Freespirit said:

Haven't I seen you here on the org before . I guess it must be a déjà vu .

Freespirit said:

Oh Sweet Jesus in Heaven, Julie, I hope the David in your signature, is NOT 9sey.

SureThing said:

I only know a David.

I have heard it exlpained as the chemicals in your brain get momentarily confused and while you should be storing what's happening in your short term memory, you feel like you're pulling something from your long-term memory.

I always experience deja voo every since I was little, I'll dream about it and later in life it happens.

reneGade20 said:

You could have seen it in a movie, news or a photo of it. Coupled with an experience of walking into a similar space with it should suffice as a combination of subjective familiarity. That's how somebody who would be more "biologically" oriented as a theorist would argue.

But from my very own favoured school of thinking (since the cognitivist school totally misunderstands subjectivity) - If you remembered "each detail" indicates that you really didn't. A sight like that will contain so much information that it's not possible to remember much of it, unless you would have been spending a lot of time observing and systematically analyzing it earlier. The "wholeness" of the whole experience indicates that it is an empty experience afterall. The cathedral might have been a very strong aesthetic sight (one has to only keep in mind Kantian notions of the catecory of the sublime in regards with churches, if some of you are aware of those), which in itself is a strong sensation. The strong sensation in itself will provoke a sentiment experienced earlier in the past, and it's rather their mutual experienced feeling lacking any conceptual information that is experienced as familiarity. Because you very well know you haven't been there before, the content of the experience is denied (for the content was never there in the first place). To go a bit deeper, it could have been that you associated the cathedral and the notions of christianity with the paternal denial that structure your grasp on absolution. Those things surface very effectively with aesthetic phenomenons, just think about how the lyrics of a pop song will often feel incredibly "personal". Even if they under no circumstances can be that.

Of course that "strong sentiment experienced earlier in the past" could have been something as minor as tripping over a mat on the floor when you were two.

From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deja_vu :

In recent years, déjà vu has been subjected to serious psychological and neurophysiological research. The most likely explanation of déjà vu is that it is not an act of "precognition" or "prophecy", but rather an anomaly of memory; it is the impression that an experience is "being recalled". [citation needed] This explanation is substantiated by the fact that the sense of "recollection" at the time is strong in most cases, but that the circumstances of the "previous" experience (when, where and how the earlier experience occurred) are quite uncertain. Likewise, as time passes, subjects can exhibit a strong recollection of having the "unsettling" experience of déjà vu itself, but little to no recollection of the specifics of the event(s) or circumstance(s) they were "remembering" when they had the déjà vu experience. In particular, this may result from an overlap between the neurological systems responsible for short-term memory (events which are perceived as being in the present) and those responsible for long-term memory (events which are perceived as being in the past). Many theorists believe that the memory anomaly occurs when one's conscious mind has a slight delay in receiving perceptive input. In other words, the unconscious mind perceives current surroundings before the conscious mind does. This causes one's conscious self to perceive something that is already in one's memory, even though it was in one's memory only a split second before it was perceived.

CarrieMpls said:

This from a school of thinkers who tend to even deny the existence of the unconscious altogether.

The unconscious doesn't perceive anything. It's not a perceptory structure in that sense. It structures the perception in the first place of course by its own function as the structuring mechanism itself. There is nothing that would contain proper information that could seep out to "the conscious mind", and at the same time, absolutely everything has to pass through "the unconscious mind" to "the conscious mind" as lacking that information.

Heresy, I say.

novabrkr said:

I can say with a fair amount of certainty that I'd never seen a picture of the square....though by comparison, it probably looks like many others in and around Germany.....I seriously doubt that it was seen on the news or in a movie...Amberg is a historic place, but not in the sense of it being immortalized in the media, you know?





If you go any deeper, we'll be in China in no time!!!

reneGade20 said:

Ah, but it doesn't need to be that according to those theories (mind you again, not my favoured branch of my own thinking and I'm definitely no expert on their approach). The argument goes that we are able to remember so much more than we could ever realize. Most of the information/data is supressed though, though but does still reside in the brain as neurological impulses (or whatever the correct expression would be). The familiarity could be evoked together with what carriempls and 3121 posted earlier, as the memory would already reside within "unconscious mind" (obsolete memory traces, I believe, as the whole "unconsciousness" they are referring to consist of memory traces and somekind of an operational syntax).

I don't think that part of the theory is completely insane, I have to admit, as for the very basics of theory on cognition, these guys do tremenduous job. But to say it's just a chemical or physical malfunction is totally idiotic as it secludes an externalized subject position what is essential to human experience (you perceive yourself within language, which is what creates the confusion - not the other way around). But that's another dispute between the schools. They just refuse to believe that humans are not computers.

Its just conincidence thats all

It's the DEVILS handwork!!

repent sinners!!

SureThing said: