Deja Vu.... Wats It Exactly?

[apdf_2]

it happens numerous number of times that something happens and as it is happening we can actually foretell wats gonna happen next to ourselves but just a few milliseconds before it actually happens..and thats something that has been boggling my mind since i was a child..plz tell me wats it exactly..ive heard stephen hawkins has related it to the science of relativity n all in one of his books.. if someone has read an article on that which explains it properly plz do tell me..

[Gesiwuj]

Co-incidences can be explained as below:

Millions of "coincidences" are happening now, it's just they're too boring to pay attention. (may not be factual, just as an example)
eg: there are statistically more silver cars than red cars, but when walking today I saw three red cars and only one silver. That's a co-incidence - but it's boring, so you won't pay attention (you may not even notice it!). It's only the astounding ones you realise. And they may only happen 1 in 30 million times. And say a co-incidence happens every three seconds - you do the maths!

A possible theory of déja vu:

In your brain, you may get confused between dreams and reality (nothing to worry about really), and many people often just make it up for media attention. Some say that "your past and present are in your brain - so your future could be too, and it can get mixed up with one of the others". And that theory fits in nicely with the theory that your life is mapped out before you are born.

[Smurf]

um i think it is something to do with the short term memory and long term. the event in question skips the short term memory and goes straight for the long term memory storage. when finally the short term memory recognizes the event it searches the long term memory and finds that woah this has happened before! but for no reason why :P :thumbsup:

[Kether]

So people think they have foreseen the event, but really they have just remembered it as if it's a long term memory - as if they've thought about it before?

In other words, they think they saw the event before it happened, but really they just remember the event as if it were a long-term memory?

Incidentally, I've quite often experienced deja-vu. It's just a feeling, not exactly memory. It's wierd.
I've never thought of it as a memory of foresight - that doesn't instinctively seem logical to me.

Perhaps when memories of coincedental past events are stimulated, this 'feeling' of deja-vu is invoked. Or it might be, like many other more familiar feelings, invoked by certain stimuli, and not be connected with memory at all.

******************************

Some say that "your past and present are in your brain - so your future could be too, and it can get mixed up with one of the others".

Other whats? Other possible futures? But if there are other possible futures, then your future could not be...

mapped out before you are born.

And if it is mapped out, mapped out by what, or (dare I say it?) whom? I know you're not a theist, so the question, for you, (and for me were I a fatalist) is a difficult one. Unless, like Leibniz, you were to use fatalism as proof for the existence of a higher power.

The trouble is, there are plenty of unrelated arguments against the existence of God. So if there is no god, how are individual futures 'mapped out'? By no means am I saying that fatalism and theism have to be connected, but fatalism, by definition, conveys some idea of an ultimate 'plan'. If there is some ultimate 'plan' (and quantum theory seems to be pointing in that direction, though I confess I know little about it), the idea of individual fates is inconsistent with the theory; the universe does not revolve around human beings.

before you were born

How long before you were born? The usual fatalist view is before time even 'began'.

The argument that past and future are in the mind is the view of St Augustine - he defined past as memory, and future as expectation. He considered time to be made up of instants, each uniform, one after the other. This view was held right up until Einstein, when he disproved it (somehow) with his theory of relativity, which I've never studied in great depth. It appears (and I must apologise for my terrible deficiencies as a physicist - 'appears' is the best I can do) to say that time, being linked with space, is somehow quantitative, not made up of single moments one after the other. A single speech in a play is my only source for this statement, so forgive me, and by all means correct me, if I'm wrong.

[scameter]

I think that deja vu is our neural awareness kicking in, our subconscious ability to perceive our environment too. It allows us to "sense" our surroundings before we even see them. And yes, i think sometimes that it is only due to our memory, but also it is due to these two things i just named.

[Kether]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. How would you describe that 'subconscious ability to percieve the environment?' If it exists, what do you think it is?

[Smurf]

goddamn you people did you not listen to anything i said?
here: Deja Vu (http://people.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=question657.htm&url=http://skepdic.com/dejavu.html)

[Kether]

I replied to what you said. I just went off on a tangent as well.

[scameter]

Is what i mean by subconscious ability to perceive the world, is in reference to my topic on these boards called neural awareness. It is where we essentially receive neural echoes from other people, when their nerve thought chemicals are transmitted into pure electronic nerves and the chemical casing around them is shattered. When this happens, part of the thought nerve leaves the body in the form of a pulse, with the thought information still in the pulse. It is then picked up by oher people and that explains our Sixth Sense. But, deja vou can also be explained by this formula thusly: When we send out thoughts, they bounce off objects in existence and then reach us. For instance, when I was in the mall a few months back I knew which direction the stairs were from me, and i had never seen them before. I think that someone else had seen them and then their thought pulse came to me and i then understood where the stairs were. This may be wrong; i may have seen the stairs before. But the formula could still explain other incidences of deja vou. :)

[Smurf]

oh sorry about that guys

[Kether]

Possibly, Scameter. It's an interesting theory.

