What Are Coincidences, and How Much in Life Is Coincidence or Something More?

[Gary Childress]

but I see understanding life as being an ongoing quest.

Interesting. I've long since given up on understanding life/existence or whatever I am in. I'm mostly just biding time until my end. I was diagnosed with mental illness at age 25, put on meds like Haldol and it pretty much destroyed me. My highest hope in life is that my death will not be too painful or unbearable. Aside from that, I really don't see much else worthy of aspiring to. I used to be filled with curiosity and wonder. It's amazing what 30+ years of anti-psychotics will do to a brain.

[Age]

"Everything is an omen." For every yin, there must be a yang. The occult.

This is because It all comes down to, every thing has an opposite, which together sit in equilibrium, as One.

[Age]

When I speak of uncertainty, I am speaking of the basis of epistemology, based on Kant's idea of the limitations of the mind, as well as Socrates' 'I know nothing'.

Well by passing the Wrong parts of this, there is one thing that is KNOWN.

However, humans do have quest for the closest idea of truth, although there are psychological aspects of this.

I definitely wish to expand my knowledge through learning on the forum.

Well, OBVIOUSLY, if you informed the readers in the forum what knowledge that you would like to expand on, exactly, then this will speed up the process of you expanding 'your knowledge', here, tremendously.

Also, why not just wish to expand 'your knowledge', through learning, just EVERYWHERE, anyway?

That is not for ONCE and FOR ALL from my perspective because I see philosophy as being a lifetime exploration with openness to modification in the light of new knowledge.

So, then NEVER hold a presumption nor belief, and then you WILL BE a True "philosopher", having a True 'love-of-learning', and ALWAYS OPENS to LEARNING, DISCOVERING, UNCOVERING, and REVEALING MORE, and ANEW.

As far as your remark about coincidences, causation is definitely central. There are chains of causation and this is based on the idea, 'As you reap so shall you so'.

The One chain of 'causation' is NOT based on any idea, AT ALL. The 'chain of causation' exists because of, or is based upon, the Fact that there just could not be any other way.

This is also the basis of the concept of karma which is more than the shallow interpretation of it as being about punishment. It is bound up with ripple-like effects of all actions, with consciousness as well as material factors in causation.

Also, 'karma', 'heaven', 'hell', and 'after life' are in relation to human beings collectively and NOT individually, as well.

It is an esoteric concept or idea but such ideas are difficult to prove.

NOT when one has obtained the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth of the True idea and True concept of those words, ideas, and concepts. In fact PROVING them is a Truly VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY process, indeed. In fact, and as WILL BE SHOWN and PROVED, those NON-ESOTERIC concepts and ideas are ACTUALLY SELF-PROVEN, and PROVED.

This may make it problematic for some in philosophy but being able to prove something does not mean that it was true or untrue. It involves being aware that it is speculative and the twentieth century philosopher, AJ Ayer, saw metaphysical speculation as problematic. Nevertheless, he does admit that humans are likely to speculate.

And, TO SPECULATE is the SAME as TO assume, presume, guess, theorize, hypothesize, or any of the other just IMAGINING thing/s to be true.

Which, as I have been POINTING OUT, SHOWING, and PROVING here only SLOWS DOWN, PREVENTS, and/or STOPS you human beings from actually SEEING the ACTUAL Truth of things. See, if one is PRESUMING, or worse still, BELIEVING that they already know the truth of some thing, then they are NOT FULLY OPEN to KEEP LOOKING, properly and Correctly.

So many, if not ALL, of Life's ACTUAL Truths get MISSED, MISINTERPRETED, and/or MISUNDERSTOOD solely because of BELIEFS, and PRESUMPTIONS.

Speculation and the idea of the KNOWN is a fine line because all understanding of facts is about involves interpretation.

Are you saying and claiming here that 'facts', themselves, are just 'interpretations', themselves.

It is possible to get too caught up by the area of beliefs, which are both culturally based and subjective.

