He may have unraveled the secret of synchronicity. Will science prove him right?|306|

First of all, experiments have only shown that precognition becomes tangible in a small time window (10 seconds in Bem's experiments), so I believe that trying to justify events that happen in an undetermined amount of time into the future may be pushing those test results too far...
No time to address most of your comment (or most of the new comments, unfortunately) due to new baby :) ... but just briefly, about the brief time window of presentiment experiments: Good point, although this applies to the presentiment findings specifically, versus precognitive remote viewing findings that have a much bigger time window. Still, I think the presentiment effect is the building block of precognition as traditionally understood. My hypothesis is that precognitive/presentimental circuitry that are being detected in presentiment experiments would continually pass back "information" into the brain's past (in the form of altered neural/synaptic potentials) almost like a relay race. So for instance a RV-er "sees" a target, which may really be the exciting/rewarding confirmation he gets in his future, and this acts the same way a salient stimulus in the individual's past would. In memory, we are really remembering our remembering, not remembering the event. Same way with precognition.
 

Attachments

No time to address most of your comment (or most of the new comments, unfortunately) due to new baby :) ... but just briefly, about the brief time window of presentiment experiments: Good point, although this applies to the presentiment findings specifically, versus precognitive remote viewing findings that have a much bigger time window. Still, I think the presentiment effect is the building block of precognition as traditionally understood. My hypothesis is that precognitive/presentimental circuitry that are being detected in presentiment experiments would continually pass back "information" into the brain's past (in the form of altered neural/synaptic potentials) almost like a relay race. So for instance a RV-er "sees" a target, which may really be the exciting/rewarding confirmation he gets in his future, and this acts the same way a salient stimulus in the individual's past would. In memory, we are really remembering our remembering, not remembering the event. Same way with precognition.
Congratulations.

----
About remote viewing, although I lean towards the "proponent" side, that is the one that I'm not convinced about. A skeptic named ersby made an argument about inconsistencies in the narrative of the events as described by one of the viewers and I took a look at the experiment recordings and found them reasonable. I have seen Dean Radin, who was in one way or another involved with the government project, acknowledge that the idea of remote viewing that we have is somewhat warped (overblown) and some of the viewers admit that their visions are not always accurate or pertinent. The way that some elements in these visions resemble the concept that the person has of an object instead of its actual features (recalling a submarine with canted tubes, a distinctly American feature, while remote viewing a Soviet base) is pointing me towards more of a construct than a recall.
 
Congratulations.

----
About remote viewing, although I lean towards the "proponent" side, that is the one that I'm not convinced about. A skeptic named ersby made an argument about inconsistencies in the narrative of the events as described by one of the viewers and I took a look at the experiment recordings and found them reasonable. I have seen Dean Radin, who was in one way or another involved with the government project, acknowledge that the idea of remote viewing that we have is somewhat warped (overblown) and some of the viewers admit that their visions are not always accurate or pertinent. The way that some elements in these visions resemble the concept that the person has of an object instead of its actual features (recalling a submarine with canted tubes, a distinctly American feature, while remote viewing a Soviet base) is pointing me towards more of a construct than a recall.
Thanks. And I totally agree with you. It's that "constructive" aspect that makes RV(/precog) so very much like memory. The mix of accurate details and schematic, idiosyncratic distortion is what researchers should focus on.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. And I totally agree with you. It's that "constructive" aspect that makes RV(/precog) so very much like memory. The mix of accurate details and schematic, idiosyncratic distortion is what researchers should focus on.
I understand your argument. But, we must also remember that -although they get some very impressive hits- some of them are describing some pretty odd material. Unless we are ready to believe that there is a UFO base on the dark side of the moon (as Ingo Swann once said), I am more inclined to believe that these constructs are the product of a form of telepathy.

You see, taking this particular case as example, UFOs in the moon are a recurrent element in the narrative of some UFO enthusiast groups (not necessarily accurate, but certainly present in the "collective unconcious", to quote a Jungian concept) and these viewers were supposed to be under a trance of some sorts... We know that suggestion is easier under hypnosis because the individual is receptive (and thus) more open to assimilate new information. I think that this may be the case with the viewers, they are in a similar altered state and whatever information they receive from multiple sources is amalgamated into these visions that feature inconsistent elements but some degree of actuality. Under this assumption, Ingo could tap into the "collective unconscious" and bring back this image of an alien base in the moon and the information would perhaps not be "inaccurate" per se, just coming from a source that he is not taking under consideration.
 
