You absolutely nailed the issues with synchronicity. I love how you think!! I used to teach experimental methodology at Emory University. I spent 4 years in their PhD program in behavioral neuroscience and evolutionary psychology joint program with the medical school. For years I collected synchronistic data and I was able to get really good at it. Really I was drawn to it as part of a larger solution to various paradoxes in science, evolutionary theory and brain science. I wrote a book about that larger context 20 years ago but it’s so different people didn’t understand where I was coming from. You are actually the first person to voice the idea that it needs to fit into a larger context that I have ever heard. That is absolutely key! And for the reasons you stated and more! So thank you so much for this vital and enlightening video!! All I can say is 🤩 WOW! 🥰👍🏻 Synchronistic events are part of a larger aspect of reality beyond the technology-oriented science. And it is related to meaning. Science cannot show or prove meaning, but oddly, it does connect with meaning in the case of synchronicity-the statistical significance of many-factor synchronicities are absolutely off the charts, yet science has no theory to explain that! So it’s definitely part of lifting the veil on a massive revolution in thought (well, according to my book anyway…). So it’s much more that a “meaning crisis”. I used to discuss meaning with Francis Crick back in the day (like 1994) because I knew it was key and left out by science. Except John Vervaeke doesn’t realize that we don’t “make” meaning… it already exists as a fundamental property of the universe made subconscious by paving over with meme-complexes instrumental socially in the now. (Susan Blackmore is also my friend lol-it was “synchronistic” when she came out with that book) However, science DEFINITELY makes the world “safe” for this higher meaning because it objective nails down the grammar and vocabulary of that meaning. I began to think about this stuff back when I was an undergrad and I discussed it with Noam Chomsky and B. F. Skinner both and I definitely know that they were both basically correct in their opposing views on verbal behavior AND deep grammar. It took me a long time to trace back why and work out the details. So meaning has been really my direct lifelong pursuit. Synchronicity is definitely a very important thing which is basic to how the universe and brains work. But other aspect of our instrumental survival brains can take over and derail meaning. Even though the message is the point, without the media or the reader and commonly accepted symbols there’s no message-so I would make a Maslows hierarchy in this way, in this context. Sustaining and organizing the media for the real purposes and lessons of life. Thanks again. I love these videos!!! ❤️🔥👍🏻
I'm glad that you connected with the ideas in my videos! I've learned a lot while creating them and feedback like yours helps to encourage me on this path. It sounds like you've also arrived at the view that synchronicity is a method of consilience, synthesizing seemingly disconnected theories and areas of human activity. E.O. Wilson wrote on this idea from the perspective of biology, which was the discipline of my undergraduate degree. I still love evolutionary game theory and theories of cultural evolution, but feel that there is a larger issue with 'science' in general that needs to be addressed before these ideas will flourish. Thank you for your thoughts and kind words! :)
"without self there is no synchronicity"! Cool! Without self to interpret I suppose there are many things that ease to exist. That leads me to "what is self?" and " who am I" questions of course.....*enter* my spiritual journey!
Totally! That's why I referred to synchronicity as a kind of Self-reflection, or a manifestation of the Self in the world. Nobody else can really see it because it's your Self.
For me synchronicity is less of a surprise and more a delight. It feels good in my heart when these intersections occur in my life. There is also a fun aspect which whilst not scientific must be measurable in particles by some machine.
Nice explanation! Jung wrote a paper on synchronicity in which he concluded non-causal synchronistic relationships are not entirely random but have a mystical influence. He described a scientific experiment he performed to prove his theory. He concluded by pretty much saying “meaning is the Tao”. In the book “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” Robert Pirsig said “Quality” is the Tao, the mystical generating force of the universe. Synchronicity takes on a new dimension when these philosophical ideas are combined. Science depends on Quality in causal relationships. There would be no science without Quality and the ability to discern it. Some causal relationships are of higher Quality than others. Now map that to non-causal relationships. Some non-causal, meaningful, relationships are of higher Quality than others. That is how I define synchronicity. The problem always occurs when the Quality of relationships, non-causal and causal become someone’s absolute truth.. That ultimately leads to dogma, scientific and religious. I love synchronicity. It is a uniquely human phenomenon. My .02.
There is causality in synchronicity - it just doesn't immediately precede the effect. Synchronicity is a quantum event, and quantum events are probabilistic not deterministic. In other words there is a lag time between cause and effect.