So, why, EXACTLY, do you get too caught up by your beliefs?

Presumptions get in the way so often and can be a stumbling block in openness in understanding.

Presumptions can prevent and block 'openness' in ANY thing, not just in 'understanding'.

My own approach is to recognise when one is speculating in order to not fall into traps of presumptions. This may be as far as it goes because to only accept that which is proven may rule out so much of what is UNKNOWN.

Here 'we' have ANOTHER one who is MISSING THE MARK, and MISSING THE POINT, here.

[Age]

It's a good thread Jack and you are making very salient points, well done thus far. Some are too arrogant and well, plain daft to analyse the nature of reality to comprehend what it is indeed that you are actually questioning.

But, there is NOTHING, REALLY, to question here. Except, of course, your human being's BELIEFS, and PRESUMPTIONS.

The 'nature' of 'Reality', Itself, is just an always continual evolving-creation, (One action-reaction, and, cause-effect), process. With ABSOLUTELY NOTHING being a so-called 'coincidence' BECAUSE every thing was caused-to-be be-cause of pre-existing conditions, circumstances, and/or events.

[Age]

but I see understanding life as being an ongoing quest.

Interesting. I've long since given up on understanding life/existence or whatever I am in.

Also, once 'Life/Existence' are 'understood', FULLY, then there is no 'ongoing quest', and so 'giving up' 'any quest of understanding' is just Natural.

I'm mostly just biding time until my end. I was diagnosed with mental illness at age 25, put on meds like Haldol and it pretty much destroyed me. My highest hope in life is that my death will not be too painful or unbearable. Aside from that, I really don't see much else worthy of aspiring to. I used to be filled with curiosity and wonder. It's amazing what 30+ years of anti-psychotics will do to a brain.

But, MANY, MANY adult human beings lose their curiosity and wonder. And, not because of drugs, but just because of Truly FAULTY 'educational-systems', mostly.

[Jack Daydream]

Well by passing the Wrong parts of this, there is one thing that is KNOWN.



Well, OBVIOUSLY, if you informed the readers in the forum what knowledge that you would like to expand on, exactly, then this will speed up the process of you expanding 'your knowledge', here, tremendously.

Also, why not just wish to expand 'your knowledge', through learning, just EVERYWHERE, anyway?



So, then NEVER hold a presumption nor belief, and then you WILL BE a True "philosopher", having a True 'love-of-learning', and ALWAYS OPENS to LEARNING, DISCOVERING, UNCOVERING, and REVEALING MORE, and ANEW.


The One chain of 'causation' is NOT based on any idea, AT ALL. The 'chain of causation' exists because of, or is based upon, the Fact that there just could not be any other way.


Also, 'karma', 'heaven', 'hell', and 'after life' are in relation to human beings collectively and NOT individually, as well.



NOT when one has obtained the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth of the True idea and True concept of those words, ideas, and concepts. In fact PROVING them is a Truly VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY process, indeed. In fact, and as WILL BE SHOWN and PROVED, those NON-ESOTERIC concepts and ideas are ACTUALLY SELF-PROVEN, and PROVED.


And, TO SPECULATE is the SAME as TO assume, presume, guess, theorize, hypothesize, or any of the other just IMAGINING thing/s to be true.

Which, as I have been POINTING OUT, SHOWING, and PROVING here only SLOWS DOWN, PREVENTS, and/or STOPS you human beings from actually SEEING the ACTUAL Truth of things. See, if one is PRESUMING, or worse still, BELIEVING that they already know the truth of some thing, then they are NOT FULLY OPEN to KEEP LOOKING, properly and Correctly.

So many, if not ALL, of Life's ACTUAL Truths get MISSED, MISINTERPRETED, and/or MISUNDERSTOOD solely because of BELIEFS, and PRESUMPTIONS.

Speculation and the idea of the KNOWN is a fine line because all understanding of facts is about involves interpretation.

Are you saying and claiming here that 'facts', themselves, are just 'interpretations', themselves.

