Deja vu? Figured it out yet?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

mark noble
 
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 07:23 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;160598 wrote:
Laughing
a day would be nice enough
a week could do
a year ?

Next Moment:whistling:Please Sire

:listening:PSweep


Hello Pepijn,

Is everything ok?
Private message me if you need to talk...

To make this world a better place.
All you need to do.
Is hunt your soul, confront control
And forge.
...A Better you...

Mark
 
mark noble
 
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 07:57 am
@mark gamson,
mark gamson;160783 wrote:
I think its all just a matter of Deja vu. Hang on Iv written this before.


Hello Mark,

Ever thought of joining the Northern-idiot forum?

Mark...
 
Pangloss
 
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 11:52 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;160784 wrote:
Of course. I wonder why I, and others, have not thought of that! Now you point it out, what could be more obvious? And, what I especially like about your explanation is that it raises no problem of its own. Especially problems greater than those it is supposed to explain.


Have you forgotten you're in the metaphysics forum? What I like is how you are continually oblivious to the context of the posts that you nitpick. Ignorance is bliss huh? Or you just like provoking people...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 12:07 pm
@Pangloss,
Pangloss;160858 wrote:
Have you forgotten you're in the metaphysics forum? What I like is how you are continually oblivious to the context of the posts that you nitpick. Ignorance is bliss huh? Or you just like provoking people...


You mean that in a metaphysics forum it is acceptable to give replies to questions that are harder to make sense of than the questions to which they were replies? How is that criticism nitpicking?
 
Pangloss
 
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 12:10 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;160862 wrote:
You mean that in a metaphysics forum it is acceptable to give replies to questions that are harder to make sense of than the questions to which they were replies? How is that criticism nitpicking?


Yea, basically. Have you taken a look at other discussions in here? What do you want from me, a scientific treatise on the cause of the phenomenon known as Deja Vu? I offered a metaphysical explanation.

If that's too much for you to handle, please move on to another thread, or at least offer your own enlightened thoughts on the Deja Vu phenomenon.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 12:22 pm
@Pangloss,
Pangloss;160864 wrote:
Yea, basically.


So, in metaphysics, the goal is to give replies that make less sense than what they are replies too? Who would have guessed? I would have thought that the point of giving an explanation (even in metaphysics) was to make sense of something that did not make sense as it was. I did not know that metaphysics had a special exemption from this requirement. The criticism that someone explained the obscure by the more obscure, which is considered a criticism everywhere else, is not one when it comes to metaphysics? How did that happen?
 
Pangloss
 
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 12:34 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;160870 wrote:
So, in metaphysics, the goal is to give replies that make less sense than what they are replies too? Who would have guessed? I would have thought that the point of giving an explanation (even in metaphysics) was to make sense of something that did not make sense as it was. I did not know that metaphysics had a special exemption from this requirement. The criticism that someone explained the obscure by the more obscure, which is considered a criticism everywhere else, is not one when it comes to metaphysics? How did that happen?


First of all, my explanation is not too obscure, if you've read certain works by Huxley, or in Eastern philosophies, which I believe would qualify as "metaphysics". If you're not familiar with the metaphysical idea of a universal mind, then you can do some more reading. I don't personally believe in this idea, if you're wondering, but it is metaphysical. Are you denying this?

Second, I'm still waiting for your grand theory on Deja Vu, or for you to have the balls to ever offer your own explanation on anything rather than just pick apart the posts of others, using any means necessary (even picking at grammar errors, which is decisively childish).

I suppose that in your delusions of grandeur you are attempting to imitate Socrates; you are the stinging gadfly in the side of this forum, are you not? The difference is that Socrates was actually engaging in philosophical discourse, while you are simply trolling for some type of emotional response.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 12:50 pm
@Pangloss,
Pangloss;160876 wrote:
First of all, my explanation is not too obscure, if you've read certain works by Huxley, or in Eastern philosophies, which I believe would qualify as "metaphysics". If you're not familiar with the metaphysical idea of a universal mind, then you can do some more reading. I don't personally believe in this idea, if you're wondering, but it is metaphysical. Are you denying this?

