrative of a detached incident, or of a single event, told as being in itself interesting or striking.

Nothing wrong with an anecdote, it just doesn't have any explanitory power. By its self it adds nothing to the state of human understanding besides perhaps some personal understanding.

So for precognition - I can't rule it out but neither do I see any evidence to make me think it might be real.

And to carry on my duck/cloud anecdote:

I believe it was not a coincidence that's all that matters. The duck/cloud deepened my appreciation for life because it reenforced my belief that I am central to the workings of reality.

Best stuff i've heard today.

Everytime i read Gothmog comments,it inspires me to reflex on a famous quote Wittgenstein have said:"If we spoke a different language, we would perceive a somewhat different world."

 

[nc-1701]

There have been many replies, I'll try to answer them all. For the most part, people seem to believe that its just coincidence (btw, I dont claim that coincidences dont happen, they certainly do. I just dont believe that every single unexplained occurence is a coincidence) because if you do the math, then its clear that occasionally someone will dream something, and it'll happen, so thats it, the crowd can disperse, theres nothing to see here. But heres what I say: in order to reach meaningful conclusions with nothing but mathematical equations, dont you need to have complete knowledge of everything, all the parameters influencing the thing that you are calculating? Is everything known about how the brain functions on the Quantum level, about consciousness, or even about Time itself?

But lets say you know every single factor influencing a rapidly bouncing rubber ball in a large container of some kind. You know the exact wind, airpressure, gravity, mass of the ball and its exact 'bounciness', the material of the container it will be bouncing around in, the force used to throw the ball, all of that, everything. Would you be able ahead of time to successfully calculate and mark with a marker every single point in the container where the ball will make contact with?

Now. How much more complex are the natures of Time, the brain, and consciousness, than a bouncing rubber ball?

Next, lets say all your number crunching regarding dreams is completely accurate, and you can demonstrate that, lets say, every 100,000 dreams will appear to predict something that hasnt happened yet. What do your numbers say about the significance of those occurences? How do you know that what youre calculating isnt that every 100,000 dreams will be some sort of 'psychic' experience? Whats that you say? You dont believe in 'psychic' occurences? Well, thats got nothing to do with your math, thats just youre own belief system talking.


For the record, I dont believe that Im a (for want of a better word) psychic. I just believe that there are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in your philosophy, uh...Horatio.

Your example is impossible because of the Heisebourg uncertanty principle. which states that you cannot know more than 50% of all possible knowedge of any particle at one time.

 

[CartesianFart]

Your example is impossible because of the Heisebourg uncertanty principle. which states that you cannot know more than 50% of all possible knowedge of any particle at one time.

What does that have to do with dreams and premonitions?

 

[nc-1701]

What does that have to do with dreams and premonitions?

Ummmmm nothing?

Bozo was talking about a scenario with a ball I was dissproving it. Not sure how he thought of the ball though.

 

[brennan]

Your example is impossible because of the Heisebourg uncertanty principle. which states that you cannot know more than 50% of all possible knowedge of any particle at one time.

It's actually denied by basic chaos theory as well. Look up 'sensitive dependance upon initial conditions'. If you still can these days...

Edit: the Butterfly effect works ok.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

You are simply saying that coincidences are significant.

Nope. Im saying that some unusual occurences arent mere coincidences.

I don't believe in Psychic occurrences because these things have been exhaustively explored in the past and there is simply no substantiated evidence in support of such theories.

Whats going on here is that there are two different ways of looking at reality: one that is limited to the physical, observable world, and another which isnt.

For you, Bozo Erectus:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/09/05/telepathy.reut/index.html

Phone telepathy? Of course its real. Happens to me constantly, and to most people. Anyway, how can a guy named Rupert Sheldrake possibly be wrong about anything?

Do I believe that truth is an illusion?
Yes, human truth as it relates to external reality at least.

So then your belief is that your beliefs are illusory?

I can't see how that amounts to 'every single thing I say is a lie' though.
Please explain.

Certainly. You stated originally that 'truth is an illusion'. If truth is an illusion, then your belief that truth is an illusion is an illusion

I'm saying your story is an anecdote. i.e. anecdote, n. The narrative of a detached incident, or of a single event, told as being in itself interesting or striking.

Nothing wrong with an anecdote, it just doesn't have any explanitory power. By its self it adds nothing to the state of human understanding besides perhaps some personal understanding.

How does invoking 'coincidence' when something unusual happens, add to human understanding?

So for precognition - I can't rule it out but neither do I see any evidence to make me think it might be real.

Which means you have no opinion on it at all?

And to carry on my duck/cloud anecdote:

I believe it was not a coincidence that's all that matters. The duck/cloud deepened my appreciation for life because it reenforced my belief that I am central to the workings of reality.

