Synchronicity and planes

[durangodawood]

I agree with you. I blame Rush.

Haha I was going to add "for Chesterton" to my post but I knew youd find your way to it somehow.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I dont see what that proverb has to do with synchronicity.

Well... synchonicity is nonsense.

 

[durangodawood]

Well... synchonicity is nonsense.

Agreed. But that doesnt mean its not real.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Agreed. But that doesnt mean its not real.

It's a real Police album.

 

[Chesterton]

But of course planes shouldn't land upside down in the first place.

I'm much more woke than you. When it comes to up and down, I'm non-binary. A plane can land upside down if it chooses to.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm much more woke than you. When it comes to up and down, I'm non-binary. A plane can land upside down if it chooses to.

Planes don't have free will. Do any of us? (Let's do all of the CF fights at once!)

 

[durangodawood]

It's a real Police album.

That one isnt nonsense tho imo.

I was referring to the one we both think is nonsense.

 

[durangodawood]

I'm much more woke than you. When it comes to up and down, I'm non-binary. A plane can land upside down if it chooses to.

If you dont mind killing lots of people then sure, we can have planes land any which way.

 

[Chesterton]

If you dont mind killing lots of people then sure, we can have planes land any which way.

Ideology first. Think of the ideology, don't think of the potential damage.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Whats an example of how this could work?

I'm not the inventor but it seems that the prime example right now is that every airplane crash that happens from now on is automatically Trump's fault. Metal fatigue or pilot error or whatever have become irrelevant.

 

[Desk trauma]

Agreed. But that doesnt mean its not real.

It’s real form has another name, conformation bias.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Agreed. But that doesnt mean its not real.

... in the mind of synchronicisists.

 

[durangodawood]

It’s real form has another name, conformation bias.

But thats not nonsense. Its completely rationally explicable. So its not the same thing Hans and I agreed is nonsense.

 

[chevyontheriver]

But thats not nonsense. Its completely rationally explicable. So its not the same thing Hans and I agreed is nonsense.

How about 'confirmation' bias? Not to be too conforming.

 

[Desk trauma]

But thats not nonsense. It’s completely rationally explicable. So it’s not the same thing Hans and I agreed is nonsense.

It’s renaming flaws in thinking, finding patterns or meaning where they are absent, as some supernatural reality.

 

[durangodawood]

How about 'confirmation' bias? Not to be too conforming.

I allowed for that.

 

[durangodawood]

It’s renaming flaws in thinking, finding patterns or meaning where they are absent, as some supernatural reality.

For sure I think that happens - a lot.

But I'm talking about a-causal patterns of meaning that could actually happen and inhere in the world "out there". Those would be "nonsense" in that they are not rationally explicable. I think these are possible in that I dont believe every real thing is within the power of the human mind to grasp. Ungraspable things would be "nonsense" to us even if they are real.

 

[Landon Caeli]

For sure I think that happens - a lot.

But I'm talking about a-causal patterns of meaning that could actually happen and inhere in the world "out there". Those would be "nonsense" in that they are not rationally explicable. I think these are possible in that I dont believe every real thing is within the power of the human mind to grasp. Ungraspable things would be "nonsense" to us even if they are real.

Of course it happens. Look at convergent evolution. Where flowers develop with colors over and over, unrelated... Everything you see in this world has happened at least twice, independently... *Everything*....

There are clearly invisible forces. Repeating, over and over.

 

[durangodawood]

For sure I think that happens - a lot.

But I'm talking about a-causal patterns of meaning that could actually happen and inhere in the world "out there". Those would be "nonsense" in that they are not rationally explicable. I think these are possible in that I dont believe every real thing is within the power of the human mind to grasp. Ungraspable things would be "nonsense" to us even if they are real.

I'm definitely wary of the tendency for humans to take this idea and run with it whenever it pleases them - especially when rational inquiry produces results they don't like. Then theyre just doing reality avoidance. This happens all the time and we can see it here at CF in abundance

 

[durangodawood]

Of course it happens. Look at convergent evolution. Where flowers develop with colors over and over, unrelated... Everything you see in this world has happened at least twice... *Everything*....

There are clearly invisible forces. Repeating, over and over.

There's almost certainly rational explanations for why that^ happens. Leaping first to a-causal or other unknowable "explanations" is really lazy - and almost certainly wrong, given what we do know.

These forces just seem "invisible" because they operate at scales beyond the naked human senses. Like over long times or very short distances.

That said, I dont rule out genuinely non-intelligible "forces" at work in the world.