Second, I'm still waiting for your grand theory on Deja Vu, or for you to have the balls to ever offer your own explanation on anything rather than just pick apart the posts of others, using any means necessary (even picking at grammar errors, which is decisively childish).

I suppose that in your delusions of grandeur you are attempting to imitate Socrates; you are the stinging gadfly in the side of this forum, are you not? The difference is that Socrates was actually engaging in philosophical discourse, while you are simply trolling for some type of emotional response.


The deja vu phenomenon, had had a number of physiological/psychological explanations. What would make you or anyone believe it was a philosophical or metaphysical issue when it is patently a physio-psychological issue? How could I have a theory of it? I am neither a physiologist nor a psychologist. I don't recall picking at anyone's grammar. Not that it is not a great temptation.
 
Pangloss
 
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 12:54 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;160879 wrote:
What would make you or anyone believe it was a philosophical or metaphysical issue when it is patently a physio-psychological issue?


I don't know, but here it is in the metaphysics forum and not in any forum having to do with psychology or physiology. Hence, the "context" I spoke of earlier, which you seem to ignore.

Quote:
How could I have a theory of it? I am neither a physiologist nor a psychologist.


So then you are admitting you are only responding to this thread in order to pick apart others' contributions? Because, you have nothing to offer on the subject yourself...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 03:04 pm
@Pangloss,
Pangloss;160880 wrote:
I don't know, but here it is in the metaphysics forum and not in any forum having to do with psychology or physiology. Hence, the "context" I spoke of earlier, which you seem to ignore.



So then you are admitting you are only responding to this thread in order to pick apart others' contributions? Because, you have nothing to offer on the subject yourself...


No, because it is a valid criticism of a metaphysical explanation of deja vu, that such an explanation cannot be right because deja vu is not a metaphysical phenomenon. Don't you agree? Of course, it is perfectly all right to cite the going physiological or psychological explanations of the deja vu experience on a philosophy site. For instance:

http://mb-soft.com/public/dejavu.html

It is important in philosophy to understand the difference between a philosophical issue and a non-philosophical issue. Philosophers are not trained to deal with non-philosophical issues, and, of course, non-philosophers are not trained to deal with philosophical issues. The carpenter (as it is said) "should stick to his last".
 
salima
 
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 01:42 am
@mark noble,
i dont have the accepted definitions handy, but i thought metaphysics was seeking for understanding by studying the unseen with occasional glimpses and experiences of it coming to those who have the readiness for it?

and philosophy of course is way broader, but the part of it that relates to metaphysics is thinking about the unseen-pondering it, attacking it from an intellectual point of view...philosophy touches every aspect of human experience. there is a philosophy of plumbing or cooking, but not everyone who cooks or plumbs is a philosopher.

on the other hand, i think a metaphysicist...or is that a metaphysician...is unavoidably a philosopher, one who uses his entire arsenal of sensorial capabilities along with his intellect and emotional faculties.

the difficulty for me is the use of logic-i like it, even though i dont understand it, and wish i knew it better-but i dont feel it is the only approach to any problem. so we all approach the same problems from different viewpoints with different strengths, and it is only by putting together the results of all our efforts that the widest picture can be seen. but we wont achieve that if we discount methods which we dont understand.
 
Doubt doubt
 
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 01:50 am
@mark noble,
its an association with a similar event.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 07:25 am
@Doubt doubt,
Hello all,

It's nice to see you all getting along with each other.
Nevertheless - Back to the point - How can an observer relate to a visual event if they cannot see?
In order to perceive a picture, one must first have the ability to recognise that it is a picture?
Until the picture is recognised it cannot be perceived.

Imagine, if you will, that everything ultimately recurs (like a computer programme that has been programmed to design "the perfect apple tree") after it has designed the root-system, it moves on with developing the trunk, Then it realises that the root-system will not be able to sustain the weight of said trunk, so it scraps the trunk and enhances the size of the roots, and so on... It gets to the branches and realises that the changing external factors (sun's position, moisture-levels, soil content, etc) mean that one of its branches needs relocating, so it scraps the branch and readjusts accordingly, this act leads to the other branches being overly shaded, back we go, change the branch - everything fine... All the fruit have ripened, and are perfect, except one apple (YOU). so the programme reinitiates from the point where the flaw took place (Deja Vu). this is good, but another fruit now has to be adjusted because of the change in shape of first (Deja Vu).

