1) what if other people world-wide verified the same experience? isn't that enough for reducing the probability of it being a false memory?
2) Remembering something that hasn't happened yet and then witnessing it happening is a remarkable event by itself.

...an open-minded debate. — BARAA

Leave your mind too open and folk will fill it with garbage.

What were you expecting on a philosophy forum? Applause? Philosophy is not just whatever made up rubbish you want; it involves your critical and rational capacity.

You've come here stating that you "Strongly disagree with materialists", and that's how you are seeing each discussion in which you have been involved. You really, really want the argument here to come out in your favour, so that's how you see it.

Look at the results of your own survey, in the OP. If you crave agreement, you are in the wrong place.

Look at the evidence around memory, from psychological studies. Do your own reading.

"I then found a lot of people on reddit that have experienced the same thing" is not research. Nor is "I watched a YouTube video"

Your conclusion is that "it seems like no physical/material explanation can explain this'. You have been handed an alternative explanation, one that is far more reasonable than your hoped for precognition.

You are upset that people don't agree with you. You can be irrational and double down, or rethink your position, like a human being.

Surely, the whole point of joining a philosophy forum is to explore other angles of views. I come with the whole idea of embracing other new ways of seeing. If anything, I am more disappointed when I have been engaging in a thread discussion for a week, and in spite of listening to other's points of view, I still come away with the similar outlook I had.

I wrote a thread on material reality and I would have been very interested if I had really become convinced of determinism . I am not a religious person, but have inclined towards non materialist thinking, but it is not without openness to an alternative way of thinking. If we are only wishing to affirm what we already believe it is hardly worth stepping outside the comfort zone and interacting with others who think differently.

Couldn't you say from the beginning that you're materialist?
Now I see why you're forced to believe that I'm having a false memory.you just need to believe so.

One of The points of a philosophy forum is to discover how others think and make their arguments?yes of course....you can see that I didn't utter any bad word on the forum and didn't reply to words like "garbage","rubbish"... etc
I just said that these words shouldn't belong here on the forum and I'm right about that according to the forum rules.... I'm interested to view your thread by the way.

Couldn't you say from the beginning that you're materialist? — BARAA

Well, no, because I am not.

But you have to think that I am. Contemplate that for a bit.

The evidence is there that memory is unreliable. All you have is an anecdote and a few folk from Redit to support you. Your own survey shows very few of the folk here who took an interest in your thread agreed with you.

The evidence that convinced you of precognition is insufficient to convince your audience here. What do you do next?

Balls. Garbage should be called garbage.

you may express yourself strongly as long as it doesn't disrupt a thread or degenerate into flaming (which is not tolerated and will result in your post being deleted).

but

Types of posters who are not welcome here:

Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.

If you scroll back a couple of pages you will find my thread on is the material the absolute reality. You might find some ideas to think about. I don't think anyone has written on it for about 4 or 5 days, but you could add to it. It might even spark off some interesting debate from some hard materialists which would be interesting indeed as so many threads are being started by those from a religious persuasion.

1) what if other people world-wide verified the same experience? isn't that enough for reducing the probability of it being a false memory? — BARAA

Yes, consensus is encouraging. This is why it's important to have e.g. scientific consensus so that you can't have people just making stuff up.

However you also have to consider contrary evidence. When thousands of pilgrims and the Pope all swear that the Sun danced around before crashing to the earth, yet no one of the other billions of inhabitants of the earth saw it, the Sun remains in the sky, and the Earth remarkably unscorched, you have to conclude that thousands of people can be wrong at once.

2) Remembering something that hasn't happened yet and then witnessing it happening is a remarkable event by itself. — BARAA

And is itself a statement about a memory, which is not compelling.

"deja vu"....my question is how can the brain remember a memory seconds before it actually happens and then waits for it to happen and then it happens? — BARAA

Your title is dejavu and this is what I responded, as I say science have clear explanation for it.
To your question quoted here, stated this way, is capacious :worry: because you're assuming that the brain remembers a future memory what is not possible. :smile:
Again, try to write the "future memory" down on a paper before it happens. You will never be able to do it. I experienced this myself several times.
If you really want to know what happens read the professionals I mention above and learn how the sense of agency is produced by the unconscious brain :wink:

Deja vu of the past is a thing of physical phenomena, future deja vu is of this spiritual phenomenon — Frankin

Have you ever experienced it? If so, try to do the following, next time try to write down on a paper the future that you're sure is about to come.
You will see it is impossible! I experienced it myself.
So, while there was hope when I was younger for a spiritual explanation, this hope vanished when I understood how the brain works.

Dejavu could be induced from the exterior. A neuroscientist could induced you this feeling from the outside using drugs or electromagnetic fields. You would swear you felt you knew the future... but from the outside scientists would know they were the ones inducing it to you.
Unfortunately our consciousness is fallible and cheats us many times... like dreaming is another good example.
Look at heterophenomenology, it helps showing the limits of our sense of agency.

