De'ja' vu

[hope]

The meaning of de'ja' vu can be translated from Frenxh as "already seen."

De'ja vu is the eerie sensation that you have already experienced something before, even though you know
that you have not.
For example, you are at a backdoor BBQ talking to one of your friends and they offer you a hamburger.All of a
sudden, you get the very strange, yet strong, feeling of de'ja vu - that is you have been in this exact place
before complete with your friend offering you a burger in the exact same way. This sensation stays in your
mind for around 10-20 seconds and then it vanishes and can't be grasped again in the same way it origin
hit you. But the sensation itself isn't even the weirdest thing about de'ja vu....

For starters, science has yet to come up with a reason as to why or how de'ja vu occurs. Obviously it
would be difficult to study this phenomenon because of the random nature of the occurrences.
Anyone who has ever had a de'ja vu (approximately 70% of the population) can tell you that it happens
out of nowhere and doesn't last for long. So even with advanced brain imaging and other techniques used
to study the brain, scientists have incredible difficulty putting their finger on the mystery and meaning
de'ja vu.

THINGS WE DO KNOW ABOUT DE'JA vu..:

1) Epileptics commonly experience de'ja vu right before going into a seizure. This has led scientists to
speculate that de'ja vu is caused by an improper electric discharge within the brain which might cause
an erroneous sensation of memory.
2) De' vu is most commonly reported between the ages 15 and 25, though the sense of de'ja vu is
experienced by people of all ages, frequency varying from person to person,
3) the sensation of de'ja itself is definitely weird. It is not like "Oh, I think I've been here and done this
before!" It is the very strange and eerie feeling that you have done this exact same thing before but
for some reason you cannot remember it. The feeling isn't negative, but it's not the most comfortable
feeling in the world either.
Another plausible theory about de'ja vu is the our brains are confusing the situation in reality with
something we have experienced in dreams or fantasies. It is well proven that there is a fine line between
the world of thoughts and the world of reality. studies have consistently shown that imagining yourself practicing
a backflip is just as effective as actually practicing it.
With this knowledge, it is easy to see why de'ja vu could result from having done something similar as a
Dream.

However, once you've once encountered the sensation of de'ja vu, it's difficult in which you were in that specific
backyard, talking to that specific friend, and he/she offered you the hamburger with the exact same hand motion
and tone of voice. I believe there has to be some other cause of de'ja vu.


DE'J'A VU

4-5-1-1 4-3
9

[Sh3rl0ck]

Greetings hope!

Much obliged for posting this perplexing topic.

I spoke about this in the past and even made a topic for it as well. I am glad to see another individual with the same curiosity as I do for this specific subject.
As someone who has a deep passion for psychology, I find this very much fitting into my sort of discussions.
Of course, as someone who studies science, it is clear that I should be going for the logical answer which most scientists would say it is nothing more than a simple disfunction of memory within the brain. However I am not of that sort. I am a theoretical person to some extent. But in cases like these, I tend to be a leaning towards the theoretical side.

I think deja vu is more diverse than most of us think. Some may call it a prophecy which the brain failed to notice before, and only remembers when the action is done. Maybe? Maybe not?
Others have gone REALLY far in the conspiracy side of it. Some even believe that it is the government or someone else traveling in time, and that what we think happened actually did, although WE can't remember it, our brain still registers some of it.

But if you were asking me, I would say thats going a little beyond most theories, even though Einstein proved that time doesn't slow when in speed of light (*ahem the theory of relativity). Which my the way, I certainly believe in time travel for it is possible through wormholes in space, or even black holes.