I understand your argument. But, we must also remember that -although they get some very impressive hits- some of them are describing some pretty odd material. Unless we are ready to believe that there is a UFO base on the dark side of the moon (as Ingo Swann once said), I am more inclined to believe that these constructs are the product of a form of telepathy.

You see, taking this particular case as example, UFOs in the moon are a recurrent element in the narrative of some UFO enthusiast groups (not necessarily accurate, but certainly present in the "collective unconcious", to quote a Jungian concept) and these viewers were supposed to be under a trance of some sorts... We know that suggestion is easier under hypnosis because the individual is receptive (and thus) more open to assimilate new information. I think that this may be the case with the viewers, they are in a similar altered state and whatever information they receive from multiple sources is amalgamated into these visions that feature inconsistent elements but some degree of actuality. Under this assumption, Ingo could tap into the "collective unconscious" and bring back this image of an alien base in the moon and the information would perhaps not be "inaccurate" per se, just coming from a source that he is not taking under consideration.
I would suggest instead that there's zero evidence that moon bases etc. that are seen in RV sessions are accurate at all -- i.e., not event telepathy but just "noise" or wishful thinking. Unless we have actual evidence of veridicality, there's no way to say it is psi. Or, the RV-ers could be producing such material presentimental/precognitive for future rewarding feedback, but the feedback itself need not be accurate, or it may reflect the expectations/wishes of their peers, not reality. For instance under Ed Dames, one of the more questionable/controversial Star Gate officers, viewers kept RV-ing UFOs, which is precisely what Dames was interested in ... but there's no evidence (that I know of) for any of its being accurate with respect to any "ground truth" anywhere.

This is incidentally why I no longer think RV could be very useful in space exploration unless there is future feedback forthcoming from probes. It's also why I think it is so important to bring psychology(/psychoanalysis) into our study of psi, because these phenomena are so mixed up with peoples unconscious desires and expectations.
 
I would suggest instead that there's zero evidence that moon bases etc. that are seen in RV sessions are accurate at all -- i.e., not event telepathy but just "noise" or wishful thinking. Unless we have actual evidence of veridicality, there's no way to say it is psi. Or, the RV-ers could be producing such material presentimental/precognitive for future rewarding feedback, but the feedback itself need not be accurate, or it may reflect the expectations/wishes of their peers, not reality. For instance under one of the more questionable/controversial Star Gate heads (I'm forgetting his name at the moment), viewers kept RV-ing UFOs, which is precisely what he was interested in ... but there's no evidence for any of its being accurate with respect to any "ground truth" anywhere.
The thing is that there is some veridicality to Ingo's UFO base vision... The coordinates. According to a book, the coordinates were given to him and then the vision came without him knowing that they were of the moon. I can't find a copy of the book that is free online, but the events are quoted here: http://paranormal.about.com/od/lunaranomalies/a/aa011507_2.htm

If the vision reflects the expectations of a peer in this particular case, then that would remain a form of telepathy.

In any case, I certainly hope that this is not a premonition of things to come, because I get the impression that those E.T. were not particularly happy to notice that they were being scouted by a human.

This is incidentally why I think RV could only be useful in space exploration if there is future feedback forthcoming from probes. It's also why I think it is so important to bring psychology(/psychoanalysis) into our study of psi, because these phenomena are so mixed up with peoples unconscious desires and expectations.
Even if precognition is not responsible for synchronicity or other forms of psi, I think that if we can actually access events that ahead into the future and be selective about the feedback device (as you posit in this post), we could benefit from a less dystopian and less authoritarian version of Minority Report's PreCrime by gaining access to devices specifically created to provide such feedback (perhaps something as simple as a screen setup that features details of the crime, location, perpetrator, etc.)... Of course, that is assuming that the future is not fixed and remains probabilistic. In real life, we do not need to put future criminals into perma-sleep for the shock value, the psychological impact of tangible precognition would be enough.