It is possible to get too caught up by the area of beliefs, which are both culturally based and subjective.

So, why, EXACTLY, do you get too caught up by your beliefs?

Presumptions get in the way so often and can be a stumbling block in openness in understanding.

Presumptions can prevent and block 'openness' in ANY thing, not just in 'understanding'.

My own approach is to recognise when one is speculating in order to not fall into traps of presumptions. This may be as far as it goes because to only accept that which is proven may rule out so much of what is UNKNOWN.

Here 'we' have ANOTHER one who is MISSING THE MARK, and MISSING THE POINT, here.

I am claiming that what are facts are interpretation. Okay, there are certain established ones, or intersubjective ones, but so many areas of debate. The nature of discussions on this site and other philosophy sites shows this. While you attempt to argue for what you see as certain, you are speculating yourself. My own emphasis on admitting uncertainty in many areas, which was not pointed out clearly in my outpost because I didn't wish to ramble on, is about honesty, which I see as important in critical thinking, and more about willingness to be open, as opposed to a rigid attachment to any one clear position.

[Jack Daydream]

It's a good thread Jack and you are making very salient points, well done thus far. Some are too arrogant and well, plain daft to analyse the nature of reality to comprehend what it is indeed that you are actually questioning.

I appreciate your positive approach to my thread because at one point I felt rather demoralised by what I saw as 'attacks'. Also, I guess that I should be grateful that my thread is still active. It may have been worse if I had not received any replies rather than criticisms.

One of the weaknesses of my thread may be a lack of backing up with research or reading. I have been reading Arthur Koestler' s ' The Roots of Coincidence' (1972). This may be considered a little outdated but philosophy is not about the latest ideas like some areas of research. The approach of Koestler is one which looks at parapsychology, the idea of synchronicity and quantum uncertainty.

In particular, Koestler draws upon the way in which understanding of causation is different in the light of quantum physics from the mechanistic thinking of Newtonian physics. He quotes the well known physicist, Heisenberg, ' When we get down to the atomic level, the objective world in space and time no longer exists, and the mathematical symbols of theoretical physics refers to possibilities, not facts'. Determinism is limited in its understanding of how 'life' or 'reality' works, with so much being unexplained.

[Jack Daydream]

but I see understanding life as being an ongoing quest.

Interesting. I've long since given up on understanding life/existence or whatever I am in. I'm mostly just biding time until my end. I was diagnosed with mental illness at age 25, put on meds like Haldol and it pretty much destroyed me. My highest hope in life is that my death will not be too painful or unbearable. Aside from that, I really don't see much else worthy of aspiring to. I used to be filled with curiosity and wonder. It's amazing what 30+ years of anti-psychotics will do to a brain.

Thanks for your honest perspective. I am familiar with people being diagnosed with mental health issues, especially psychosis. I have close friends with such diagnoses and I have worked in mental health care. I do have a history of depression but so far have not been diagnosed with psychotic illness or prescribed with antipsychotics, which act as a filter or block on certain aspects of thought, often to make it less intense.

While mental health or illness has a biochemical component, understanding of life is complicated, so it is not surprising that people end up with difficulties in thinking and delusions. This is particularly acute in the context of cultural relativism and pluralism, in which there are so many different competing ideas about the nature of 'reality', from which to interpret one's own life experiences.

[attofishpi]

It's a good thread Jack and you are making very salient points, well done thus far. Some are too arrogant and well, plain daft to analyse the nature of reality to comprehend what it is indeed that you are actually questioning.

I appreciate your positive approach to my thread because at one point I felt rather demoralised by what I saw as 'attacks'. Also, I guess that I should be grateful that my thread is still active. It may have been worse if I had not received any replies rather than criticisms.

One of the weaknesses of my thread may be a lack of backing up with research or reading. I have been reading Arthur Koestler' s ' The Roots of Coincidence' (1972). This may be considered a little outdated but philosophy is not about the latest ideas like some areas of research. The approach of Koestler is one which looks at parapsychology, the idea of synchronicity and quantum uncertainty.

