According to cognitive scientist Deja Vu is just a cognitive error resulting from sensory memory(or short term) being mistaken for long term. Basically the new stimuli seeming like old even though you are seeing it for the first time is an illusion. Only one of many cognitive errors that can possible occur.

Yep thats correct. As soon as you see something its being written into, or feels like its being recalled from, long term memory. No need for parallel universes or anything, and a perfect example of Occams Razor.

I have had instances of deja vu, in which I was able to predict future events (really random events and conversation) after having the feeling. I passed it off as superstition, but sometimes it can fornicate with your mind

When I was a child this happened to me all the time.

Lets get this straight before I say anything more, I do not believe in anything supernatural and I do not believe I nor anyone else is capable of supernatural events. I believe there are rational explanations for the events that follow.

Between the ages 5 and 12 I would have deja vu ten times a day or more. Much of the time it would make sense that it was simply an error in cognition, mistaking new information for old information. However nearing the age of twelve I had convinced myself that I was gaining information about the very short term future 5-10 seconds. Often it would be during conversation. Eventually I was fed up with just thinking that I was gaining information, so I started a series of primitive tests. When it would happen, I would stop my friends or family in the middle of a conversation, and repeat to them the next 3-5 sentences that they were going to speak. This kind of freaked people out, and my friends were convinced I was some sort of "psychic" although I do not believe in such things. After the age of twelve deja vu became a rare occurrence and strange things like that have not happened since that age.

I have a hypothesis to explain such strange phenomenon, without dipping into the paranormal or supernatural.

It could be possible, that my mind was able to predict accurately what my friends and family were going to say because of a rare ability to recognize patterns of thought in close friends and family. Due to close interaction with these people, it could be possible that I knew how these people would respond to me exactly simply because I was able to pick up on the pattern of responses in the past. At least this seems much more plausible than any sort of ridiculous supernatural explanation. Does anyone else have any input on this?

Of course anything supernatural would have to be ignored.. Anything that can't be explained would have to be ignored because it can't be rationally put into a box.
We couldn't possibly accept anything that is outside of the box, so why even give it a second thought..

Well I think it's important to keep our minds open to all possibilities. Its easy to simply dismiss something, it is much harder to take a genuine look at it.

Science is obviously not perfect and there are always ways to improve it, so its important to keep our minds open.

All I want for Christmas (and have been waiting for, for a long time), is something outside the box which can be repeated at will. Then I can study it, do it myself and go on to make millions. Too much to ask?
Unfortunately, what seems to happen is that things which were previously supernatural turn out to be quite normal. But I'm still waiting, eternally optimistic. Any suggestions?

If deja vu is a non-threatening brain chemical/functional disorder, then the above quote seems to be an example of someone who has experienced the rough end of this phenomenon. I can't imagine how difficult feeling deja vu that often must have been. Fantasies of being special or nightmares of being insane would have shaped my young mind for sure. On the plus side you have a unique advantage of this effect.

I think I recall deja vu happening to me several times in a single day, but very few and far between. It leaves you with a sense of surrealism, and a general curiosity into the mind and alternative beliefs. However I refuse to believe it necessary to turn to the occult to explain such a widespread phenomenon when such an easy explanation is at hand.

This does remind me of a night out, or rather a night in, just recently. A combination of alcohol, cannabis, tobacco, nitrous oxide and DMT (it was a little over the top, but I do like to push myself sometimes- but am now looking for other avenues not pharmacological, suggestions?) led me to experience deja vu of deja vu of deja vu of deja vu of deja vu......... etc. Until various drug effects wore off. This leads me to think that it is perhaps possible to recreate this experience with pharmacological agents, which would underpin some kind of neuropharmacological model of deja vu.

Not too much to ask but the maturity to understand and use something of such magnitude may be something to consider.

Imagine if you could the ability to manifest or delete objects at will, and in a fluster of emotional stress you decide to vaporize a small population of irritating people on the planet, or you decide to replace all the aged, overweight and less appealing women with ones closer to your liking. How long before you would become bored and decided to rearrange the world according to your change of mood?

I think that it's just as wise to let humanity earn the keys to the universe in the same way we would like our children to mature enough and by example show some responsibility before you hand them the keys to the family automobile.

Obviously loading yourself up with mind altering substances isn't going to convince your parents to lend you the keys but I suppose you could slip them a mickey and wait until their so distracted they don't notice you've taken them and in your own kaleidoscopic vision are speeding down the highway of altered states of consciousness.

I apologize if this was not meant sarcastically, but it appears to me as sarcasm.

The entire idea of "supernatural" is absolutely silly. If something genuinely exists outside of commonly defined nature, then obviously our definition of nature is too small. If one was truly perceiving information about future events, there would be a way to empirically test this. If it could be tested, then a mechanism could be brought forth. However, many people have studied "psi" over the years and there is absolutely zero convincing evidence of it existing.