But, I'm digressing here.
 
The thing is that there is some veridicality to Ingo's UFO base vision... The coordinates. According to a book, the coordinates were given to him and then the vision came without him knowing that they were of the moon. I can't find a copy of the book that is free online, but the events are quoted here: http://paranormal.about.com/od/lunaranomalies/a/aa011507_2.htm

If the vision reflects the expectations of a peer in this particular case, then that would remain a form of telepathy.

In any case, I certainly hope that this is not a premonition of things to come, because I get the impression that those E.T. were not particularly happy to notice that they were being scouted by a human.



Even if precognition is not responsible for synchronicity or other forms of psi, I think that if we can actually access events that ahead into the future and be selective about the feedback device (as you posit in this post), we could benefit from a less dystopian and less authoritarian version of Minority Report's PreCrime by gaining access to devices specifically created to provide such feedback (perhaps something as simple as a screen setup that features details of the crime, location, perpetrator, etc.)... Of course, that is assuming that the future is not fixed and remains probabilistic. In real life, we do not need to put future criminals into perma-sleep for the shock value, the psychological impact of tangible precognition would be enough.

But, I'm digressing here.
Russell Targ is of the opinion that Ingo Swann's book Penetration, where he describes his moon RV, was a fiction.

Tangentially related to your suggestion for a pre-crime-type system, I do think precognitive technology will be possible, and describe some applications and limits here: http://thenightshirt.com/?p=3519 . I think it was prescient of Dick to describe a system whose vagaries required multiple precogs with "majority" and "minority" reports ... just like how the most effective real-world RV setups have worked, and exactly what Damien Broderick advocates in his new book Knowing the Unknowable -- essentially extracting a usable signal from all the noise using lots of psychics and lots of readings, the same way significance is established in experimental research when effects are small.
 
Russell Targ is of the opinion that Ingo Swann's book Penetration, where he describes his moon RV, was a fiction.
Perhaps, but Targ (of ESP trainer fame) was sort of direct competition to Ingo and had motive to try and keep the RV field as grounded as possible. So, I'm not sure either way.

Tangentially related to your suggestion for a pre-crime-type system, I do think precognitive technology will be possible, and describe some applications and limits here: http://thenightshirt.com/?p=3519 .
Interesting read; I had no idea that you had written a column referencing Phillip Dick prior to my mention of Minority Report.

I think it was prescient of Dick to describe a system whose vagaries required multiple precogs with "majority" and "minority" reports ... just like how the most effective real-world RV setups have worked, and exactly what Damien Broderick advocates in his new book Knowing the Unknowable -- essentially extracting a usable signal from all the noise using lots of psychics and lots of readings, the same way significance is established in experimental research when effects are small.
Well, Minority Report was fundamentally about free will, the concept of three precogs was a plot device to illustrate the frailty of hard determinism by creating a paradox (the dominant precog foresees something, but the other two have a consensus that points otherwise). But, it is eerily similar to how RV is setup.

Also, I have speculated in the past that Persinger's telepathy tests are working consistently because by "tuning" both users to a certain "wavelength" (I use the concepts loosely) and stimulating an altered state of sorts with EM fields, the "background noise" is cleared, allowing better communication between individuals.

----
Edit: The main question here is... How can we deal with civil rights when it comes to precognitive technology?
 
Last edited:
Perhaps, but Targ (of ESP trainer fame) was sort of direct competition to Ingo and had motive to try and keep the RV field as grounded as possible. So, I'm not sure either way.



Interesting read; I had no idea that you had written a column referencing Phillip Dick prior to my mention of Minority Report.



Well, Minority Report was fundamentally about free will, the concept of three precogs was a plot device to illustrate the frailty of hard determinism by creating a paradox (the dominant precog foresees something, but the other two have a consensus that points otherwise). But, it is eerily similar to how RV is setup.

Also, I have speculated in the past that Persinger's telepathy tests are working consistently because by "tuning" both users to a certain "wavelength" (I use the concepts loosely) and stimulating an altered state of sorts with EM fields, the "background noise" is cleared, allowing better communication between individuals.

