Marijuana.com

Ganja Farmer

The things you do and see in reality affects your dreams. You see a cool horse; in your dream your doing a back flip off a speeding truck onto it and so on. well what if it was the opposite. what if our dreams affect our reality. so you'll dream. That stallion... you dreamt it before you saw it.

really you're the subconscious part of your brain. you see vague things when your dreaming while the concious goes out and does his thing. subconcious brain (you) creates an entire universe based on what the concious part sees as it is awake. Then when your conscious goes to bed, the subconcious (you) creates everything. So everything thing around you is a figment of your imagination. Just a dream compared to the real thing. The subconcious (you) created and controls everything.

You, your best fried, the news, the US's foreign policy...

 

Arise -SWS-

Welcome to Cheaptalk!

Your theory isn't really as unusual or strange as you think, I for one think it's kind of the way things work. My version of this theory is as follows:

Basically, your perceptions form your reality. For our waking-state, we have our usual 5 senses to percieve what is about us and navigate through life. Well in our sleeping-state, we have similar senses but they are not physically based or oriented. Instead they percieve what lies among the mental, spiritual, and universal world. I often use the analogy of a radio to describe this. Suppose that AM radio is physical reality and FM radio is mental, spiritual, and universal reality. Both are playing continually and simultaneously, it's just a matter of which we are "tuned into" or in other words, percieving.

What is implied in bold letters is that sleeping and being awake, and furthermore being "alive" or "dead" is a state of consciousness... (more on that in a different thread)

My theory is that when we enter the sleeping-state we alter our state of consciousness to "muffle out" our physical senses and "tune into" our non-physical ones. While in this state, we interact with our minds, our spirits, and the universe but not aimlessly. Along with manipulating important information we percieved in our waking-state, we gather new information and make choices in this sleeping-state. It is my belief that many of the tasks we accomplish in the sleeping-state are choosing what we will experience and percieve in the waking-state from a set of probabilites. These probabilities extend to and from every consciousness in our waking-state, and what is implied in that statement is that there is essentially a universal "agreement" as to what will happen to any given thing/person/place at any given moment. In other words, when we sleep we participate in the creation of an agreement of what has been, is, and will be based on a set of probabilites chosen by every physically-conscious/focused entity in the universe.

Our metaphysical decisions are related to us in quasi-physical mental experiences we call "dreams", which are guides for the waking-state. In other words, what we call "dreams" are non-physical events and experiences that are given physical "dressings" by our minds in order to interpret and remember them for later use. While in our waking-state, we (and when I say "we" I mean every atom in the universe) act out the decisions of the universal agreement we make in our sleeping-states.

I believe this theory describes the root-causes of things like deja-vu, premenitions, and why some people possess in their dreams senses they interpret as physically oriented ones.

fuggin_pothead

deja vu is actually just when one side of your brain picks something up shortly after the other side of your brain. other than that i like this theory, it makes you think.

Higher Logic

1. Deja vecu (already experienced or lived through)
A fairly well-known quote from David Copperfield by Charles Dickens can be used to introduce what is meant by deja vecu: "We have all some experience of a feeling, that comes over us occasionally, of what we are saying and doing having been said and done before, in a remote time - of our having been surrounded, dim ages ago, by the same faces, objects, and circumstances - of our knowing perfectly what will be said next, as if we suddenly remember it!"

2. Deja senti ('already felt')
I would like to turn now to a phenomena that is often confused with deja vecu. To introduce it, I would like to quote from an 1889 paper by Dr. John Hughlings Jackson, one of the foremost pioneers of modern neurology. In the words of one of his patients, a medical doctor suffering from what has come to be known as temporal lobe or psychomotor epilepsy, he wrote: "What is occupying the attention is what has occupied it before, and indeed has been familiar, but has been for a time forgotten, and now is recovered with a slight sense of satisfaction as if it had been sought for. ... At the same time, or ... more accurately in immediate sequence, I am dimly aware that the recollection is fictitious and my state abnormal. The recollection is always started by another person's voice, or by my own verbalized thought, or by what I am reading and mentally verbalize; and I think that during the abnormal state I generally verbalize some such phrase of simple recognition as 'Oh yes - I see', 'Of course - I remember', &c., but a minute or two later I can recollect neither the words nor the verbalized thought which gave rise to the recollection. I only find strongly that they resemble what I have felt before under similar abnormal conditions."

3. Deja visite ('already visited')
There is another phenomena which is also often confused with deja vecu. It seems to occur more rarely and is an experience in which a person visits a new locality and nevertheless feels it to be familiar. He or she seems to know their way around. C. G. Jung published an interesting account of it in his paper on synchronicity. To distinguish it from deja vecu, it is important to ask whether it was purely the place and location of inanimate buildings and/or objects that were familiar, or did the situation that the person was in also play a role. Deja viste has to do with geography, with the three spatial dimensions of height, width and depth, while deja vecu has to do more with temporal occurrences and processes.