Everything that exists within the framework of time operates on cause and effect. Certain things happen first that cause something else to happen later. An astute commenter will probably point out that within quantum mechanics particles can behave without apparent cause and effect. This may or may not be true, regardless, these effects exist at such small scales, that when calculated out to the scale of neurons or experience many have concluded that the universe at our scale exists in a deterministic framework because of the additive effects.

Everybody would love to believe in supernatural, but some of us do not want to interfere with rational thought by investing time believing in things without any sort of evidence.



Thankfully this was not a disturbing experience for me, although it indeed was a corollary to my inquisitive nature about self and the universe. From age 7 I began contemplating concepts of infinity, infinitesimal, time and time travel. I loved thinking about relativity, and what would happen to a person if they approached light speed, and I had worked out a way to go back in time if one could travel faster than the speed of light. I had set up simple proofs showing that both time and space are finite around the age of 10, I am not sure whether these proofs would hold up, but I learned later on much of my thought on self and the universe was quite similar to ancient philosophers.

It absolutely was meant as sarcasm.
Was it so supernatural that you couldn't absolutely know what my intentions were?

Supernatural is a word given to anything that is outside the box of what is nature or natureal.
To simply say something can't exist because I can't imagine it is silly.
To deny anyones imagination is to limit yourself.
If one doesn't understand something or can't accept something it can't be approached with reason.

I'm reminded of a conversation between two scholars discussing the imagined theory of the Sun rotating around a stationary earth. When asked why it was generally accepted that the sun rotated around a stationary earth, one said because it looked like the sun rotated around the earth. The other asked what does it look like when the earth is spinning rather than the sun rotating around the earth?


Time and space exists outside of the framework of control and manipulation as known by theorists.
Cause and effect are often theorized within the same parameters as the sun rotating around the earth.
Probable realities are assumed to be supernatural in effect and the predictability of probable realities assumed to be superstitious.
Yet weather is predicted in the same way that probable realities are seen and experienced by psychics when the tune into prevailing energetics of life.

Some theorize that there is no difference in belief and rational thought. The engaged direction of thought is always determined as rational by those who choose to make a stand somewhere within their beliefs and voice their provocation to some force to knock them over with something greater than their belief.
Trouble is, beliefs sometimes create large earmuffs that block out the voice of possibility.

Yes, I've heard this excuse before. It doesn't even have to be me who has these super-powers, nor does it have to be as remarkable as the one you mentioned. Just reliable and repeatable.
Who has the keys?
He he. Yeah, my exploration of substances is nearly over. I lose between 1-7 days of internal work and bodily sensation from doing so, depending on amount, substance, situation and surroundings. The contrast is becoming too noticeable and there's not much left to explore in that direction which is meaningful.

But then you wouldn't be the one making millions.

They exist within the DNA of your own nervous system.

A stage of progress.

Perhaps I am just ignorant, but it appears that you have said very little which makes any sort of sense what-so-ever. It seems like you just tried to word things in a manner that make it sound important, deep and complex, when what you are really saying is shallow and devoid of any real meaning.

First, I never said something cannot exist because I cannot imagine it. I said that the idea of supernatural is ridiculous. If something from this "supernatural" realm of yours can influence in any way our "natural" realm, then we simply need to broaden our definition of natural to include this extra realm of yours.

I am not denying imagination, I am denying the value of basing our perceptions of reality on our imaginations, but what can be observed and tested repeatedly. Imaginations are useful, but not to base your entire idea of reality off of.

Also, I never claimed the sun rotated around the earth, and to compare the fact that supernatural does not exist to belief that the sun rotates around the earth is absurd.

One of the many differences between these two is this. People observed that it appeared the sun rotated around the earth. However upon investigation, this was proved untrue, and it was that earth was spinning. These are things that are measurable and testable.

If phenomenon like psi exist, they will certainly be able to be tested. If they exist and cannot be tested, then they might as well not exist because they will look exactly the same as coincidence and will never be useful in any way whatsoever.

Additionally, the only people who would ever say that belief and rational thought are the same thing are morons. Belief is to be told something and take that person at their word, rational thought is inquiry, being skeptical and using logic to come to your own conclusions, not blindly accepting somebody else's conclusions.

That is usually what happens when the mind is resistant to anything outside of habit.

It was plain and simple to me. I even understood what you said. If you found no meaning then that is not my fault. It just goes to show that what one sees in the universe as real has no reality for another.
Whether you take a stand to defend your interpretation of the universe and deny anything other would be up to you.

Ridicule is often the cry of a closed mind and or a limited imagination.


Not unusual is the broadening of ones perspectives to include what one hasn't noticed or known before.
If one lives in a closed circle one rarely sees anything or experiences anything outside of certain limited ideas.