The external factors (M-Theory) mean - that no matter how many times the programme attempts to perfect its design, it must readjust according to these fluctuating EF's.
therefore - Infinity, Deja vu and M-Theory coexist as one picture with no problems posed other than the human intellect's ability to comprehend and accept it.

I'm not saying this is a truth, but I am painting the picture.

Thank you each

Mark...
 
mark noble
 
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 02:38 pm
@mark noble,
Hi all,

So, let's here it then, no argument - only opinion. Nobody knows, do they???

Thank you all, and fruit moderately.

Mark...
 
Greta phil
 
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 11:48 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble;166571 wrote:
Hi all,

So, let's here it then, no argument - only opinion. Nobody knows, do they???

Thank you all, and fruit moderately.

Mark...

We all have different perceptions of life - have different levels of awareness. It is hard to comprehend the things another sees or feels if we do not see ourselves.
I can explain Deja vu as I can and do see through time. The furthest definate time frame I have seen through is 15yrs. I am at this point now that saw all that time ago. So I am frequently having that sensation of Deva vu - these are like land marks for me as I know what follows next. In seeing through time - the most important interpretaion comes from feel. Vision alone is not enough.
I suspect this applies to many of us that experience deja vu. In this sense many of us are able to 'slip' through time...from time to time!

Pay more attention to any of these moments and what follows. Things don't happen in isolations and everything happens for a reason.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 12:28 am
@Greta phil,
Greta;174111 wrote:
We all have different perceptions of life - have different levels of awareness. It is hard to comprehend the things another sees or feels if we do not see ourselves.
I can explain Deja vu as I can and do see through time. The furthest definate time frame I have seen through is 15yrs. I am at this point now that saw all that time ago. So I am frequently having that sensation of Deva vu - these are like land marks for me as I know what follows next. In seeing through time - the most important interpretaion comes from feel. Vision alone is not enough.
I suspect this applies to many of us that experience deja vu. In this sense many of us are able to 'slip' through time...from time to time!

Pay more attention to any of these moments and what follows. Things don't happen in isolations and everything happens for a reason.


This sounds like nonsense to me. How would you know it was 15 years in the future? Catch the newspaper date? Who is the president 15 years from now? Are there any details of that time that you can tell us about? 15 years is a long time I know but come on, throw us a bone. Give me one little thing that I could verify. Or is it just not practical? You get to experience 15 years into the future but can't talk about it? There's always some out isn't there?
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 12:33 am
@Pangloss,
I once went on a guided mountain-bike trek with a bunch of other tourists, which started off with a ride up to the top of a mountain outside of the city we were visiting in a transit van. About halfway up, one of the other guys in the van, who was gazing out the window, suddenly said 'strong sense of vuja day'....

A moment's silence. Then the guy next to him said 'what do you mean?'

'Never been anywhere remotely like this before....' came the reply
 
harlequin phil
 
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 10:45 pm
@mark noble,
as much as i want to believe it's evidence i've lived this before, or even better, a glitch in the matrix, because that would be so cool and make life so much more interesting, i have to think it's simply a short circuit in the brain.

what is happening gets put directly into long term memory and then immediately "remembered" until it corrects and goes to short term "happening now" memory. deja vu always seems to happen (at least for me) when i am tired, so i think it is my tired brain skipping gears, sadly nothing more.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 10:55 pm
@mark noble,
I think that is partially it, or that it explains some of the occurences, but not all of them.

Another one is that deja vue is actually an intuitive insight into the 'samsara', the circular nature of existence. We encounter the same situations over and over because we act from the same conditioned causes. So nothing is ever new any more, and we feel like we have seen it all before. So maybe, just maybe, it is something telling us that it is time to wake up!
 
mark noble
 
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2010 07:00 am
Hi All,
'Brains skipping gears', what is the scientific name for this? indeed.
Thank you anyway, and have a gear-slipping resistant day.
Mark...
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/14/2020 at 07:29:34