Do you believe that science and mathematics can explain everything? That things which science and mathematics cant explain, cant be real?

@C~G, with smart guys like you and Birdjaguar and Rupert Sheldrake on my side, I know I must be on to something

 

[C~G]

Let's see how this goes since my insensible ramblings don't catch fire.

How about Bozo's mighty brains did calculations that such occurrence as blackout might occur based into variables of that situation without Bozo knowing about it?

I know I must be on to something

Yes, we are on straight path into hell, since we don't believe into God otherwise known as "human logic" but want actual explanations.

EDIT:

Rupert Sheldrake

And I was thinking one program that I saw years ago in TV. It was about the nature of our consciousness and it included interviews with such people as Oliver Sacks, Daniel Dennett and Stephen Jay Gould. Just before you posted your message I was trying to remember the name one of the person in program. After I read your message it didn't came to me until now who it was. It was Rupert Sheldrake. Just coincidence, of course.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

How about Bozo's mighty brains did calculations that such occurrence as blackout might occur based into variables of that situation without Bozo knowing about it?

You mean that my subconscious sleeping mind was busy correctly calculating the likelihood of a blackout, taking into account all possible variables, as I snored? Hmmm...I know the human mind constantly makes incredibly complex calculations on a subconscious level, but I think thats limited mostly to our motor functions, vision and things like that, right?

And I was thinking one program that I saw years ago in TV. It was about the nature of our consciousness and it included interviews with such people as Oliver Sacks, Daniel Dennett and Stephen Jay Gould. Just before you posted your message I was trying to remember the name one of the person in program. After I read your message it didn't came to me until now who it was. It was Rupert Sheldrake. Just coincidence, of course.

Rupert was in some pretty good company there. Proof that he's no slouch.

 

[brennan]

Nope. Im saying that some unusual occurences arent mere coincidences.

IOW you are attributing significance with them.

If you are admitting that coincidences happen at all then you must agree that coincidences occur with a predictable, statistically analysable frequency. If you then aver that there is an additional class of 'significant' coincidences then you must admit that this would give rise to a predictable flaw in our understanding of probability and statistics. Is there such a flaw?

How do you decide which coincidences are meaningful btw? Is it a coincidence that my curtains and the tower for my PC are both blue, or is it a Coincidence *nods sagely*.

I think your suggestion is lacking in any sort of realistic/scientific merit whatsoever. As Wittgenstein would perhaps say 'I do not understand what you are saying'...

 

[C~G]

I know the human mind constantly makes incredibly complex calculations on a subconscious level, but I think thats limited mostly to our motor functions, vision and things like that, right?

What I meant was that maybe your mind had done the calculations already before and they ended up into conclusion that which manifested itself in the dream. This was merely hypothesis mostly meant for other people than you Bozo, see what those "others" think about where dreams might come from.

Rupert was in some pretty good company there. Proof that he's no slouch.

Yes he was. But most other scientist didn't know about Rupert at that time and especially physicist who I have forgotten also dismissed Rupert's views right on sight.

BTW, unlike some people believe, I have tend to have thoughts that anecdotes play important part in our lives. In fact so much that they stop being "detached incidents" but something more. Such I believe to be the nature of our consciousness.

EDIT: Program I mentioned if anyone is interested was A Glorious Accident: Understanding Our Place in the Cosmic Puzzle and it included also Freeman Dyson and Stephane Toulmin

 

[Sidhe]

Rupert was in some pretty good company there. Proof that he's no slouch.

Trouble with his research is that it's statistically insignificant, it's impossible to take this as scientific evidence as the base pool of people was too small, without going into the mathematics behind it, making assumptions based on such a small pool is fraught with difficulty, that doesn't mean though that it's not interesting or that he shouldn't repeat the experiment with numbers of people that are more statistically significant, just that his hypothesis would not be accepted as it stands as scientific.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

IOW you are attributing significance with them.

Again: Some unusual occurences are not coincidences (imo), though they may appear to be.

If you are admitting that coincidences happen at all then you must agree that coincidences occur with a predictable, statistically analysable frequency.

I dont have to agree with that. You do, though

If you then aver that there is an additional class of 'significant' coincidences

Nope. Im saying that some significant occurences arent coincidences, though they may appear to be, to some people.

then you must admit that this would give rise to a predictable flaw in our understanding of probability and statistics. Is there such a flaw?

Im really going to drive you crazy now: my HUNCH is that its like classical physics. Completely correct and reliable on one level of reality, but not so on another.

I think your suggestion is lacking in any sort of realistic/scientific merit whatsoever.

Thank you.

As Wittgenstein would perhaps say 'I do not understand what you are saying'...

I often think during these types of arguments that if two human beings can have such difficulty understanding how the other percieves reality, then we'll never be able to communicate with ETs