From: Steve Peterson (speterson@fast.net)
Date: Sat Dec 07 2002 - 22:14:27 GMT
>> Steve:
>> What I am taking issue with is the idea that what makes a given coincidence
>> meaningful is a perceived low probability. Making a probabilistic argument
>> for how meaningful something is is nonsense.
>
>> Steve:
>> I still can't see how the examples you gave are *meaningful* coincidences.
>> What do they mean? (If not to simply point to some mysterious force in the
>> universe that wants to make neat coincidences happen)
>
>
> I am not sure if I am understading you but it
> seems you want to know what meaning is....
> That's really hard to answer...
> to me your guess seems partially right...
> I think meaning is about the interconnectedness of
> everything and harmony/experiencing meaning is feeling
> an interconnected. The synchroninistic events are
> when you feel it particularly strong.
>
> #1Let's say you are thinking about
> your friend Joe who you haven't seen in 20 years and
> decide to give him call.
>
> #2 Let's sya you are thinking aout your friend Joe who
> you haven't seen in 20 years and when you pick up
> the phone to call him he is on the line asking for you
> because "out of the blue" decided to call you
>
>
> Now you want to say well #2 has low prob so it is more
> meaninful.
I'm saying that it makes no sense to apply probabilistic thinking in either
case.
> But that's not all there is to it.
> I can 'trace' the causal events that led to hearing
> Joe's voice on the phone in 1 but not in 2.
I don't think that the average person reporting such an experience thinks of
it as acausal at all. The person thinks that the friend somehow was brought
to call because the person was thinking about him or the person was thinking
about the friend because the friend was thinking of calling. This is
non-local causality but not acausal thinking. Do you think there is a
difference or is non-local what you mean by acausal?
> Thus the sycnronicity of 2 does give you a feeling
> of interconnectness/force in the universe.
>
> And its not all just odds. (unless you choose it to be)
> It's not just low probability by the way.
> It's about acausal relationships.
A feeling of interconnectedness is great to have. My point is that if it is
authentic it is merely "not just low probability," it is not about
probability at all. None of its authentic meaning can be derived from
faulty perception of likelihood.
In fact, as soon as you start thinking how unlikely something would be to
have occurred by chance, you are thinking causally and basing your thinking
on the idea that chance exists. In effect, you are asking what is the
probability that chance doesn't really exist. Nonsense. You can't have it
both ways. You can't make a statistical argument that chance is an
illusion. If you thought it was an illusion then you wouldn't think in
terms of likelihood at all when dealing with meaning.
I teach statistics, and in the materialist sense I don't think that
randomness exists. I think randomness is a useful concept for quantifying
unpredictability but not in looking for meaning in the world.
Steve
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 07 2002 - 22:03:56 GMT