It was 11:10 for me when you said the number 11, and now I'm concerned I'm a little off today... but after commenting, it was 11:11 when the video clip played and I felt better
Spanish philosopher Gustavo Bueno has defined some ideas that may be of use for your enterprise: - Attributive / Distributive Totalities. A totality is considered distributed if it equalizes all of its parts (for example, the idea of citizens regarding human rights). A totality is called attributive if its parts hold different relations to each other and the totality (for example, an anatomical model.). The same totality can be seen from an attributive point of view and from a distributive point of view. For example, citizens, from an attributive point of view, cannot be equal, as they have different languages, economic power, etc. Distributive totalities are useful in the strong sciences. However, one must be careful when applying distributive totalities to explain all of humanity, as they do not capture the complexity of the world. - Special Ontological Matter (Mi): it's the world of any ego. It's composed of a trinity: M1, M2, and M3. This is the world of all things for which we have a name, a sensation, a perception, etc. It's the world we are primed to perceive. - M1: It's the physical, corporeal part of Mi. It includes all things in Space, energy, waves, etc. - M2: it's the inner psychological part of Mi that all egos have. It includes pain, etc. - M3: it's the part of Mi that includes ideas, mathematics, etc. - Pluralism: it's the idea that not everything is connected directly to everything else. This happens at the level of M and Mi. - Transcendental Ego (in materialism, not idealism): you could interpret this idea as an institutional version of any ego. It's anything that maps Mi in relation to M. - General Ontological Matter (M): It's a negative idea that accounts for all things in the Cosmos. We cannot say positive things from the point of view of M. As soon as we find a philosophical system that says things in the name of M, we are sure that that system is metaphysical. Philosophical Materialism rejects this. - Ideas vs concepts: sciences and techniques create concepts. From the similarities and differences between these concepts, ideas can emerge as objective things in M3 from the point of view of a philosophical system. For example, the concept of structure has a certain meaning in math, chemistry, physics, engineering, etc. From this specific concept, one can try to create the idea of Structure. - Philosophy as a knowledge of second order or degree. According to Bueno, it's not Philosophy the one that creates the Sciences. It's the other way around: once there are scientific concepts (objective truths in their respective fields), one can introduce philosophical ideas. For example, philosophy was born when ancient Greeks began to use Geometric concepts in lots of different realms. Nowadays, this happens when scientists want to reduce everything to their own fields ("everything is Chemistry", for example.) - Sciences as categorical closures: a science defines operations that can be done by an ego. These operations not only include formal elements, like equations, but they also include physical things, like experimental tools, or even a pen or a computer in Math. - Synthetic identity: it's the definition of a truth in any Science. A synthetic identity not only includes formal steps but also includes physical steps. One arrives at a synthetic identity when one neutralizes the ego that performs it in a scientific theorem. - Alpha and Beta sciences: sciences in the alpha state manage to neutralize the ego. Sciences in the beta state have not managed to neutralize the ego. The paradox here is that any human science cannot remain human as soon as it manages to neutralize the ego in its theorems. For example, physiology is not a human science. So, it cannot claim to explain all human nature. On the other hand, a Science in the beta state cannot claim to have repeatable procedures or scientific theorems (there are not laws of history). - The myth of Nature and Culture. One cannot meaningfully define Nature and Culture without creating metaphysics. - Theological inversion: it's a moment in European history when philosophers stopped using the theological ideas to explain the world and, instead, began to use scientific theories about the world to explain theological ideas. For example, you can see this in the theological motivations of scientists like Newton. To this very day, we still see the use of ideas that actually have a theological origin (the Free Market as the idea of Harmony, for example), or Culture as Divine Grace or Revelation. Another interesting example is the theological motivations behind the Big Bang theory. - Sciences are sovereign in their own fields. Their fields define ontological categories. One cannot use chemical theorems to explain math. One can use mathematical tools in chemistry, but Chemistry cannot be reduced to maths. With these ideas, something useful that Bueno does is classify certain philosophical propositions as reductionists. For example: - If your theory reduces everything to M1, you are a physicalist. - The same could happen for M2 (romantic idealism) or M3 (platonism). If one's theory affirms that the sciences cover or can cover everything that it's to be known, then you are reducing M to Mi. In this case, one is called a mundanist. If one's theory asserts that a unified Science is possible, then one is a monist. If one reduces Mi to the concepts of a specific science or set of sciences, then one is called a scientific fundamentalist. This occurs when a Scientist tries to use the specific concepts of a Science as if they were philosophical ideas.
