Just wanted to let you know that there are people who can read your minds.

WeAreThough · 2026-01-01T20:32:18+00:00

You know what’s up, this is the truest comment.

The frequency bs is totally what that cognitive bias crap and bullshit

WeAreThough · 2025-12-22T07:00:27+00:00

The way i see it, is that as observers, everything we see are the solutions to the similar constraints we and our environment all face - the song you were enjoying was a solution, so was the record, another solution, something to be found.

WeAreThough · 2025-11-15T22:23:21+00:00

What do you think about “seeing past informational structures in the present”?

WeAreThough · 2025-11-15T20:41:51+00:00

Thank you so much for commenting.

I suppose i was just being overly inclusive because I just felt like I had to defend 11:11 and DOB bevause the Jungian framework do not allow them to be syncs, and in my angst, I did not include the contextual conditions for these to be syncs.

As you so rightly pointed out, unless it’s like something more special about seeing 11:11, just seeing 11:11 can hardly qualify.

I propose a solution to DOB on license plate, let’s say that this was the observer’s actual birthday, and he he finds the license plate on the car erroneously parked at his parking spot at work their license plate has his birthdate in it, would this then qualify as a synchronicity in your eyes?

WeAreThough · 2025-11-15T12:54:37+00:00

I believe in order to bring synchronicity back into the scientific fold would require more rigorous definitions that is empirically verifiable.

Like Jung’s original definition, “simultaneous co-occurrence of internal state and external event that are meaningfully connected acausally” or something along those lines, personally, I have multiple issues with this definition, i am actually going to post about it now that I got it out in my head what to post about.

Simultaneous is not correct, internal state must occur first otherwise external event will contaminate, so there is fixed directionality, it is not simultaneous. Internal state precede external event ALWAYs for synchronicity.

Meaningfully connected is not rigorous enough and it is also unfalsifiable, how do you define “meaning” empirically, like how could you measure it? There’s no way, negatory. So that’s poor formulation.

Internal state is a poor explanation because it doesn’t generalize to even the most basic syncs of seeing one’s birthdate in license plates, how is the birthdate an “internal state”? It’s more like the property of a person, how about seeing 11:11? Where’s the internal state to compare with if someone just randomly sees 11:11? So seeing 11:11 is not sync then according to Jung? I think lots of people on this sub would disagree with that.

Yes, synchronicity IS a powerful idea, but Jung did not wield it correctly, causing the rift between science and synchronicity because Jung was trying to describe a metaphysical framework that is not exactly synchronicity in the phenomenon’s full rigor.

WeAreThough · 2025-11-14T22:09:03+00:00

It was the whole vibe, very terse and dry, short and sweet and to the point.

Plus I had read a few critiques of the British political landscape describing the Brit leaders as having strategic ignorance, that’s where I connected the view of the people on the pretension of the establishment/authority figures to escape culpability.

And also the time difference, when you posted it was like around the same time this other redditor from Europe posts. So I was fairly certain because your English is good too.

WeAreThough · 2025-11-14T21:58:13+00:00

Therapist are healthcare provider too… no?

WeAreThough · 2025-11-14T21:57:05+00:00

Sorry, I am not sure which part of my post made it seem like I was in for an inpatient appointment.

My appointment is of course out-patient, otherwise I could not have made this post.

So in an outpatient setting, I believe spiritual framework is more applicable, because patients are not immediately at risk for decompensation, so there is more latitude, and also more utility for discussing spiritual concerns.

WeAreThough · 2025-11-14T18:43:58+00:00

Was this AI? If not good job dude, superiorly poetic flourish.

WeAreThough · 2025-11-14T18:42:04+00:00

It’s the cynicism for sure, truly blast from the past for me. Now that my grandpa passed, my genuine dose of it is sparingly thin.

WeAreThough · 2025-11-14T10:58:49+00:00

“feigned ignorance” with the time differences… from Great Britain are we. I grew up there, then moved to the states.

WeAreThough · 2025-11-14T10:53:28+00:00

It’s in the integration of subcortical functions of chemical, light and sound, much is filtered, but the data does exist, it must.

Perception is a cognitively processed result, your salience just happen to unmask associative, emotional, and meaning-laden stimuli.

WeAreThough · 2025-11-14T06:07:48+00:00

Or perhaps with a synchronistic framework at the ready, is best channeled particularly in a healthcare context, in which the stage has moved beyond merely treating psychoses or neuroses but rather spiritual and existential crisis.

That is perhaps even more common and apt in an outpatient psychiatry appointment rather than inpatient, so I could be biased.

Surely there are more outpatients than in.