But getting back on topic. I have two sides to this entire theory. Part of me says it is a connection with the universe, call it the parallel universe, or an alter dimension, or even another version of ourselves doing something in the callout "mirror dimension". And then theres my logical side telling me that is could trust scientists about the whole brain disfunction thing.
But if you come to think of it, should we really be trusting scientists? I mean yes, they all have Ph.D's and what not, but this is also coming from people who are funded by the government (well not all). Plus these are also the people who have never proved anything supernatural, and its not that they can't, its just that they don't want too. They are too logical when it comes to certain things, thus making most of them agnostics, atheists, and what not. And I'm not trying to say that you have to be religious or anything of that matter, believe me I am totally not meaning that.

My point is that we need to trust ourselves. I'm afraid that scientists won't ever prove anything of this matter, for it is hard, but they don't like wasting time on things they usually call fake.

I apologize for this REALLY long post reply, I just get very passionate when it comes to these certain topics. But as a summary for all this once again is that I actually do believe that deja vu is more than just a simple ordinary function in the brain.

Best regards,

Sh3rl0ck

[Svalbard]

But if you come to think of it, should we really be trusting scientists? I mean yes, they all have Ph.D's and what not, but this is also coming from people who are funded by the government (well not all). Plus these are also the people who have never proved anything supernatural, and its not that they can't, its just that they don't want too. They are too logical when it comes to certain things, thus making most of them agnostics, atheists, and what not. And I'm not trying to say that you have to be religious or anything of that matter, believe me I am totally not meaning that.

My point is that we need to trust ourselves. I'm afraid that scientists won't ever prove anything of this matter, for it is hard, but they don't like wasting time on things they usually call fake.

This is a controversial subject and I feel hesitant writing this, but I understand your point. Modern scientists in general seem to be deficient at grasping philosophical thought - especially when it comes to metaphysics (case in point, observe how certain scientists deal with philosophical arguments). The reason for this is obvious: the vast majority of scientists have a very strict, materialist world-view. No doubt, such a world-view is excellent for studying material phenomena, but it is a mistake to believe that the materialist conception of the world can explain all of reality. Note, that despite having brought us amazing technological inventions and furthered our understanding of the physical world, modern science has made little progress in answering life's deepest questions; even the big questions that aren't purely abstract, but that posses a link to the material, such as "what is consciousness?" remain elusive to modern science. Of course, it isn't fair to criticize science on these grounds. After all, science is not concerned with spiritual or otherwise abstract matters. And here is precisely where my point lies: the spiritual domain is outside the scope of the materialist, scientific world-view. Therefore, such matters must be approached with a different, metaphysical mindset.

[Sh3rl0ck]

But if you come to think of it, should we really be trusting scientists? I mean yes, they all have Ph.D's and what not, but this is also coming from people who are funded by the government (well not all). Plus these are also the people who have never proved anything supernatural, and its not that they can't, its just that they don't want too. They are too logical when it comes to certain things, thus making most of them agnostics, atheists, and what not. And I'm not trying to say that you have to be religious or anything of that matter, believe me I am totally not meaning that.

My point is that we need to trust ourselves. I'm afraid that scientists won't ever prove anything of this matter, for it is hard, but they don't like wasting time on things they usually call fake.

This is a controversial subject and I feel hesitant writing this, but I understand your point. Modern scientists in general seem to be deficient at grasping philosophical thought - especially when it comes to metaphysics (case in point, observe how certain scientists deal with philosophical arguments). The reason for this is obvious: the vast majority of scientists have a very strict, materialist world-view. No doubt, such a world-view is excellent for studying material phenomena, but it is a mistake to believe that the materialist conception of the world can explain all of reality. Note, that despite having brought us amazing technological inventions and furthered our understanding of the physical world, modern science has made little progress in answering life's deepest questions; even the big questions that aren't purely abstract, but that posses a link to the material, such as "what is consciousness?" remain elusive to modern science. Of course, it isn't fair to criticize science on these grounds. After all, science is not concerned with spiritual or otherwise abstract matters. And here is precisely where my point lies: the spiritual domain is outside the scope of the materialist, scientific world-view. Therefore, such matters must be approached with a different, metaphysical mindset.

Thank you and much obliged for your response to my thoughts Svalbard!