Thanks. Another great video. I really resonate with your content. Maybe synchronicity isn't so personal after all...... In reference to the book "137", I note that on page 190 (Synchronicity and telepathy) Jung and Pascual Jordan were attempting to formulate a mechanics of telepathy. Quoting from the book, "Jordan's interpretation of telepathy was that it was sender and receiver sensing the same object simultaneously in a common conscious space. Jung, conversely, considered that the instance of telepathy occurred not in a conscious space but in a common unconscious with only one observer ""who looks at an infinite number of objects"" not just one". I suspect these two approaches are two sides of the same coin. The fact that that Jordan raises the notion of SIMULTANEITY means that relativity must somehow be involved and the fact that Jung raises the notion of an Observer indicates that SIMULTANIETY may be involved. The basis of the causal universe is rooted in the notion of a universe where answers come AFTER questions. On the other hand, an acausal universe allows for answers to come BEFORE questions. An acausal event, such as synchronicity, may actually be an indicator of something more fundamental. Something more relativistic! It's just a hunch.
Thanks so much! I learned a lot myself from making videos in this format. And yes, there is definitely an interplay between relativity and synchronicity (I believe at one point Jung suggested that Einstein's theory was the first inspiration for his own). The personal aspect of synchronicity is sort of the first impression, especially for someone who has inherited an otherwise secular and scientific tradition (the child of Western culture, perhaps). I'm thinking of someone for whom the possibility of synchronicity has never occurred; someone who believes that coincidences are objective experiences in themselves, and that this explanation is sufficient in all cases where it ought to be applied. It seems that the mystery of synchronicity comes from the observation of (apparently impossible) causality from outside of the 'light cone' for a given past event. Dismissing something as coincidence is an attempt to 'save' the light cone of your understanding, which keeps your universe intact and stops paranoia and deception from cognitively 'eating away' at your understanding. So the wider implications of synchronicity and relativity may be complementary, since they both include a personal aspect as well as an objective (communal) aspect of our understanding.
to my 'weird understanding' the synchronicity is a kind of our conscious 'tuned in' to particular occasion/incident and we are aware of that incident.. my synchronicity with discrete number such as 11, 911 or even the number of date of birth either in digital display or UA-cam video length..😊 interestingly seem synchronicity also applied to 'instant karma' either good karma or bad karma..😊
Okay you just blew my mind with that number.
Very excited to hit the subscribe bell and turn on all notifications. Looking forward to seeing where you take this!
Loved your video! I subscribed with all notification bells
You absolutely nailed the issues with synchronicity. I love how you think!! I used to teach experimental methodology at Emory University. I spent 4 years in their PhD program in behavioral neuroscience and evolutionary psychology joint program with the medical school. For years I collected synchronistic data and I was able to get really good at it. Really I was drawn to it as part of a larger solution to various paradoxes in science, evolutionary theory and brain science. I wrote a book about that larger context 20 years ago but it’s so different people didn’t understand where I was coming from. You are actually the first person to voice the idea that it needs to fit into a larger context that I have ever heard. That is absolutely key! And for the reasons you stated and more! So thank you so much for this vital and enlightening video!! All I can say is 🤩 WOW! 🥰👍🏻 Synchronistic events are part of a larger aspect of reality beyond the technology-oriented science. And it is related to meaning. Science cannot show or prove meaning, but oddly, it does connect with meaning in the case of synchronicity-the statistical significance of many-factor synchronicities are absolutely off the charts, yet science has no theory to explain that! So it’s definitely part of lifting the veil on a massive revolution in thought (well, according to my book anyway…). So it’s much more that a “meaning crisis”. I used to discuss meaning with Francis Crick back in the day (like 1994) because I knew it was key and left out by science. Except John Vervaeke doesn’t realize that we don’t “make” meaning… it already exists as a fundamental property of the universe made subconscious by paving over with meme-complexes instrumental socially in the now. (Susan Blackmore is also my friend lol-it was “synchronistic” when she came out with that book)
However, science DEFINITELY makes the world “safe” for this higher meaning because it objective nails down the grammar and vocabulary of that meaning.
I began to think about this stuff back when I was an undergrad and I discussed it with Noam Chomsky and B. F. Skinner both and I definitely know that they were both basically correct in their opposing views on verbal behavior AND deep grammar. It took me a long time to trace back why and work out the details. So meaning has been really my direct lifelong pursuit. Synchronicity is definitely a very important thing which is basic to how the universe and brains work.
But other aspect of our instrumental survival brains can take over and derail meaning. Even though the message is the point, without the media or the reader and commonly accepted symbols there’s no message-so I would make a Maslows hierarchy in this way, in this context. Sustaining and organizing the media for the real purposes and lessons of life.