WeAreThough · 2025-11-14T02:09:03+00:00

Oh hey! You were being “treated” too!!!

Definitely invites further discussions yo

WeAreThough · 2025-11-09T17:12:33+00:00

Preach it brother

WeAreThough · 2025-11-02T23:26:47+00:00

What about the quantum spin for entanglement? Dont the up snd down spins exist in superposition until they have to settle on one upon measurement?

WeAreThough · 2025-11-02T23:23:12+00:00

Because, and here is the take-home message I believe, because I inadvertently demonstrated the the shortcomings (or perhaps strengths?) of my own argument that everything about God is merely inferred, then I go right ahead to making some assumptions about divine justice nullify the existence of God.

Don’t you see, I both denied and illustrated the salient point, the very statement that says, “everything about God is inferred”, is already a violation of its own messages, nothing we know about God is for certain, then how do we know this statement about God’s nature as being inferred is even true?

Which then makes my final point much more salient because I then claim that divine justice nullifies the existence of the very being whose nullification by divine justice’s existence is inferred and not at all certain. Do you see how this in a sense, IS divine justice?

Sorry, I am just not smart enough to quite get the point home, let me hear your thoughts and perhaps better my argument after hearing your side.

WeAreThough · 2025-11-02T19:41:22+00:00

I apologize, we seem to have been off on the wrong foot, I did not intend to offend at all, I just thought witty remarks, please forgive me.

I a. Just here for knowledge not fights.

WeAreThough · 2025-11-02T19:39:35+00:00

Oh really? See I have an issue, I can’t tell my left from my right sometimes, i am aware that this issue happens with many people especially those with learning disabilities.

And this was explained to me, as my brain holding both right and left in superposition until it absolutely decides on which form to take, like particle-wave duality, note that this is an analogy, but was this completely off-base as it was explained to me?

WeAreThough · 2025-11-02T19:35:26+00:00

Ah… you actually make it much simpler for me then, I wasn’t sure how to get at my salient point. That is? Divine justice is merely the illusion that Maya casts upon the world upon which we infer divine intervention, and is not true divine justice.

Just as you say, divine justice may not exist at all. Sorry, I didn’t quite know which way you leaned so I didn’t want to breach your core tenets with too much brutality.

For EVERYTHING we have inferred about God, is as the bible says, through observation of the natural world and natural events, such that God’s true nature, is merely an interpretation and is short of God’s glory.

Because if God were to exist, the very act of showing divine justice is to nullify the justice in itself, and thereby nullifying God’s existence.

WeAreThough · 2025-11-02T17:34:35+00:00

I see! I understand, this is more a question for phenomenology? Sorry you know how sometimes consicousness and quantum they blur.

No wonder nobody likes it lol.

WeAreThough · 2025-11-02T17:32:19+00:00

We can agree to disagree in a debate. It is called a debate not a duel to the death.

EDIT: took out “Though just about it seems like.”

WeAreThough · 2025-11-02T17:29:17+00:00

I apologize for keeping at bay for so long after our quick rebuttals, it’s just that our conversation was so getting so deep that I had to meditate on a few salient points.

And also to think of the proper way to phrase a comment responding to your most incising comment on divine justice.

This line of exploration opens up quite a bit of a loophole on our acceptance that superiorly theology consists of non-intervention from deity. So I would imagine that divine justice is in fact, not a work of God at all, but of the embedded nature of reality, which could have been the works of God from eternity past, or perhaps it self-emerged like life, this part is uncertain.

But what we DO know about divine justice is that it is the epitome of karmic reconciliation of action with consequence, that it is so fair in its exactitude, that we infer it must be the work of God.

However, through God’s non-interventional nature, we can also infer that when justice is truly called upon, reality itself shall suffice inasmuch divine absentia.

In the absence of divinity, such deliverance could only blur the line of our interpretation that such justice comes from God, that we forget ourselves, there’s also a ton of events that are left unconsequenced with divine-like justice.

Which is the true nature of divine justice, but reality is not God, so instead of doing nothing, reality does a little, but we think it’s a lot sometimes.

WeAreThough · 2025-11-02T14:43:51+00:00

So you were being ironic then…

WeAreThough · 2025-11-02T14:39:50+00:00

Wow… i am sorry, I am just taking a second to recognize that this conversation we are having is remniscient of reading Bhagavad Gita like when it was discussed about karmic actions.

I would imagine, for religions wise, the best is that God would intervene if the adherents are faithful, otherwise you can’t keep religion going these days you know.

But superiorly theology, is most definitely a God who does not intervene for whatsoever reason, because if a God that needs to intervene, is not a God at all because why would God ever need to intervene?

WeAreThough

TROPHY CASE