I really like the concept of your thoughts as well, and your words made me ponder on some things too. I have many philosophical opinions on the subject of logic and science. Of course as a man of clear and obvious deduces, I usually tend to lean towards obvious and logical reasons for certain scientific mysteries within this world. However, recently I don't have that philosophy and point go view anymore. I don't want to say that I am some full on conspiracy theorist, but I do have some thoughts occasionally that question our laws of nature.
And if you come to think of it, Are there even laws of nature? Of course to a certain level and standpoint there is, but in a scientific theoretical view of things are there any?

My point is that, in a sense it can never be proven. Like you mentioned, scientists never go for the spiritual side of things because of the skepticism and laws of the government. Religions will say you will have to have faith, which is true, faith doesn't always mean religion, it means to have faith in something. For example you can have faith that someone will get better?
But I don't think faith is our option here. I think it is just a matter of trusting yourself and trusting your philosophy of things. Stick around others who feel the same as you do, and that belief/thought/opinion will become stronger.

I don't know many things, in fact I think humankind doesn't know more and they do know about things. Knowledge and imagination keeps growing. But something I do know, is that there are just some things that can't be explained in this universe. But then there are individuals like us, who tend to find this subject interesting and captivating. I will gladly say that all of us here on the forum are quite unique, for most people don't like getting involved in topics that make you really think.

I apologize for this long, and sometimes off-topic reply, its just like I say to everyone else, I get very passionate in these particular subjects.

Best regards,

Sh3rl0ck

[Svalbard]

And if you come to think of it, Are there even laws of nature? Of course to a certain level and standpoint there is, but in a scientific theoretical view of things are there any?

We can clearly observe nature following certain laws, especially in regard to physics. On that note, physics often questions why a particular physical body behaved in a particular fashion during a particular scenario. In the most general sense, the answer is often that the body in question was following a particular physical law in a particular way. This law was therefore the cause. Rarely does science ask, however, why the given law was in place to begin with. In other words: what caused or gave rise to that law? This, I think, is where the line separating science and philosophy lies.

Asking such questions can bring forth more mysteries. Assuming that there is a certain cause behind an existing physical law, what is it? Is this cause God who has weaved the law with His divine intellect? Or perhaps the physical laws that we're familiar with are simply rays of light emanating from a singular "Sun", and although they seem distinct to us, they really are reflections of one higher, singular Law? I do not know the answers to such questions, but I will continue asking them nonetheless; I feel that the more I question, the closer I inch towards some sort of a discovery.

My point is that, in a sense it can never be proven.

On that point, I would like to say two things. First, modern science has narrowed down the definition of the word "proof" to mean "empirical proof." That is, "that which can be demonstrated true through data, calculations, experiments, etc." However, there exists another method of proof through logic (sometimes called a priori). This mode of inquiry is more fundamental than science, and doesn't rely on the scientific method. For a quick demonstration of this type of proof, let's consider the idea of square circle. Perhaps you're thinking now, "...a what? That doesn't make sense." And precisely. You know that such a thing cannot possibly exist because it's a contradiction. You did not need to make use of the scientific method to "prove" it. It's intuitive. Now, obviously, this is rudimentary, but the point is that this sort of logic can be applied in more complex scenarios. For example, Thomas Aquinas (I believe that I have mentioned him in my other posts) made use of pure (a priori) logic to attempt to demonstrate the existence of God. We can debate whether he succeeded in that endevour or not (I tend towards "yes"), but I think that it's reasonable to say that regardless of one's opinion on the matter, one should admit that Aquinas put forth a very good attempt. My point here is that, even if we cannot adequately prove the Transcendental, we can at least scratch at its surface, so to speak, with pure logic and reasoning.

I apologize for this long, and sometimes off-topic reply, its just like I say to everyone else, I get very passionate in these particular subjects.

You need not apologize. I enjoy your responses immensely.


Best Regards.