----
Edit: The main question here is... How can we deal with civil rights when it comes to precognitive technology?
I've written a lot on Dick recently, in this context -- If you're a fan, you might also like: http://thenightshirt.com/?p=3329 and http://thenightshirt.com/?p=3364

How did Persinger control for feedback in his telepathy experiments?
 
I've written a lot on Dick recently, in this context -- If you're a fan, you might also like: http://thenightshirt.com/?p=3329 and http://thenightshirt.com/?p=3364

How did Persinger control for feedback in his telepathy experiments?
I am, and I will. Thank you.

Persinger attempted to create a system by placing a "helmet" made out of a coil (more of a cap, actually) and stimulated two individuals with the same EM patterns. I am assuming that these two individuals being under this particular state is what is facilitating direct communication and the presence of "excess correlation" as he calls it. Like tuning a radio to a "private" frequency (while wearing the cap) instead of the regular FM frequencies.
 
I am still inclined to favor that these events would be more simply explained by an underlying web or network of patterns that can be very hardly explained unless "something", be it the observer/experiencer or a higher form of consciousness, is directly influencing their outcomes. But, well, this contradicts the inherently reductionist approach of Eric's hypothesis.
.
So am I, based on my personal experience which, unscientifically I know, weighs a lot more for me. But this is an area that regrettably "mainstream science" still won't touch or will downright dismiss (despite Pauli etc), so here I am struggling to come to a somewhat rational understanding of the phenomenon via the Internet, sigh....:)

I totally endorse what you wrote about synchronicities being very heterogeneous, often coming in clusters/series (not necessarily just a "one-off" event), as well as their occasional being quite sinister, too (which would not be in line with the "jouissance" model - unless the "consciousness" behind them has a penchant or at least an indifference to tragedy and death...which would suggest to me that it's not -or no longer- a human consciousness). I guess I'll have to throw caution to the wind and share some of my experiences here because I'd genuinely be interested in the interpretation that some of you in this thread would give to them, in the hope of making headway. May I ask those of you who would be willing to give me their opinion to contact me via "conversations"? Frankly I would prefer to share personal things there, rather than on a public Forum, at least for the moment. Thank you for your understanding.
 
I see what you're saying. If something highly strange or awe-inspiring occurs with no apparent purpose or message, then is it meaningful? I would say yes.
First of all thank you very much for kindly replying to my questions at length, I truly appreciate it. I cannot say I agree with a lot of what you wrote - the sentence above is clearly a point where we'll have to agree to disagree, but you gave me lots of food for thought and this is why I'm here: to hopefully form a more informed opinion about this topic, given that it's extremely likely that in my lifetime there will be no true "scientific theory" about these occurrences. This exchange with you for example has helped me clarify for myself why exactly I am not willing or able to read a specific message in synchronicities while lots of people seem to be able to see a specific meaning in them (which may be different for each of them, and that's another thing which leads me to think that it's just projection....again, you don't have to agree with me of course, we're all entitled to our opinions!). I'll use an example once again. If I stretch out my arm towards you, with an object in it, say a cigarette and I say: GIFT, you will think that I am offering you a present. You are receiving my message based on YOUR previous knowledge/expectations/understanding, and you will assume it's the right one. In the same way, a highly strange coincidence happens and you see it as a synchronicity - it's meaningful to you, maybe you even choose a course of action because of it . However, going back to the example, what if the person showing you the cigarette was in fact German and could not speak English? The word GIFT means POISON in German. To me what truly counts is the intention and the actual objective content of message in the mind of the one who communicates, not the one who interprets it. This is why unless I were 100% sure that my interpretation of the specific message (synchronicity) I'm seeing is the right one (and there can be no certainly about it), I would not take it as meaningful, just as improbable (the two things are not necessarily related imo - improbability could be just an end in itself, a way of jolting us, for example). On the face of it, one may think that something is being offered as a gift, but instead it's being defined as poison. As you know, those who notice synchronicities tend to believe that they are, well, gifts - signs from God or the angels or whatever, giving them reassurance, specific instructions about their life or what is happening/will happen in the world etc. As I said before, so far all I can say for sure is that synchronicities are clear evidence that reality is stranger than what it appears based on the current scientific paradigm, but (to use a language metaphor again) it's like meeting an alien speaking an unknown language :) - yes, it's proof that there's alien intelligence, but as to what the alien is saying, we would have to learn his grammar and vocabulary first, to make sense of what he's saying.
 
