Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By random, I mean I do not willfully do this. I may be watching a TV program or surfing the net when it happens. I multitask so there are too many variables. Thinking something I want to discuss and my wife says what did you say or what do you mean and I then reply I said nothing but was thinking it suggests to me something is happening.
And I already adumbrated for you what that "something" is. The fact that we think all the time, and so do our partners, and therefore the periodic coincidence that we are thinking the same thing at the same time is bound to happen sooner or later.
Of course another alternative is that while you are deep in your multitasking you are actually being more vocal than you have noticed. Maybe you do mumble while you think. Many people do and do not realise it, even when those around say "What did you say... I could have sworn I heard you say something".
The point is the possibilities are endless as to the explanation for such things. Asking someone on a forum to explain it, or even presenting them it anecdotally, is akin to the "lampshade" which you will hear about in the first couple of minutes of this video here on you tube that I strongly recommend you watch. This is one of the biggest issues with anecdote... the fact that the person presenting it might (knowingly OR unknowingly) leave out the key details.
I wish I could make watching that video compulsory in schools. It is a monumentally accurate and important piece of work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeekerSA
I am positive that dreams that seem to last a long time actually are very short and in my case, the ones I remember, happen in the transition of waking up.
You are right. Time disparity in dreams is a known phenomenon and whole sections of dream memory can fit into really short periods of time. This is, for example, one of the reasons people are so convinced by near death experience. They are convinced they had long elaborate time periods of memory while they were "under". In fact more often than not the entire sequence of dream visions they had likely occurred during the short periods of going under, and coming out of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeekerSA
How does one explain premonitions? Do we have a sixth sense that is not developed?
I do not see that as something requiring explanation, for the same reason as the "people phoning" point I made above. We think a massive amount of thoughts in a day, many of them about the future. The real world presents us with a massive amount of events. Eventually some of our thoughts about the future, by sheer chance, are going to match the actual events of the future. We are of course, as we discussed, biased towards noting THOSE events, and entirely ignoring the 9999 other times when our thoughts about the future did NOT match the actual events.
"Premonition" is just the word we give that intersection between thoughts about future events, and future events, where they appear to match. The fact we have a word for it does not magically mean something surreal is happening there and people are actually seeing the future. It is just a cognitive bias to notice such interactions in a mass of failed such interactions.
This is before you even START to discuss the fact that people having "premonitions" more often than not have only something that loosely fits the actual passing events, but they are happy to interpret it as a premonition anyway. One detail out of 50 might be correct in their "premonition" but they still jump on it and claim they saw the event coming. I have heard things in my time like "I saw this coming! Ok the sun wasnt out, it was a red car not green, and the drive was male not female.... but I saw it coming honest".
As I say, everything you are describing here in this thread is just the result of a cognitive bias towards pattern seeking in a huge mass of otherwise meaningless random white noise.... and then attributing more to those moments of coincidence in that mass that they otherwise warrant.
As a non-practicing, but licensed masters level psychologist...
You ought to seriously consider giving that license back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt
, it bugs me when I see people continuing to recite the myth that we use only 10% of our brains.
It's not a myth, it's true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt
What does 10% of our brains even mean? Does it mean 10% of our brain matter? Functional MRI's show that we use all parts of our brain.
As a "on-practicing, but licensed masters level psychologist" you should know it is defined based on the number of neural pathways, which number in the billions, not "parts of the brain."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt
Does the saying mean that you would be just fine if 90% of your brain was removed?
No, that would be completely asinine, and no one (of any repute) have ever suggested that.
None of your arguments are even remotely related. It would appear you don't understand the issue.
You ought to seriously consider giving that license back.
It's not a myth, it's true.
You are not in a position to tell me what I should do with my professional license. Why should I give my license back, because I outed a myth relevant to my field that all of my colleagues would applaud me for?
Show me where any crediable source has ever said that we only use 10% of our brains, that exact phrase. I already know that you won't be able to do it. It is simply a myth that has been circulating by the uninformed for years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
As a "non-practicing, but licensed masters level psychologist" you should know it is defined based on the number of neural pathways, which number in the billions, not "parts of the brain."
I am not sure what you are trying to get at here. I said what I meant and I meant what I said. You are right that there are biliions of neural connections, but there was nothing wrong with me talking about "parts of the brain". You know parts of the brain as in the prefrontal cortex, the hypothalamus, the limbic system including the amygdala, hippocampus, and fornix, etc.
Last edited by Hueffenhardt; 06-21-2011 at 09:51 AM..
Hueffenhardt,
I used to believe that myth about using only part of our brains.
Now, I realize not only do we use our entire brain (some take advantage of this gift more than others)... we also have learned to create space for more knowledge that we couldn't cram into our brains... like internet, books, etc.
Yet, we live in selective awareness... maybe some of that selection could be better selected.
I'm curious - what do you think of the higher dimensions?...
I don't know, I've been posting here for 4 years now and I'm pretty sure I've witnessed enought empirical evidence to make a strong argument that 10% stat is WAY too high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20
...Theories of a multidimensional universe are currently popular and if these are correct, then it is likely that we have other senses which may be vestigal, which allow us to operate within these realms and about which your mind science is only taking its baby steps. Alistair Crowley and other secret societies and religions have always maintained that the universe was larger than science believes and they believe the mind is the way to unlock the door to these other places.
I cannot help thinking that our training in logical and analytical thinking is probably a disadvantage to our development towards a more complete multidimensional entity.
Interesting!
I think this field is so wide open to explore... & maybe someday, those in the future will look back at our relative ignorance, as we do of those in our distant past.
Last edited by SuperSoul; 06-21-2011 at 03:00 PM..
The "10% of our brain" idea was popularized by Reader's Digest decades ago, placed prominently on the cover. I'm fairly sure that increased the sales of that issue in the checkout lines. Is that where one should look for information on scientific topics?
The "10% of our brain" idea was popularized by Reader's Digest decades ago, placed prominently on the cover. I'm fairly sure that increased the sales of that issue in the checkout lines. Is that where one should look for information on scientific topics?
Of course not! Everybody knows they should check Wikipedia.
I don't know, I've been posting here for 4 years now and I'm pretty sure I've witnessed enought empirical evidence to make a strong argument that 10% stat is WAY too high.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