In particular, Koestler draws upon the way in which understanding of causation is different in the light of quantum physics from the mechanistic thinking of Newtonian physics. He quotes the well known physicist, Heisenberg, ' When we get down to the atomic level, the objective world in space and time no longer exists, and the mathematical symbols of theoretical physics refers to possibilities, not facts'. Determinism is limited in its understanding of how 'life' or 'reality' works, with so much being unexplained.

It's a good thread Jack and you are making very salient points, well done thus far. Some are too arrogant and well, plain daft to analyse the nature of reality to comprehend what it is indeed that you are actually questioning.

I appreciate your positive approach to my thread because at one point I felt rather demoralised by what I saw as 'attacks'. Also, I guess that I should be grateful that my thread is still active. It may have been worse if I had not received any replies rather than criticisms.

One of the weaknesses of my thread may be a lack of backing up with research or reading. I have been reading Arthur Koestler' s ' The Roots of Coincidence' (1972). This may be considered a little outdated but philosophy is not about the latest ideas like some areas of research. The approach of Koestler is one which looks at parapsychology, the idea of synchronicity and quantum uncertainty.

In particular, Koestler draws upon the way in which understanding of causation is different in the light of quantum physics from the mechanistic thinking of Newtonian physics. He quotes the well known physicist, Heisenberg, ' When we get down to the atomic level, the objective world in space and time no longer exists, and the mathematical symbols of theoretical physics refers to possibilities, not facts'. Determinism is limited in its understanding of how 'life' or 'reality' works, with so much being unexplained.

OMG ------

Jack, I'm starting to think I may not be the only SAGE on the forum

[Age]

Speculation and the idea of the KNOWN is a fine line because all understanding of facts is about involves interpretation.

Are you saying and claiming here that 'facts', themselves, are just 'interpretations', themselves.

It is possible to get too caught up by the area of beliefs, which are both culturally based and subjective.

So, why, EXACTLY, do you get too caught up by your beliefs?

Presumptions get in the way so often and can be a stumbling block in openness in understanding.

Presumptions can prevent and block 'openness' in ANY thing, not just in 'understanding'.

My own approach is to recognise when one is speculating in order to not fall into traps of presumptions. This may be as far as it goes because to only accept that which is proven may rule out so much of what is UNKNOWN.

Here 'we' have ANOTHER one who is MISSING THE MARK, and MISSING THE POINT, here.

I am claiming that what are facts are interpretation.

I am not disputing this.

Okay, there are certain established ones, or intersubjective ones, but so many areas of debate.

And, all of the so-called 'certain ones', and the so-called 'intersubjective ones', are interpretations also.

As for what you human beings 'debate', then this is just because you have so-called 'facts', which just cannot be proved nor verified as being True, Right, Accurate, nor Correct..

The nature of discussions on this site and other philosophy sites shows this.

Which, by definition, 'debating' should be the very last thing done on a philosophy forum, or better not being done at all, on a philosophy forum.

If one is 'looking for' truth/s and/or fact/s, then they would not be 'debating'. Or, if one has or knows a Truth or a Fact, then they MUST also have what 'it' is, which backs up and supports that Truth or Fact, IRREFUTABLY, so, again, there would be no 'debating'.

Also, there are a tremendous amount of other things that you adult human beings are doing, in the days that this is being written, which would be best not done at all, or at least being done in other ways.

While you attempt to argue for what you see as certain, you are speculating yourself.

Will you provide any examples of when, where, and what I am, supposedly, attempting to argue for?

If no, then, literally, 'we' have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to LOOK AT and DISCUSS here, and all 'we' have, also, is 'your speculation, and allegation, alone, and, literally, ONLY.

So, 'we' await what examples you provide, if any, of course.