First of all thank you very much for kindly replying to my questions at length, I truly appreciate it. I cannot say I agree with a lot of what you wrote - the sentence above is clearly a point where we'll have to agree to disagree, but you gave me lots of food for thought and this is why I'm here: to hopefully form a more informed opinion about this topic, given that it's extremely likely that in my lifetime there will be no true "scientific theory" about these occurrences. This exchange with you for example has helped me clarify for myself why exactly I am not willing or able to read a specific message in synchronicities while lots of people seem to be able to see a specific meaning in them (which may be different for each of them, and that's another thing which leads me to think that it's just projection....again, you don't have to agree with me of course, we're all entitled to our opinions!). I'll use an example once again. If I stretch out my arm towards you, with an object in it, say a cigarette and I say: GIFT, you will think that I am offering you a present. You are receiving my message based on YOUR previous knowledge/expectations/understanding, and you will assume it's the right one. In the same way, a highly strange coincidence happens and you see it as a synchronicity - it's meaningful to you, maybe you even choose a course of action because of it . However, going back to the example, what if the person showing you the cigarette was in fact German and could not speak English? The word GIFT means POISON in German. To me what truly counts is the intention and the actual objective content of message in the mind of the one who communicates, not the one who interprets it. This is why unless I were 100% sure that my interpretation of the specific message (synchronicity) I'm seeing is the right one (and there can be no certainly about it), I would not take it as meaningful, just as improbable (the two things are not necessarily related imo - improbability could be just an end in itself, a way of jolting us, for example). On the face of it, one may think that something is being offered as a gift, but instead it's being defined as poison. As you know, those who notice synchronicities tend to believe that they are, well, gifts - signs from God or the angels or whatever, giving them reassurance, specific instructions about their life or what is happening/will happen in the world etc. As I said before, so far all I can say for sure is that synchronicities are clear evidence that reality is stranger than what it appears based on the current scientific paradigm, but (to use a language metaphor again) it's like meeting an alien speaking an unknown language :) - yes, it's proof that there's alien intelligence, but as to what the alien is saying, we would have to learn his grammar and vocabulary first, to make sense of what he's saying.
You're getting 'meaning' muddled up with 'correct meaning' in my view. The shared cigarette interaction experienced in the external world is meaningful whatever happens. That one gets a different meaning from that which was intended isn't a problem.

Pattern and meaning are a loop, and both a pattern, and it's meaning can be individually adjusted. For instance, one can create a new pattern (invent a new product, write a new book), or one can change the meaning of a pattern (your example of the word gift, a Nazi Swasticker).

Shared external meanings are formed contextually from patterns in space-time. Arbitrarily starting from a single letter of the alphabet, which in a book gains a different meaning from the context of the other letters which surround it, forming words which gain different meaning from the context of words which surround them, which gain different meaning from the context of the sentences which surround them... and so on and so on through paragraphs, chapters, books. The meaning of a book after the first paragraph, is completely different from its meaning at the close of the last chapter. Everything is summed to the present, no matter how long ago, or how far away.

Everything is also contextual over time and space... and meaning can change based on context and importantly the individuals learnt associations. Because as you point out, meaning is also based on the observers past learning... that is you've created spatial network patterns in the brain. These are spatial patterns of stored associations that - at least - allow you access to meaning by processing over space-time using coherent interference (summed).

One can think of your 'gift' German/English language examples as using identical spatial patterns (or spatio-temporal patterns if spoken) as having different meaning based on the observers learnt/access associations, and context over space-time. These sorts of meanings for these patterns can evolve and change naturally and easily. (But that also means they can be corrupted and misused).

Compare that to maths, a different language which is rigorously related and checked with every other part of itself. This language resists evolution, making it rigid and difficult to evolve, making it far harder to alter its meaning. (It also suggests that it's form probably relates to something fundimental about the architecture of reality).
 
