h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Cenchrea

I am interested in doing a Guide article on certain neuropsychological phenomena, including the deja vu 'sensation'

Would you be interested in joining forces with me or commenting on this?

Tal

Hello Taliesin!
I'd love to see this topic covered in an entry! I'm no psychologist, and a Guide entry about Deja Vu would make a good link from the entry about Endless Loops (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A444845)...

Bossel

I'm bookmarking the loop article, it looks intriguing, and I will read it thoroughly, probably tomorrow ...

The deja-vu/neuropsych article will be one of a series I hope to do over the next few months...

I'll let you know when the first article is complete...

Tal

did you say /months/ ?
* waiting anxiously *

Not to worry... the deja vu thingy is one of the first articles..

Hi Tal!

Sorry I kept you hanging on this. I've only just now had the urge to visit this article since I posted it.

I'd be happy to be included in your entry. Actually, this entry is the more logical parts gleaned off of a larger paper I did during the year. I can retrieve the paper in it's entirety and post it if you are interested. Pretty much the only reason why I did it was because I felt that Deja Vu often unfairly gets treated as pseudo-paranormal phenomena, and that even though it's still quite a bit more common than its psychicly flashier cousins, I think it holds mysteries all of its own; it's the poor man's premonitions, you could say.

The deja vu is 'feeling' is one of the things that prompted me to study neuropsychololgy. There are suggestions based on fairly recent neurophysiological research that deja vu may be a minor transitory glitch in the way the brain processes data -- as information is processed, it is related or compared with memory. This happens very quickly, and since memory is global, or stored in various locations in the brain, it is not difficult to imagine a momentary 'hiccup' in the complex, on-going scenario, which could account for the feeling.

I am trying to catch up with more recent research data, and I will try to put something together when I have done a bit more.

One of the problems is translating some rather technical bits.

I'll keep you posted...

The transitory glitch theory has been presented to me before, and I would be very inclined to believe it. The reason that I don't is because it has happened to me before that I will remember a dream (usually only a sound or a still frame image, but also sensations and smells) and it will happen. Extremely unlikely stuff, too. One of the more unlikely concerned a rose-printed, german-made nightgown that I literally saw down to the last detail including how it was folded, what it was sitting on, and the obnoxious orange wallpaper that served as a backdrop to the 'snapshot image', almost a year before I encountered it at my grandparent's house in germany... down to the last detail.

I don't know how to explain it, but a transitory glitch that spans 10 months... seems unlikely.

(Any insight would be highly appreciated!!! Is this even still considered Deja Vu?)

If I read this right, the incident you describe sounds more like precognition than deja vu.

I think the word for that is jamais vu -- my knowledge of French is simply appalling, considering I was forced to study it throughout school, and I am living in a bi-lingual country

Anyway, precognition is also very interesting, and I would be interested in discussing this also, although not necessarily from a neuro- perspective...

Whoops! got to .. suppertime.. I'll get back to you later

No, wait... That's not it!

'jamais vu' means something that should be familiar suddenly seems like it is not. Which is the opposite of deja vu, in which something that is unfamiliar suddenly feels as if it is

Whew! Glad I straightened that out!

Later...

Well, I guess that would be precognition, then, wouldn't it? I kinda suspected that, but it feels awful weird to thinking about it in that way. Especially since I don't have have these things happen in relation to major catastrophies that happen, just stupid things like nightgowns from germany and spilled laundry soap. (Actually, I didn't even dream about the spilled laundry soap-- I saw it while I was awake and naturally assumed my roomate had made the mess; and even thanked her for cleaning it up later. Man, that got me a weird look. Later, when I actually did spill the laundry soap (exactly as I had seen it before) I sat there in shock, giggling uncontrollably once in a while.)

I am Cenchrea, forseer of the hopelessly unimportant and mundane!!!

I know what you mean. But even if you do forsee a major catastrophe, it doesn't mean you can do anything about it. I once dreamed about an earthquake in Mexico,so vividly that I told my then partner about it upon awakening. Later that day there was indeed a serious earthquake in Mexico

Too bad we can't predict useful things, such as winning lottery numbers...

Well, you couldn't have done anything about it, per se, but predicting an earthquake in Mexico is somewhat impressive.

I read one theory that had to do with "Tachyons" (sp?), theoretical particles that hurtle backwards through time (this had something to do with making up for all of the particles hurtle forward in time, I guess), and how these things happen because we are constantly being bombarded with particles from the future. Your opinon?

I am an open minded skeptic, I suppose

I guess anything is possible, however I would like to see a detailed explanation of how the tachyons actually transmit coherent data. Otherwise it makes about as much sense as 'spirit channelling' and reading sacrificial entrails...

Our minds have enough to do, usually, with paying attention to the immediate past - which, given the limitations of neuro-transmission, is all we actually know...

I have heard that time travel forward is 'theoretically' possible, under extremely difficult circumstances, so I suppose it is also possible that some yet undiscovered aspect of who and what we are is capable of transcending current knowledge and limitations.

After all, the ability to transcend ourselves is what makes us the amazing species we are

That's precisely what frustrated me about the Tachyon theory-- I never found any precise evidence. Just a lot of people who called themselves "Dr", who cited that it was theoretically possible.