My own emphasis on admitting uncertainty in many areas, which was not pointed out clearly in my outpost because I didn't wish to ramble on, is about honesty, which I see as important in critical thinking, and more about willingness to be open, as opposed to a rigid attachment to any one clear position.

1. 'Debating', by definition, is having an attachment to a position, being rigid to that position, while attempting to argue, and/or fight, for that position. Which is what you say and claim is the nature of discussions on this site and other philosophy sites shows this.

2. If you are uncertain in many areas, then this is, literally, PERFECTLY NORMAL. So, it is, literally, not some thing that needs to be announced, acknowledged, nor to feel like one is being open and honest admitting such a normal and trivial thing as this.

[Age]

It's a good thread Jack and you are making very salient points, well done thus far. Some are too arrogant and well, plain daft to analyse the nature of reality to comprehend what it is indeed that you are actually questioning.

I appreciate your positive approach to my thread because at one point I felt rather demoralised by what I saw as 'attacks'.

As long as you are aware that what you might perceive as being 'attacks' might well be just questions and/or challenges to your view/s or perspective/s, only, then you will feel 'less attacked'.

Also, I guess that I should be grateful that my thread is still active. It may have been worse if I had not received any replies rather than criticisms.

Could what you perceive as 'criticism' might well not be?

One of the weaknesses of my thread may be a lack of backing up with research or reading. I have been reading Arthur Koestler' s ' The Roots of Coincidence' (1972). This may be considered a little outdated but philosophy is not about the latest ideas like some areas of research. The approach of Koestler is one which looks at parapsychology, the idea of synchronicity and quantum uncertainty.

In particular, Koestler draws upon the way in which understanding of causation is different in the light of quantum physics from the mechanistic thinking of Newtonian physics. He quotes the well known physicist, Heisenberg, ' When we get down to the atomic level, the objective world in space and time no longer exists, and the mathematical symbols of theoretical physics refers to possibilities, not facts'. Determinism is limited in its understanding of how 'life' or 'reality' works, with so much being unexplained.

In 'your world' "jack daydream" could what these other human beings have said or written been false, wrong, inaccurate, incorrect, inconclusive?

If yes, then why write here what they have said or written?

But, if no, then are you absolutely sure?

[Age]

but I see understanding life as being an ongoing quest.

Interesting. I've long since given up on understanding life/existence or whatever I am in. I'm mostly just biding time until my end. I was diagnosed with mental illness at age 25, put on meds like Haldol and it pretty much destroyed me. My highest hope in life is that my death will not be too painful or unbearable. Aside from that, I really don't see much else worthy of aspiring to. I used to be filled with curiosity and wonder. It's amazing what 30+ years of anti-psychotics will do to a brain.

Thanks for your honest perspective. I am familiar with people being diagnosed with mental health issues, especially psychosis. I have close friends with such diagnoses and I have worked in mental health care. I do have a history of depression but so far have not been diagnosed with psychotic illness or prescribed with antipsychotics, which act as a filter or block on certain aspects of thought, often to make it less intense.

While mental health or illness has a biochemical component, understanding of life is complicated, so it is not surprising that people end up with difficulties in thinking and delusions.

Understanding 'Life', Itself, is NOT complicated, NOR hard, at all.

In fact the understanding of 'Life' is, and was, about one of the most simplest, and easiest, things to comprehend, and to comes to terms with, literally.

This is particularly acute in the context of cultural relativism and pluralism, in which there are so many different competing ideas about the nature of 'reality', from which to interpret one's own life experiences.

ONCE MORE, what 'it' is, which ALL agree with, is what is True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, in 'Life'.

(Now watch how this will get misinterpreted, and taken out of context, ONCE AGAIN.)

[Jack Daydream]

Well by passing the Wrong parts of this, there is one thing that is KNOWN.



Well, OBVIOUSLY, if you informed the readers in the forum what knowledge that you would like to expand on, exactly, then this will speed up the process of you expanding 'your knowledge', here, tremendously.

Also, why not just wish to expand 'your knowledge', through learning, just EVERYWHERE, anyway?



