Coincidence? What's That?

[Vinayaka]

Thank you.

So when you use the word "coincidence " here, you mean that there is just a non-zero probability. Is that correct?

In my personal view coincidence doesn't eliminate anything at all. Who knows?

On the very same day I met the person at the temple in India, that morning on the way from Madurai to Tiruchendur, we drove by a small Ganesha temple. Half a mile past, I had the driver tun around, as I had a very strong sense to go there. Turns out the priest had spent time in America working with the monks of my sampradaya, so we 'gossiped'. Later that same day I was swarmed by Saiva monks of South India. Now to me personally, none of this is coincidence. My wife told me 6 times over coffee on 6 and only 6 different occasions that she was pregnant. So for mystic Hindus, all this stuff is just the work of the Lord of Obstacles, and just normal stuff. Lots of folks consider it normal, so normal they don't feel any need to talk about it. But I'm all fine with anyone claiming it BS and coincidence too. It's a free planet.

Psychically, it's explained as there only being one mind, and folks can enter that same area of mind at the same time. Moreso, if there is some connection. Most married folk will attest to sometimes or often knowing what the other is thinking, despite being physically apart.

 

[George-ananda]

I definitely conclude that one should evaluate occurrences such as described in the OP in accordance with our best evidence and logic. @George-ananda described the shared death experience as "paranormal" (I don't like that term -- I think it's prejudicial), other people might say the OP describes an example of anomalous cognition, but according to our best scientific evidence and theories, and sheer logic, in which physicalism entails panpsychism, I see no reason to use such term as "paranormal" or "anomalous".

Well, in discussing these things word choice is often tricky and a matter of the poster's habits.

In my use of the word 'paranormal', I am just using the word in the colloquial way pretty much as things that don't fit in our standard understanding of how reality works. Ghosts, Shared Death Experiences, etc. are what I call 'paranormal'.

Yes, if we get more technical and beyond colloquial speech, I feel what I call 'paranormal' is really all part of the 'normal' in a more expanded view of reality. If it exists, it is part of the 'normal'.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But I have a better question for you: Of all the people you have ever known but haven't talked to or thought about in at least 10 years, how many of times have you had a vivid dream about one of them at approximately the time that the person died?

I haven't had anyone in my life with such an emotional connection who has also been absent that long.
And you are ignoring my statement that children dream of their parents (and vice versa). It's normal. It happens. Even absent and not talking, he's still her dad and she's still his daughter. That doesn't change.

 

[George-ananda]

George, for a long time I've wanted to mention to you that I don't like the word paranormal. No offense.

Is there a replacement word you would like?

 

[Nous]

I haven't had anyone in my life with such an emotional connection who has also been absent that long.
And you are ignoring my statement that children dream of their parents (and vice versa). It's normal. It happens.

I have never seen any data on how "normal" it is for persons to dream of a parent. But it doesn't matter, because that has nothing to do with the topic here -- of trying to "explain" highly unusual occurrences such as described in the OP by claiming that it was a "coincidence."

You might become clearer on what the topic is if you were to try answering the questions I asked in the OP.

 

[Nous]

Is there a replacement word you would like?

No, you have understood my offhand comment entirely; that's good enough for me.

Of course, I think I have seen data on the frequency of shared death experiences. I might use the phrase "not uncommon" to describe them -- merely in order to irritate those people whom that would irritate.

 

[George-ananda]

No, you have understood my offhand comment entirely; that's good enough for me.

Of course, I think I have seen data on the frequency of shared death experiences. I might use the phrase "not uncommon" to describe them -- merely in order to irritate those people whom that would irritate.

To belabor the point perhaps, ‘not uncommon’ to me would sound like I was saying it is somewhere in the realm of known phenomena (meaning still in the realm of things current science deals with).