[Ronagon]

I tend to think that incidences of "deja vu" are really just recalled memories of previous dream scenarios.

I think it's possible that deja vu might be where some event of the moment bears striking similarity to a forgotten dream that your brain created as a "possible scenario" -- or perhaps merely another similar-type event -- some time earlier. The event would activate recognition circuitry in the brain, and activate your recall of the dream.

This makes sense in light of a recent book by computer intelligence writer Jeff Hawkins, who wrote in his now-famous book, On Intelligence, that what the brain really does, compulsively and addictively, is make predictions... constantly. The brain is never not doing that. Which makes sense, considering the enormous survival value in making predictions about environmental outcomes.

And so, maybe what's really happening when you're dreaming, is that the brain is running "prediction scenarios"... scenarios which get stored in memory, only to be recalled later, when some event occurs which mirrors the stored scenario, and its outcome. This would have enormous survival value in incidences of "deja vu", as these experiences would fill the creature with some sense of likely outcome if the event is fully followed through to the full ending.

Of course, predictions are merely tools, albeit helpful ones. Their accuracy is based on the full soundness of their logic, and the evidence and premises they start with. Thus they can produce flawed and/or false conclusions.

But still, they're one of the two best things we have going... the other being the actual, messy and full experience of life.

[Smurf]

But Ronagon what happens if the dream recalled is completely different to the current event in quesstion?

[scameter]

Exactly Ron, about the attempts at prediction I mean. And isn't it funny that that, which ultimately lead to consciousness in primates, was born from fear. But, not all dreams are predicitions; i have had MANY dreams that had no appearing place or point in reality, and that involved things that did not even exist, or that only bore a very, very distant relation to things residing here. I think that there must be more to dreams and ultimately our brain than the scientists think. For instance, they still haven't explained consciousness. And have definitely not found physical, neural evidence of it in our brain.

[Ronagon]

But Ronagon what happens if the dream recalled is completely different to the current event in quesstion?

That wouldn't happen... there would be no reason for it. The only dream memories that would be triggered, are those that a given situation reminds your brain of. It would trigger your brain's own recognition circuitry.

Get it?

[Ronagon]

Scam,

You said this:

But, not all dreams are predicitions; i have had MANY dreams that had no appearing place or point in reality, and that involved things that did not even exist, or that only bore a very, very distant relation to things residing here.

Yes, but... perhaps dreams are nothing more than your brain just cooking up all sorts of scenarios with logical outcomes. Then, all those scenarios and their logical outcomes would be stored in memory, just in case you happen up a certain situation in reality that is similar. Your dreams could be nothing more than your brain trying to over-prepare you for all sorts of possible scenarios, only some of which might actually happen in real life.

Do you see what I mean? Dreaming might be your brain's own way of storing up predictive strategies, kind of like a play-book of strategies that the coaches of different sports teams keep on hand, in order to be prepared for all sorts of games against all sorts of opponents, using all sorts of their own strategies. Not all the plays (like dream memories) would be useable and, perhaps, not even any of them might be applicable to a given situation, but some of them just might be the approach you need.

Do you see?

Also, you talked about those dreams that don't literally match what we encounter in real life. Well, perhaps they don't literally match real life, but they might match the sort of situational dynamics of what we would encounter in real life. For example, an angry dog in our dreams could just be our brain's trying to predict a scenario around any angry creature or entity we might encounter in real life, using something like a dog as a creature whose anger is familiar to us. In other words, it's the essence that's important, not the literal form, in dreams. It's just about using essences and dynamics to make predictions.

Finally, you said this:

I think that there must be more to dreams and ultimately our brain than the scientists think. For instance, they still haven't explained consciousness. And have definitely not found physical, neural evidence of it in our brain.

Actually, someone named Jeff Hawkins might just have solved that puzzle. He's written a book called On Intelligence. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it. I won't tell you any more than that, and spoil your fun of reading it.

[Smurf]

ahhhh silly me yes i do get it, but then what is a dream? hmm how does it function in the brain?