So, then NEVER hold a presumption nor belief, and then you WILL BE a True "philosopher", having a True 'love-of-learning', and ALWAYS OPENS to LEARNING, DISCOVERING, UNCOVERING, and REVEALING MORE, and ANEW.


The One chain of 'causation' is NOT based on any idea, AT ALL. The 'chain of causation' exists because of, or is based upon, the Fact that there just could not be any other way.


Also, 'karma', 'heaven', 'hell', and 'after life' are in relation to human beings collectively and NOT individually, as well.



NOT when one has obtained the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth of the True idea and True concept of those words, ideas, and concepts. In fact PROVING them is a Truly VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY process, indeed. In fact, and as WILL BE SHOWN and PROVED, those NON-ESOTERIC concepts and ideas are ACTUALLY SELF-PROVEN, and PROVED.


And, TO SPECULATE is the SAME as TO assume, presume, guess, theorize, hypothesize, or any of the other just IMAGINING thing/s to be true.

Which, as I have been POINTING OUT, SHOWING, and PROVING here only SLOWS DOWN, PREVENTS, and/or STOPS you human beings from actually SEEING the ACTUAL Truth of things. See, if one is PRESUMING, or worse still, BELIEVING that they already know the truth of some thing, then they are NOT FULLY OPEN to KEEP LOOKING, properly and Correctly.

So many, if not ALL, of Life's ACTUAL Truths get MISSED, MISINTERPRETED, and/or MISUNDERSTOOD solely because of BELIEFS, and PRESUMPTIONS.

Speculation and the idea of the KNOWN is a fine line because all understanding of facts is about involves interpretation.

Are you saying and claiming here that 'facts', themselves, are just 'interpretations', themselves.

It is possible to get too caught up by the area of beliefs, which are both culturally based and subjective.

So, why, EXACTLY, do you get too caught up by your beliefs?

Presumptions get in the way so often and can be a stumbling block in openness in understanding.

Presumptions can prevent and block 'openness' in ANY thing, not just in 'understanding'.

My own approach is to recognise when one is speculating in order to not fall into traps of presumptions. This may be as far as it goes because to only accept that which is proven may rule out so much of what is UNKNOWN.

Here 'we' have ANOTHER one who is MISSING THE MARK, and MISSING THE POINT, here.

I am claiming that facts are interpretations because only so much is objective. For example, if two people witness an incident, while certain details will be agreed, such as the date, the exactness of so much will vary. With CCTV cameras and some artificial intelligence this may change, but it still comes down to the human use, and even misuse, of facts, including deception.

When I speak of getting caught up by beliefs I am talking about factors in cultural conditioning, as well as subjective biases. Yes, presumptions do block 'openness'.

[Jack Daydream]

It's a good thread Jack and you are making very salient points, well done thus far. Some are too arrogant and well, plain daft to analyse the nature of reality to comprehend what it is indeed that you are actually questioning.

I appreciate your positive approach to my thread because at one point I felt rather demoralised by what I saw as 'attacks'.

As long as you are aware that what you might perceive as being 'attacks' might well be just questions and/or challenges to your view/s or perspective/s, only, then you will feel 'less attacked'.

Also, I guess that I should be grateful that my thread is still active. It may have been worse if I had not received any replies rather than criticisms.

Could what you perceive as 'criticism' might well not be?

One of the weaknesses of my thread may be a lack of backing up with research or reading. I have been reading Arthur Koestler' s ' The Roots of Coincidence' (1972). This may be considered a little outdated but philosophy is not about the latest ideas like some areas of research. The approach of Koestler is one which looks at parapsychology, the idea of synchronicity and quantum uncertainty.

In particular, Koestler draws upon the way in which understanding of causation is different in the light of quantum physics from the mechanistic thinking of Newtonian physics. He quotes the well known physicist, Heisenberg, ' When we get down to the atomic level, the objective world in space and time no longer exists, and the mathematical symbols of theoretical physics refers to possibilities, not facts'. Determinism is limited in its understanding of how 'life' or 'reality' works, with so much being unexplained.