There was one sorta-kinda plausable theory that utilized some other theory that every particle inherently "knows" what every other particle is doing in the universe at any one time for some reason or another... Well, it made sense when I read it. It would make more sense to suggest that Tachyons, just like any other particle, have attributes like smell, taste, sound, etc., and you could be doing some kind of sub-consious detective work depending on what you are bombarded with. (This at least takes into account how some psychics get things both right and wrong (like right event, wrong time; or right time, wrong place) on a pretty steady basis.)

I dunno. I regretted doing this paper for class sorely (it was one of those pesky "just write about something intellegent-sounding" assignments) because all of my evidence was sketchy and theoretical, at best. Once I realized this, of course, I had invested way too much time and energy to change my mind. So much for doing something 'original'. I now know why this topic is somehwat avoided by serious researchers.

Ah, yes, the experts! I have a cartoon depicting a TV news anchor, saying '..We now turn to an expert on this subject, who doesn't actually know any more than we do. But he looks sincere, sounds convincing, and has 'Dr.' in front of his name.'

I wonder what definition of 'knowing' that theory of a theory used?

BTW, atomic and sub-atomic particles don't strictly have attributes, other than mass/energy. Only molecules have the ability to invoke the neuro-chemical responses we know as smell, taste etc. Even sound is transmitted via large amounts of mass - such as molecules of air.

Regarding psychics. There is very little evidence that psychics do better than anyone else at seeing the future . Even one of the most famous psychics in recent history - Edgar Cayce - made just as many erroneous predictions and diagnoses, statistically, as would be expected by chance. His followers and 'true believers' simply downplayed,ignored, or deliberately expunged records of his little mistakes.

I'm not saying there is no validity to psychic phenomena, or that there are not individual instances of precognition - or even that there are not individuals with extraordinary gifts - its just that most of the popular 'evidence' is not evidence at all, and those who are heavily involved in the 'psychic industry' do not display a scientific perspective.

Fortunately, h2g2 seems a bit more indulgent, and we don't have to be strictly scientific. I do wish some articles were a bit more balanced, but since all articles are open to revision and addition, future researchers will be kept busy correcting and contributing data.

H2g2 serves as everyone's soapbox, and I've noticed that our researches get very p**sy when you try to engage them in a conversation about a view contradictory to their own. (But, isn't the whole world like that?) I think that the annominity is condusive to people feeling they can openly insult the opposing arguemnt, rather than sitting down and calmly discussing the points of either side as we are. Indulgency (sp?) has its bad points.

It's hard to talk about psychic phemonena on a scientific level, simply because of the highly emotional nature of the subject and how steepted it is in pop culture. It's the same sort of difficulties that plague rational discussions about UFO's or Religion. Everyone has their favourite pet theory, and will only very grudgingly let go of it; and all too often, "evidence" is presented long after society has twisted it to suit its emotional ans spiritual needs, en masse.

The very term "Psychic Industry" should make people a little leery about calling a psychic. Apperently not, though.

'Indulgency' hmmm, I'll have to look that one up in Webster -- you may have invented a new word, there

Yes, I agree - many (ok, some ), researchers react badly to contrary opinion, which is why I refrain from commenting or joining in on many discussions. Usually it just is not worth it

Also, I see no point in over-emotional argument -- many people do not seem to grasp the concept of 'Let us reason together' It makes me wonder at the abysmal state of education -- worldwide

I completely agree with your statements regarding the emotional investment many people seem to have in psychic phenomena... As I said, I am an open-minded skeptic

I think part of this anti-scientific attitude is a reaction to the percieved irrelevancy of religion in modern society. People often feel a need for some kind of meaning, and are unhappy if they cannot 'believe' in something

It seems to me that among other things, h2g2 is an attempt to provide a place for discovery and discussion about, well, Life, The Universe, and Everything. I think more researchers should take this seriously, and quite literally, and if they cannot, then they should seek whatever ego gratification they seem to require elsewhere.

That is not to say people should not have a good time here, but they should at least try to be open minded, and not get their knickers in a knot just because someone has the effrontry to disagree, or to demand they provide substantiation for their claims - no matter what they may be

Ah, well -- this is becoming a rant. Sorry.

I guess I am just tired of the 'soapboxy' part of h2g2, so I should get off it, hmmm?

Anyway, I am putting finishing touches on my portion of a University project that took far more time than I had originally planned, and as soon as that is done, I'll begin my 'neuro' project.... I'll let you know..

Keep in touch, I am enjoying this conversation

*reading*

*nodding head enthusiatically*

Yes, precicely... on all counts.

I love how I can look up anything here, and while I may not always find exactly what I'm looking for (because H2G2 is stil being written, after all), I can find frank, personal entries... articles with a real person's view. If the coffee at this place was great, they'll tell you. If this should not be tried by a beginner, they will let you know. If this book by this author was fantastic, but the sequel by that other author was perfectly awful, you will be notified. This is useful information. It's just too bad that some feel the need to laugh and guffaw at others' hard work and personal opinions, or when someone feels the need to needlessly offend others by presenting something widely cherished (or, cherished by any one individual) in a one-sided and unforgiving way.

What's the university project you're working on now?

The project is an overview of the Arthurian tales, entitled King Arthur in literature. My portion deals with contemporary works, including film, and is entitled 'Rex Futurus - Arthur in the 20th and 21st Centuries' It is incomplete, but if you want to take a peek, go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A539886

In my next collaborative project, I'll be discussing computer vandalism, including malicious code and denial of service attacks... far simpler than King Arthur

I wonder if anyone has done an article on the art of argument and rational discussion?

Gaaahh! So many articles -- so little time!