Thanks again. I love these videos!!! ❤️🔥👍🏻
I'm glad that you connected with the ideas in my videos! I've learned a lot while creating them and feedback like yours helps to encourage me on this path. It sounds like you've also arrived at the view that synchronicity is a method of consilience, synthesizing seemingly disconnected theories and areas of human activity. E.O. Wilson wrote on this idea from the perspective of biology, which was the discipline of my undergraduate degree. I still love evolutionary game theory and theories of cultural evolution, but feel that there is a larger issue with 'science' in general that needs to be addressed before these ideas will flourish.
Thank you for your thoughts and kind words! :)
"without self there is no synchronicity"! Cool! Without self to interpret I suppose there are many things that ease to exist. That leads me to "what is self?" and " who am I" questions of course.....*enter* my spiritual journey!
Totally! That's why I referred to synchronicity as a kind of Self-reflection, or a manifestation of the Self in the world. Nobody else can really see it because it's your Self.
Excellent Dante. 7 minutes is perfect for my head not to implode.
For me synchronicity is less of a surprise and more a delight. It feels good in my heart when these intersections occur in my life. There is also a fun aspect which whilst not scientific must be measurable in particles by some machine.
Love where you are steering this channel's content! Cant wait for more-
Very interesting!
Nice explanation! Jung wrote a paper on synchronicity in which he concluded non-causal synchronistic relationships are not entirely random but have a mystical influence. He described a scientific experiment he performed to prove his theory. He concluded by pretty much saying “meaning is the Tao”. In the book “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” Robert Pirsig said “Quality” is the Tao, the mystical generating force of the universe. Synchronicity takes on a new dimension when these philosophical ideas are combined. Science depends on Quality in causal relationships. There would be no science without Quality and the ability to discern it. Some causal relationships are of higher Quality than others. Now map that to non-causal relationships. Some non-causal, meaningful, relationships are of higher Quality than others. That is how I define synchronicity. The problem always occurs when the Quality of relationships, non-causal and causal become someone’s absolute truth.. That ultimately leads to dogma, scientific and religious. I love synchronicity. It is a uniquely human phenomenon. My .02.
Nice work man. I'd love to see a vid covering free will and determinism!
There is causality in synchronicity - it just doesn't immediately precede the effect.
Synchronicity is a quantum event, and quantum events are probabilistic not deterministic.
In other words there is a lag time between cause and effect.
It was 11:10 for me when you said the number 11, and now I'm concerned I'm a little off today...
but after commenting, it was 11:11 when the video clip played and I felt better
As you told Karen in your interview, we still have experiences in the digital world and this is all a game.
Spanish philosopher Gustavo Bueno has defined some ideas that may be of use for your enterprise:
- Attributive / Distributive Totalities. A totality is considered distributed if it equalizes all of its parts (for example, the idea of citizens regarding human rights). A totality is called attributive if its parts hold different relations to each other and the totality (for example, an anatomical model.). The same totality can be seen from an attributive point of view and from a distributive point of view. For example, citizens, from an attributive point of view, cannot be equal, as they have different languages, economic power, etc. Distributive totalities are useful in the strong sciences. However, one must be careful when applying distributive totalities to explain all of humanity, as they do not capture the complexity of the world.
- Special Ontological Matter (Mi): it's the world of any ego. It's composed of a trinity: M1, M2, and M3. This is the world of all things for which we have a name, a sensation, a perception, etc. It's the world we are primed to perceive.
- M1: It's the physical, corporeal part of Mi. It includes all things in Space, energy, waves, etc.
- M2: it's the inner psychological part of Mi that all egos have. It includes pain, etc.
- M3: it's the part of Mi that includes ideas, mathematics, etc.
- Pluralism: it's the idea that not everything is connected directly to everything else. This happens at the level of M and Mi.
- Transcendental Ego (in materialism, not idealism): you could interpret this idea as an institutional version of any ego. It's anything that maps Mi in relation to M.
- General Ontological Matter (M): It's a negative idea that accounts for all things in the Cosmos. We cannot say positive things from the point of view of M. As soon as we find a philosophical system that says things in the name of M, we are sure that that system is metaphysical. Philosophical Materialism rejects this.
- Ideas vs concepts: sciences and techniques create concepts. From the similarities and differences between these concepts, ideas can emerge as objective things in M3 from the point of view of a philosophical system. For example, the concept of structure has a certain meaning in math, chemistry, physics, engineering, etc. From this specific concept, one can try to create the idea of Structure.
- Philosophy as a knowledge of second order or degree. According to Bueno, it's not Philosophy the one that creates the Sciences. It's the other way around: once there are scientific concepts (objective truths in their respective fields), one can introduce philosophical ideas. For example, philosophy was born when ancient Greeks began to use Geometric concepts in lots of different realms. Nowadays, this happens when scientists want to reduce everything to their own fields ("everything is Chemistry", for example.)