Good points. Especially the point about the vast majority of us doing our best.

I have lots of sympathy with the view that the world seems pretty crap really. What was God thinking? So, I feel this emotionally.

That said, intellectually, I think it is like this. Think about things from God's position. You've decided to make this world so, what's it going to be like? If you are going to have a world with free will then you are going to have a world with evil. If you are going to have a world based on natural laws then you need something like dna and when you have that you will have dna errors (and therefore cancers caused by the same and bipolar disorder (which caused my psychosis and has a strong family connection so this is at least partially caused by faults with my DNA)). Ditto with earthquakes. You need a planet much like ours to support life and if you are going to have this then you are going to have earthquakes.

So maybe I am saying that we really do live in the best of all possible worlds - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds

I just said that. Do I mean it? Not sure.

One last thing. When you hang out at Skeptiko long enough and read enough books and watch videos (search YouTube for James Linegar) you come to the conclusion that reincarnation is real. When you believe that then fear of death becomes much less. I don't want to die but I also also fairly relaxed about it. To me the real issue is how you live your life now. I am still working on that though. I have a long way to go! Maybe I would like to be some kind of "saint person" but, you know, the bills need to be paid so here I am in the office instead of spreading goodness. And, of course, I'm really not sure how to implement "being a saint" anyway. What does it really mean? Do I have to give up drinking with my mates? So, anyway, one step at a time.
Thank you for your thoughts Alan. Perhaps our dialogue is somewhat off topic in this thread but well, I guess people are interested in synchronicities and all the rest because they want to understand what life is all about so this is not off topic after all. You say "If you are going to have a world with free will then you are going to have a world with evil" - I disagree! Supposing that there is a God, and supposing he's almighty, he could have made us different. In other words, he pre-programmed human beings with the possibility that they could be truly, utterly evil. I don't see the benefit to mankind in giving us the full range of free will which also includes such "free choices" as becoming, say, a serial killer or a child murderer (supposing these people are truly free - what about mentally deranged people, but in general, to what extent are we really free, conditioned as we are by genes and environment and who knows what else? If we truly have free will, then it's definitely not as free as it's cracked up to be...). Same for the material world. If your definition of God is that of an almighty being, the natural world could have been engineered to NOT include earthquakes, genetic defects, etc etc. Animals could have been able to get nourishment directly from the sun and non-organic sources, rather than having to kill each other violently. Etc etc. It strikes me that even a simple human being like can think of ways of being more considerate than most believer's idea of God :).

Secondly, I'm not at all afraid to die in fact. It's living this life of ignorance, being a small cog in a huge, unfathomable mechanism (the Universe), very probably until the very last day in my life that bothers me a lot more. Maybe death will bring higher knowledge (at least in the sense that if I die and that's it, I will at least know for sure that death is the end, at least for me, lol!) so maybe every cloud (even the final one :)) has a silver lining. after all. But I'm certainly not keen on suffering, it's bad enough being forced to live in an imperfect world where suffering abounds, and that I can change only microscopically. I find it intriguing how people who believe in reincarnation find it comforting! In fact ancient religions speak of reincarnation as a curse, the plan was for them to teach us NOT to reincarnate, but in the West people tend to look at reincarnation for reassurance that they will not really die...weird!
 
Last edited:
Why is having different meanings for things a huge problem. It allows freedom for creativity, variation etc. A large part seems to be about choosing what to learn.
I'd agree with you if you were talking about poetry or "artistic communication" in general. But if I'm telling you something important, like, exactly what you have to do to get out of a building on fire, I expect that you would want to be sure you understand my message 100% rather than taking the opportunity to allow yourself freedom for creativity, variation etc....
The point you are making is fine if we are talking about the evolution of language in time, of course, but at given moment there must be agreement between those communicating as to the meaning of the symbols they are using (even if 100% may be impossible), like sharing the words of the same language, otherwise no real communication can happen. It's just solipsistic projection ("I believe he said this") . What if I started posting here in a language you don't understand, or posting rants without any grammatical structure and with random English words? We could not communicate usefully.
The language of synchronicity is still uncharted (if there is a coherent one - that's the problem. And that's why science is unwilling to listen to it). However, synchronicities seem to be telling us something important (we maybe wrong!) and being mortal beings we are like the person in the building on fire, I'd say. Well, I feel I am. I would like to understand before it's too late :).
 