[scameter]

Yes I see what you mean entirely Ron, and I find it sad how most rely on logic so. Is it not possible that dreams aren't logical (*gasp*) and are emotional or creative scenarios? I've had many dreams which I thought would make good books. Actually, one of them I did write as a story for my Literature class. Not everything is logic-oriented. There are other faculties of our mind. Creativity, emotion, logic too, belief, many things are apart of us, and I think it is our reliance on logic so that has made us blind to many of our sixth sensual abilities, and that cause us to use only 10% of our brain. And by consciousness I didn't mean necessarily intelligence. Intelligence is your knowledge and ability to apply logic and is thus easily explained. But consciousness is not. :)

[Ronagon]

scam,

You said this:

Not everything is logic-oriented. There are other faculties of our mind. Creativity, emotion, logic too, belief, many things are apart of us, and I think it is our reliance on logic so that has made us blind to many of our sixth sensual abilities, and that cause us to use only 10% of our brain. And by consciousness I didn't mean necessarily intelligence. Intelligence is your knowledge and ability to apply logic and is thus easily explained. But consciousness is not.

Actually, you're saying that not everything is logic-oriented, because you've been sold the notion that logic is only some highly specialized exercise that people do at certain times, for specialized tasks.

You see, the word "logic" has been hijacked. True logic is much more than that.

"Logic" in its broadest sense means causality. All things which are related to each other in such a way that one can affect the other somehow, have a "logic" to them. In fact, all arrangements are "logics".

There is a "logic" to how leaves fall. There is a "logic" that makes the sky blue. There is a logic to every seemingly sloppy mess. There is a logic to the universe. There is a logic to who you fall in love with, and how you fall in love with them. There is even a logic to your emotions.

Every situation that you encounter or piece of information that you contemplate, seems to suggest a certain conclusion in your mind, based on both the evidence before you, and your own prior experiences and conditioned leanings. That conclusion which you come to, can be consciously recognizable to you, or might happen on an ultra-rapid, subconscious level.

At any rate, the nature of that conclusion then suggests a certain mobilization of energy. If the evidence suggests a conclusion that, in turn, implies a positive environment, your body's optimistic energy pathways, neural and organ systems will be activated, and you will "feel" happy or tranquil. On the other hand, if the evidence before you suggests a conclusion which implies a negative environment, your body's pessimistic energy pathways, neural and organ systems will be activated, and you will "feel" sad, hopeless, or hostile.

That's really all there is to emotion. It's all controlled by the "logic" of the situations you encounter, and your mind's own logical processing of those situations. As your situations change, so do their logics, and so does your own logical interpretation of those situations. Then your emotions change.

And so, this is why I say that logic truly does rule everything, and we have only to broaden our minds to understand the full extent of this.

[scameter]

lol Odd, I actually found myself laughing out loud. Mainly because you just told me something that I honestly fear to be EVERYONE's view, that logic is everything and is the essential god of humanity and existence ingeneral. Even though I personally think that it is belief that rules everything, I really don't need to combat your view with mine or even to tell you mine because for one you haven't asked for it, and for two it would be futile in nature. So, I'm glad you have that for yourself my friend, and too the ability to apply such a......rationale. I hope it works for you, if that is logical, which it would have to be if everything is, and if thus everything is then so too is the illogical because illogical is inside the logical because it is something and is thus too apart of everything which is logic. But, that was obviously random, logic prediction as I'm sure you would explain. Thanks my friend, for reassuring my presumptions. :)

[Ronagon]

scam,

Well, aside from your sarcasm, I think I understand that you're trying to say that there exists randomness in the universe that has nothing to do with logic.

Well, you may be right. On the quantum level, things seem to actually obey the laws of randomness. Actually, loaded randomness. The predictable tends to happen, but unpredictable occurrences are built into the system, too, with decreasing frequency for increasing weirdness.

This would appear to be the creative engine of the universe, allowing new and possibly better things to occur.

[scameter]

I agree, and I also agree that there is much order and concentrated effort in this existence. And, what sarcasm are you talking about?

[Kether]

I personally think that it is belief that rules everything.
(Scameter)

But it is only humans who can truly believe, and our minds do not rule everything. I might have misunderstood you, and in light of that I would be grateful if you could elaborate on this interesting idea.

What sarcasm are you talking about?

lol Odd, I actually found myself laughing out loud.
Although it's not really sarcasm.

[Kether]

Scameter,

What Ronagon means by logic in this context is "in its broadest sense" as "causality". And this may well underpin the dynamics of the universe, although randomness also seems to have a role. When you say (I think) effectively "If everything is logical, then illogical things are logical", you are still assuming that logic is a product of the psyche. Ronagon isn't saying that everything at the complex level of the human mind is logical.
The mind is a system so complex that it is an 'emergent dynamic' (its dynamic cannot be deduced by studying the rules at 'entity level', the level of subatomic particles).