I'm assuming you haven't scanned all the knowledge available to make any criticism to what you haven't discovered or learned about.

This is a pretty defensive statement in favor of not accepting anything other than what has been proven according to someones standards of reality. Democratic science is not exactly the venue for establishing permanence in definitions of reality, but it is a nice club to hang out if you feel a need to find safety in like mindedness.


You missed the point..


When it comes to reality, Science uses theorems derived from calculations that appear to work as well. It also becomes clear that these are evolving theories and when it comes to the nature of reality, a theory is still a theory. What science is unable to build is a machine that is yet capable of accomplishing what the mind and body can accomplish in learning and incorporating intuitive understanding to those things that cannot be explained without denying their place within the universe.


No one has yet been able to measure love, yet everyone seems to find it useful in their lives and in the cooperation between human interaction.


How much of your scientific knowledge or your education is self absorbed through your own experience and how much of your reason is based on what you have been told or learned through the academic process?

I found the post from Nornerator to be straight talking and to the point of the previous posts. I think the above quotes show how negatively and provoking your posts sometimes are Joesus. Saying 'supernatural' is just silly, because if it exists it is natural. Thats perfectly logical and sensible, so why comment negatively and actually state Nornerator has a closed mind just because of his use of the word 'ridiculous'.

Stop goading negative responses please, it gets old and destroys your 'enlightened' master self image.

I only mentioned that one mans definition is not mankinds definition. What makes individual opinion individual is that we all see things differently. What makes something universal is that we can all see things the same. What makes a belief is when one or many see things one way in the face of an opposition that may see it differently than the way they do and the propensity to grasp onto an idea and protect it.
God is not democratic, but humans would like to be supported by a majority so that they feel more comfortable in a position.
If you choose to see my approach as condescending or negative that would be your interpretation but not mine. Since I'm the one speaking of what I said then who would be closer to the truth about my intentions than the one closest to the source? If Nornerator isn't close minded then anything I say contrary to what he thinks would be irrelevant and no one would react unless they felt somehow they could be led outside of their psychological boundaries of self identification, or threatened.

Since Nornerator thinks there is no basis for measuring psi the most obvious conclusion is that any attempt to project what I had intended through my response would be imagined rather than understood or measured, unless it was measured by ones own internal system of measure. Since that is not mechanically measured and quantified by some group or authority we must assume ones own feelings are useless in analyzing truth and imagination, especially when trying to engage one self in the intentions of another.
Isn't this the basis for his statements about 'psi'?


For all intents and purposes my enlightened status isn't threatened, it would be the peace with which one identifies themselves that seems to be threatened when one sees negativity within their universe rather than possibility.
That would be a choice...

Not intending to veer off topic and at the risk of disturbing the quiescent mindset of certain individuals I thought I'd comment on the idea of Supernatural.
su·per·nat·u·ral /ˌsupərˈnætʃərəl, -ˈnætʃrəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soo-per-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.
4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.
–noun
5. a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order.
6. behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings.
7. direct influence or action of a deity on earthly affairs.
8. the supernatural,
a. supernatural beings, behavior, and occurrences collectively.
b. supernatural forces and the supernatural plane of existence: a deep fear of the supernatural.

From The Second Coming of Christ, The Resurrection of the Christ within You Self-Realization Fellowship. (2004) Ultimately it is possible to live by the word of God alone. In a book called Amanzil, about Therese Neumann, the peasant girl from Konnersreuth, Bavaria, taken from an address of Right Reverend Joseph Schrembs, D.D., Bishop of Cleveland, delivered February 12 1928, we find striking facts about Therese Neumann's life relative to living by divine energy.
1. "She possesses the wounds of the crucified Savior. The wounds remain always the same. They neither fester nor heal."
2. "She goes through the Passion of our lord each Friday.'
3. "She repeats the Aramaic words spoken by Christ."
4. "She divines the inner most secrets of her heart."
5. "She takes neither food nor drink. Has eaten no solid food since 1923, except water or a little fruit juice."
But on Christmas Day of the year 1926 she ceased entirely taking any food or any drink, so that almost for two years now, this girl has neither eaten or drunk anything except to receive Holy Communion every morning....The verdict of all the doctors from the University of Berlin, from Prague, from Frankfurt, from Munich--doctors without any faith--is this: 'Deception and fraud are absolutely out of the question in the case of Therese Neumann.' She is not emaciated, despite lack of food since Christmas 1926, and is as healthy looking as anyone around you. On Fridays she loses about eight pounds. Six hours after the vision of the Passion is over, she is back again to her normal weight of 110 pounds."
Therese Neumann lived from 1926 until 1962 without eating food.

In addition is the following link:

http://therese-neumann.de/html/english.html

I think this fits well within the definition of supernatural since no one can explain this to the satisfaction of defining God or the condition outside of the realm of God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therese_Neumann