__________________
Crucial Web Hosting · Garden's Cure · Marijuana Recipes · Drug Testing Facts

Dilution · Substitution · Urine Testing · Hair Testing · Drug Testing FAQ

Arise -SWS-

I've never been diagnosed as epileptic in any way, nor does my family have a history of seizures or any other mental/psycholgical conditions. I'm not disputing that deja-vu can be associated with such ailments, I'm just pointing out that I don't think those are the only causes of deja-vu. I think there's a whole lot more goin on in our heads (and out of them) than science will be able to explain soon.

At any rate, to shed some light onto why I believe the theory I spoke of before I just wanted to share an experience I'll never forget.

In my 10th grade US history class we all had been working on a project dealing with Supreme Court cases. During class this kid named Ben Woo stood up and said "If you're having trouble finding number 26 on the list that's because it's actually Dennis vs. United States, not United States vs. Dennis." As soon as he said that I jumped up and shouted "Deja-vu!" I was blown away because over 2 years prior to that day, I had a dream that he stood up and said that under those exact circumstances. The trully amazing thing was before that class, I had never met Ben Woo, nor had I ever read or researched anything on Supreme Court cases. Furthermore, the accuracy of the dream floored me. Everyone, including people I had never met were wearing the exact clothing and arranged in the same positions. What's more, the school that this took place in hadn't even been built at the time of my dream and yet the positionings of the desks, and the colors and placements of the walls matched it perfectly.

Basically that one event changed the way I thought about dreams for the rest of my life and is why i think they work the way they do.

 

Higher Logic

That's only one theory though, and according to your response, looks like a mix of this and the "already experienced" deja vu:

"What is occupying the attention is what has occupied it before, and indeed has been familiar, but has been for a time forgotten, and now is recovered with a slight sense of satisfaction as if it had been sought for. ... At the same time, or ... more accurately in immediate sequence, I am dimly aware that the recollection is fictitious and my state abnormal. The recollection is always started by another person's voice, or by my own verbalized thought, or by what I am reading and mentally verbalize; and I think that during the abnormal state I generally verbalize some such phrase of simple recognition as 'Oh yes - I see', 'Of course - I remember', &c., but a minute or two later I can recollect neither the words nor the verbalized thought which gave rise to the recollection. I only find strongly that they resemble what I have felt before under similar abnormal conditions."

::blazed jae::

Arise that is really interesting you should seriously persue a career in psychology if not neurosurgery or neuroscience. Do either of you agree with Freud's or Carl Jung's theories of the human psyche? With Freud he groups the subconscious within the conscious (conscious consisting of the ego and superego while the subconscious consists of the Id, a balance of positive and negative "energy" and "emotion"). With Freud's theory, the Id has the Eros (good) and Thanatos (evil), and they are regulated by the superego and ego, basically society's perception of a person and that person's ideal vision of his/herself.

It seems as if your theories fit more into the Freudian psychology rather than the Jungian. With Carl Jung, he divides the conscious and the unconscious. He groups the ego with the conscious, but instead of having the Id he has the shadow, a neutral/natural/animalistic version of yourself. This is grouped as part of unconscious thought and is brought out prevalently with disscociative drugs and one experiences an ego death. Other parts of the Jung conscious psychology is your reflection on society (persona) and how others view you. I think I prefer the Fruedian psychology (although it is based on sexuality and has many discrepancies that people can debate).

I think Jung's theory is still very interesting and I learned all this past year in school. This website has more info:
http://mind-brain.com/personality/jung.php

__________________
KBO Club : Kind Buds Only

Arise -SWS-

Blazed Jae:
Honestly, I'm terrible at almost every kind of science and I'd never pursue a career in it. I'm an artist by nature... been drawing since I was 2 and I'm doing web design and illustration right now. I took psychology 101 a few years ago in college and decided (based on what information that textbook/professor gave) that Freud made little to no sense at all. To me it seemed he explained everything by relating it to genitalia or wanting to hump your mother. I think that Carl Jung's version of how the mind works is way better, more holistic and in a sense much more philosophical and borderline religious.

Higher Logic:
I think the biggest problem I have with the "already experienced" deja-vu is this line: "I am dimly aware that the recollection is fictitious and my state abnormal." For me, this just simply isn't true. If it's referring to the particular moment of deja-vu, my state doesn't just suddenly change or become abnormal, I just kind of stumble unexpectedly into the experience. If the dream-state is being reffered to as abnormal, I think that's just ridiculous because pretty much everyone dreams- it's perfectly normal. Also I believe that just because an event doesn't happen in waking-reality doesn't mean it didn't happen and is fictitious.