I think it is important to make the major distinction between the causality definition of 'logic' and the other definition, of logic as "some highly specialized exercise that people do at certain times, for specialized tasks." Causality-logic appears to the 'logical' mind as corresponding to the mental construct of logical analysis (the second definition).

[scameter]

And I understand him now. I think that logic is universal and that it is what rules nature and what makes it so perfect. But, the one thing I don't understand is how the perfect nature made our emotions. Why would it do that? It only made us have things such as confusion, depression, anger, fear, and other limiting things.

And about belief, I mean essentially that people believe everything in life exists and is how we examine it as being. Hmm...well, really I'm saying that, to humans belief is everything because that is what makes it real to us because of the doubting nature of our minds, unlike that of the purely logical and thus purely natural mind of the other facets of nature, such as other animals.

[Kether]

Emotions may seem illogical, but they evolved as important survival techniques. For example, the way the body freezes when suddenly scared is supposed to allow us time to assess the threat and work out the best course of action. But I understand that this is just an example, and there are plenty of instances where things don't work logically. But I think this is because these occurences happen at the higher level of the system, the emergent level. Complex systems are called 'emergents' because they 'make up' their own rules as they develop. The subatomic particles may be operating according to set rules or 'loaded' randomness, but at the level of weather, human beings and even cells, the illogical can happen.

[Kether]

Don't thank me, thank the physicists who came up with Emergent Dynamics Theory.

[scameter]

Well, honestly I've been thinking about this, and I was mainly pondering why nature gave humans this thing called emotion. I think that how animals appear to react to environmental stimulation is about .00000009% emotions, because I think everything has the possibility for it inside of their selves, but I think that otherwise nature is entirely logical. As you did yourself there my friend kether, you assesed an instance where emotion was used, and with what did you do this? Logic. That is why it seems to logical to you, because it is! But, emotion in higher states becomes more and more lacking of logic, which is very obvious in homosapiens. I think it is with the extremely high development of logic that nature gives the being emotion, to, in a sense, accentuate those environmental stimulation reactions to the point of oftentime immobility, both mentally and physically. It was when we achieved this high form of logic, about the time we became able to defeat and kill any animal in the kingdom at essential will, with increasing ease, that we were given higher emotional context. If you notice, we may have fought each other before that, but it was when we learned with more intensity the complex nature of weapon handling that we began killing each other, which is entirely illogical and entirely emotional. Since then, with our increasing logic, emotion has grown in us to the point of disorders, fluxuations, and entire matrixes of emotional reactions and characteristics. It is rather interesting. :)

[Kether]

I am currently reading Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman. The book explores the emotions, largely in terms of neurology: it examines both the various regions of the brain that deal with emotions and those that deal with rational thinking, and the relationships between them. For instance, it looks at 'emotional hijackings', where our amygdala, the emotional part of the brain, overrides the neocortex, the rational part. It also discusses the areas that decide what stimulates emotion, and puts it into context, like the left prefrontal lobe. This region's function means that the emotions of people who have had prefrontal lobotomies aren't stimulated or contextualised.

Goleman challenges Kant's ideal of a rational mind free of the constraints of emotion; he claims that the emotions are an essential part of our social extelligence. I don't know if he is right, but I do recommend this book.

[scameter]

I agree with Kant's rational view, but not, if it exists, his view about the way to truth being feelings. To me, emotion is only a hinderance, as well as are feelings which I don't honestly see much of a difference between than emotion. And, animals have social intelligence with very, VERY little emotion and only rationality, and they don't do the idiotic things we do, such as killing other members of our own species. Everything they do is both entirely logical and perfect.

[scameter]

To us it is, because we have such spiked emotions. But, in animals, who have very little emotion, what is it?

[locomotive]

I had a deja vu. When I was small I was reading this book about two kids that opened a door with a key and then went into this world with a forest in spring time. Then I had a dream in that period about 4 children opening a closet and walking past furr coats into this world of snow. What do you know! I saw chronicles of narnia 2 weeks ago with the exact same thing. And I do remember that dream just like I remember another dream to this day. I wan't to understand this situation that is all...

[scameter]

Hmm...see? It could be neural awareness, or possibly Ron's prediction scenario theory, or possibly even both.

[scameter]

Hmm...see? It could be neural awareness, or possibly Ron's prediction scenario theory, or possibly even both. Because the Narnia Chronicles I'm sure were around when you were a child and had your first dream, so maybe you intercepted some of the neural thought idea energy about it. :)

[locomotive]

Yeah thats what I came up with too. Though there must be some other cool theories.

[scameter]

:P