You've come here stating that you "Strongly disagree with materialists", and that's how you are seeing each discussion in which you have been involved. You really, really want the argument here to come out in your favour, so that's how you see it. — Banno

:up:

You will see it is impossible! I experienced it myself. — Raul

Yes! A sensation is not sufficient to establish subject-predicate...

This has nothing to do with materialism. Let's assume immaterialism is true (I do think it is).

The problem is that the future can't cause the present or the past. Genuinely to perceive the future - which is what you think happened - an event that had not yet happened would need to have caused an event that was happening.

So, what actually happened is that your mind (not your brain - I'm not assuming you're your brain) created a false memory of you anticipating the event that you experienced. That event - the event of your mind creating that false memory - will either have happened at the same time as your experience (just as a mirror simultaneously reflects what is in front of it) or a short while after it, like an echo. Either way, introspectively it would seem to you as if you saw the future.

Many here are going to give you materialist explanations and see in this some kind of support for materialism, but that's because they're horribly confused. The problem is, so are you.

Yes! A sensation is not sufficient to establish subject-predicate... — Banno

:up:

Let's assume immaterialism is true (I do think it is). — Bartricks

Of course immaterialism is true. This is a scientific evidence since Maxwell and Einstein. Matter is not everything. You dualists keep using the world materialist as if we were in the middle age.
Science describes the world beyond matter, no need for spiritualism or dual views of the world.

The debate nowadays is between naturalism and dualistic... but of course naturalism is well ahead in the race :wink:

I am not a dualist. I'm an immaterialist.

Note, whether materialism or immaterialism is true is a philosophical matter, not a matter of scientific investigation. Science investigates the 'sensible world'. But whether that place is material or immaterial is not itself something science takes a stand on (many scientists do, of course, but that's because nothing stops scientists from overstepping the bounds of their expertise and doing incompetent metaphysics......then people like you (and many others on this board) think that science investigates metaphysical matters and that what a scientist says about a philosophical matter establishes the truth of it).

Personally I'm looking forward to when the baking age begins and it is bakers, rather than scientists, who start to be seen as authorities on all things metaphysical. Yes, that maybe what philosophers think time is, but what does Paul Hollywood say?

a philosophical matter, not a matter of scientific investigation. — Bartricks

Of course it is a philosophical matter but scientific as well, at least this is what think those contemporary philosophers that go hand-by-hand with science. This is why I mention naturalism, that it is evident you don't know as it is not one of those main-stream stereotyped schools of thought. Read Daniel Andler or Sandro Nannini, they re philosophers.
Today you should not do philosophy without understanding science.

By the way, meta-physics, or meta-anything is a mental construction with no epistemological value. I call it the philosophical meta-fever. Even Aristotle did not ever mention the word metaphysics and it is well accepted even among continental philosophers that each philosopher that has tried to deal with metaphysics (Kant, Hegel, ....) have tried to reinvent the wheel with a new system of metaphysical words and meanings. No epistemological value other than solipsistic statements that will die with humans once the Earth gets burned by the Sun or destroyed in a dystopian future. Science though is universally accepted and makes solid epistemological progress. Slowly but keeps moving.
Don't get me wrong, all of us in Europe have studied continental philosophers as it core of our basic graduate and I even went further... I respect the metaphysical views very much though. It is mystic experience to read them (the Dasein, the categorical imperative, the immanence, ...) but it is like it is to listen to Mozart piano concerto no.21. Great intellectual massages but, again, with no epistemic value.

Personally I'm looking forward to when the baking age begins and it is bakers, rather than scientists, who start to be seen as authorities on all things metaphysical. Yes, that maybe what philosophers think time is, but what does Paul Hollywood say? — Bartricks

You're looking forward to living in the 4th century BC again and be a friend of Aristotle? Good luck! Stay healthy...

Well that's 2 minutes I'm not getting back.

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, seriously. I'm not a bad person but I'm not a diplomat either :grin:
But if you, metaphysicians, are right, those 2 minutes didn't passed because only the present exists. Or maybe you do not adhere to a-theory presentism? :joke:

I'm certainly an a-theorist about time, but I don't think I'm a presentist, as I think past and future events exist. But I'm waiting on Paul Hollywood to confirm this.

Thanks! And yet oddly appealing...

.I can still remember when I was in elementary school I was in class then had a deja vu of my mate pointing to something on the floor but unlike most of my deja vuS I knew what exactly was gonna happen after that and it happened the same as I remembered — BARAA

To what duration was your "prediction"? What happened after lasted for how long, that you knew before time so to speak?

Normal
88%
Paranormal
13% — BARAA

That is "paranormal" for sure.
Clicked on the results and thats what I got. Creepy..

There are plenty of very fascinating mental phenomena. Deja vu is one of them, it's kind of surreal and strange. Doesn't mean it's true, in the sense of you actually experiencing the same situation again. In fact, it's likely false. However, just because the experience isn't true, does not take away from its power or impact. We should appreciate such experiences, as they aren't too common.

As for the supernatural stuff, I mean, if we're still not clear as to where the natural stops being natural, why go on to postulate something beyond? We can only speak of "super" or "extra" or "meta" naturalism once this domain has been exhausted. Seems to me we are very far from exhausting it.