- Sciences as categorical closures: a science defines operations that can be done by an ego. These operations not only include formal elements, like equations, but they also include physical things, like experimental tools, or even a pen or a computer in Math.
- Synthetic identity: it's the definition of a truth in any Science. A synthetic identity not only includes formal steps but also includes physical steps. One arrives at a synthetic identity when one neutralizes the ego that performs it in a scientific theorem.
- Alpha and Beta sciences: sciences in the alpha state manage to neutralize the ego. Sciences in the beta state have not managed to neutralize the ego. The paradox here is that any human science cannot remain human as soon as it manages to neutralize the ego in its theorems. For example, physiology is not a human science. So, it cannot claim to explain all human nature. On the other hand, a Science in the beta state cannot claim to have repeatable procedures or scientific theorems (there are not laws of history).
- The myth of Nature and Culture. One cannot meaningfully define Nature and Culture without creating metaphysics.
- Theological inversion: it's a moment in European history when philosophers stopped using the theological ideas to explain the world and, instead, began to use scientific theories about the world to explain theological ideas. For example, you can see this in the theological motivations of scientists like Newton. To this very day, we still see the use of ideas that actually have a theological origin (the Free Market as the idea of Harmony, for example), or Culture as Divine Grace or Revelation. Another interesting example is the theological motivations behind the Big Bang theory.
- Sciences are sovereign in their own fields. Their fields define ontological categories. One cannot use chemical theorems to explain math. One can use mathematical tools in chemistry, but Chemistry cannot be reduced to maths.
With these ideas, something useful that Bueno does is classify certain philosophical propositions as reductionists. For example:
- If your theory reduces everything to M1, you are a physicalist.
- The same could happen for M2 (romantic idealism) or M3 (platonism).
If one's theory affirms that the sciences cover or can cover everything that it's to be known, then you are reducing M to Mi. In this case, one is called a mundanist.
If one's theory asserts that a unified Science is possible, then one is a monist.
If one reduces Mi to the concepts of a specific science or set of sciences, then one is called a scientific fundamentalist. This occurs when a Scientist tries to use the specific concepts of a Science as if they were philosophical ideas.
Thanks. Another great video. I really resonate with your content.
Maybe synchronicity isn't so personal after all......
In reference to the book "137", I note that on page 190 (Synchronicity and telepathy) Jung and Pascual Jordan were attempting to formulate a mechanics of telepathy. Quoting from the book, "Jordan's interpretation of telepathy was that it was sender and receiver sensing the same object simultaneously in a common conscious space. Jung, conversely, considered that the instance of telepathy occurred not in a conscious space but in a common unconscious with only one observer ""who looks at an infinite number of objects"" not just one".
I suspect these two approaches are two sides of the same coin. The fact that that Jordan raises the notion of SIMULTANEITY means that relativity must somehow be involved and the fact that Jung raises the notion of an Observer indicates that SIMULTANIETY may be involved.
The basis of the causal universe is rooted in the notion of a universe where answers come AFTER questions. On the other hand, an acausal universe allows for answers to come BEFORE questions. An acausal event, such as synchronicity, may actually be an indicator of something more fundamental. Something more relativistic!
It's just a hunch.
Thanks so much! I learned a lot myself from making videos in this format. And yes, there is definitely an interplay between relativity and synchronicity (I believe at one point Jung suggested that Einstein's theory was the first inspiration for his own).
The personal aspect of synchronicity is sort of the first impression, especially for someone who has inherited an otherwise secular and scientific tradition (the child of Western culture, perhaps). I'm thinking of someone for whom the possibility of synchronicity has never occurred; someone who believes that coincidences are objective experiences in themselves, and that this explanation is sufficient in all cases where it ought to be applied.
It seems that the mystery of synchronicity comes from the observation of (apparently impossible) causality from outside of the 'light cone' for a given past event. Dismissing something as coincidence is an attempt to 'save' the light cone of your understanding, which keeps your universe intact and stops paranoia and deception from cognitively 'eating away' at your understanding. So the wider implications of synchronicity and relativity may be complementary, since they both include a personal aspect as well as an objective (communal) aspect of our understanding.
to my 'weird understanding' the synchronicity is a kind of our conscious 'tuned in' to particular occasion/incident and we are aware of that incident..
my synchronicity with discrete number such as 11, 911 or even the number of date of birth either in digital display or UA-cam video length..😊
interestingly seem synchronicity also applied to 'instant karma' either good karma or bad karma..😊
very interesting. *check out catafalque for interesting perspective on jung
thank you for the feedback and some new research!