Last edited:
I'd agree with you if you were talking about poetry or "artistic communication" in general. But if I'm telling you something important, like, exactly what you have to do to get out of a building on fire, I expect that you would want to be sure you understand my message 100% rather taking the opportunity to allow yourself freedom for creativity, variation etc....
The point you are making is fine if we are talking about the evolution of language in time, of course, but at given moment there must be agreement between those communicating as to the meaning of the symbols they are using (even if 100% may be impossible), like sharing the words of the same language, otherwise no real communication can happen. It's just solipsistic projection ("I believe he said this") . What if I started posting here in a language you don't understand, or posting rants without any grammatical structure and with random English words? We could not communicate usefully.
The language of synchronicity is still uncharted (if there is a coherent one - that's the problem. And that's why science is unwilling to listen to it). However, synchronicities seem to be telling us something important (we maybe wrong!) and being mortal beings we are like the person in the building on fire, I'd say. Well, I feel I am. I would like to understand before it's too late :).

Understanding between both people in your fire senario is relative. You might give me the wrong directions to escape. I might encounter difficulties in following your plan. One persons solution is not everyone's solution. I might decide to stay and tackle the fire. I might decide to rescue some one, or some thing... Etc, etc...

Shared meaning can never be 100% here, otherwise things could never evolve, and if we couldn't evolve we would be dead - very quickly.

Believing one can fix meaning so it doesnt change is a problem, you can't... there are lots of other systems out there, one adapts to them, like they adapt to you, or one dies.
 
Understanding between both people in your fire senario is relative. You might give me the wrong directions to escape. I might encounter difficulties in following your plan. One persons solution is not everyone's solution. I might decide to stay and tackle the fire. I might decide to rescue some one, or some thing... Etc, etc...

Shared meaning can never be 100% here, otherwise things could never evolve, and if we couldn't evolve we would be dead - very quickly.

Believing one can fix meaning so it doesnt change is a problem, you can't... there are lots of other systems out there, one adapts to them, like they adapt to you, or one dies.
All communication is imperfect in an imperfect world, no doubt about it, but it's actually a pity, not something to rejoice about - flawless communication would certainly be the ideal situation from the perspective of someone who knows that they can at least try to save your life by conveying a truly meaningful message to you, while telling you "153èè@@@ @ff främmande Anche" would certainly have been completely meaningless and hence useless to you from the start, right? The fact that you will decide to ignore me if I give you intelligible directions and instead do other things has nothing to do with the fact that I used a shared language/system of conveying meaning, albeit imperfect, which you understood sufficiently well in the first place. I still had a communicative intention which led me to use a shared system of expressing meaning, regardless of what you would think of or do with my advice. I would certainly have wished to hear what a fireman was telling me before ignoring his advice at my own peril. Similarly, ignoring the "meaning" conveyed by specific synchronicities would be perfectly fine, but first we would have to be sure that we understand what they mean (if they have a meaning at all, that is, if there is a specific communicative intention behind them that they convey in what would be an intelligible way if only we had some kind of Rosetta stone for them - which I know, is completely unrealistic because we don't even know if they are more like the signs of a language or like the improvised dance moves of one -or several- "artists"). Otherwise, again, synchronicities are nothing more than Rorschach inkblots in our consensus reality. Which they might as well be! Nice if you like poetry and art and "spirituality", unhelpful if you want to get to a deep understanding of the fabric of reality and what its ultimate meaning is. Or at least what the meaning of our human existence is, the rest may well be completely unfathomable.
As to your last point "Believing one can fix meaning so it doesnt change is a problem, you can't.;..". I didn't say that - I copy and paste from my latest post: "The point you are making is fine if we are talking about the evolution of language in time, of course, but at given moment there must be agreement between those communicating as to the meaning of the symbols they are using (even if 100% may be impossible), like sharing the words of the same language, otherwise no real communication can happen. It's just solipsistic projection ("I believe he said this") ."
 
Top