In 'your world' "jack daydream" could what these other human beings have said or written been false, wrong, inaccurate, incorrect, inconclusive?

If yes, then why write here what they have said or written?

But, if no, then are you absolutely sure?

I definitely should move away from feeling 'attacked' and it comes down to mindset. When I write on the forum it is with a view to interactive discussion, which involves examination of differing viewpoints. That is what i mean by debate, which is about subtlety of thinking positions as opposed to forceful defense of one's own opinion. It involves dialogue as a way of learning.

With regard to books, they are worth reading as a way of seeing how others thought. They are very far from absolute. It is also significant that some of the most important teachers, including Socrates, Jesus and the Buddha didn't write but were oral teachers. Varying methods are useful. My personal position is that in the present time of so much information, there is a bombardment of all kinds and reliance on Wikipaedia for ideas at one's fingertips. What this lacks is the more intimate connection with ideas, based on understanding in relation to lived experiences. It is possible for this to happen on a philosophy site, although media sites have some limitations. That is because communication is so remote between isolated individuals. What is good about it is it a way of linking people from diverse backgrounds from across the world. The diversity itself may be too much at times, making it like the Tower of Babel, not about language simply, but about so much variation in angles and backgrounds.

[Age]

I appreciate your positive approach to my thread because at one point I felt rather demoralised by what I saw as 'attacks'.

As long as you are aware that what you might perceive as being 'attacks' might well be just questions and/or challenges to your view/s or perspective/s, only, then you will feel 'less attacked'.

Also, I guess that I should be grateful that my thread is still active. It may have been worse if I had not received any replies rather than criticisms.

Could what you perceive as 'criticism' might well not be?

One of the weaknesses of my thread may be a lack of backing up with research or reading. I have been reading Arthur Koestler' s ' The Roots of Coincidence' (1972). This may be considered a little outdated but philosophy is not about the latest ideas like some areas of research. The approach of Koestler is one which looks at parapsychology, the idea of synchronicity and quantum uncertainty.

In particular, Koestler draws upon the way in which understanding of causation is different in the light of quantum physics from the mechanistic thinking of Newtonian physics. He quotes the well known physicist, Heisenberg, ' When we get down to the atomic level, the objective world in space and time no longer exists, and the mathematical symbols of theoretical physics refers to possibilities, not facts'. Determinism is limited in its understanding of how 'life' or 'reality' works, with so much being unexplained.

In 'your world' "jack daydream" could what these other human beings have said or written been false, wrong, inaccurate, incorrect, inconclusive?

If yes, then why write here what they have said or written?

But, if no, then are you absolutely sure?

I definitely should move away from feeling 'attacked' and it comes down to mindset. When I write on the forum it is with a view to interactive discussion, which involves examination of differing viewpoints. That is what i mean by debate, which is about subtlety of thinking positions as opposed to forceful defense of one's own opinion. It involves dialogue as a way of learning.

Okay, but when people are 'debating' a topic, or a subject, in a formal arrangement, do they fight for or defend 'a position', or

With regard to books, they are worth reading as a way of seeing how others thought. They are very far from absolute. It is also significant that some of the most important teachers, including Socrates, Jesus and the Buddha didn't write but were oral teachers.

And, maybe more significance lies in this than is, and was, first realized as well.

Varying methods are useful. My personal position is that in the present time of so much information, there is a bombardment of all kinds and reliance on Wikipaedia for ideas at one's fingertips. What this lacks is the more intimate connection with ideas, based on understanding in relation to lived experiences. It is possible for this to happen on a philosophy site, although media sites have some limitations. That is because communication is so remote between isolated individuals. What is good about it is it a way of linking people from diverse backgrounds from across the world. The diversity itself may be too much at times, making it like the Tower of Babel, not about language simply, but about so much variation in angles and backgrounds.

Okay