you may be interested in the concept of collective consciousness. this memory is thought of in some schools of thought to be something existing throughout the history of the human species (and maybe well before). Jung took and other psychologists still take it very seriously.

there is some truth in this statement, however what is 'an accurate portrayal of time and moments'?

hang on, I will certainly not accept that the dreams I have mean nothing, so why should Iacchus32? this is a personal choice: if you believe your dreams mean nothing then it will be so. (i used to think that and i remembered very few dreams in that time). they may mean nothing on some sort of physically objective level, but who says this is reality?

everyones body does not work in exactly the same way: ones brain helps to determine the way one acts, stores memory, solves problems, etc. and i believe our brains are a combination of genetic material (memes?) as well as personal experience (including social constructions ie. religion, law, etc.). so in other words one can believe what one wants but will be subject to consequence; positive, neutral, negative, or a combination of all or none.

note: the brain/mind is only one of many influences over our being, me thinks.

I agree that there are some things "you just know", such as instincts which are hard-coded into humans. Quite often, those instincts have a survival value, but may not be specifically correct.

An example is fear of snakes. Humans world-wide have an overall instinctive fear of snakes, but you can override your instincts by learning about snakes and how to avoid them. You can even learn to like them, as I have. I love handling snakes.

Also, there is the concept , whichyou later refer to, of "memes", which might be related to "collective unconscious". They are essentially "ideas" or "thoughts" which have been passed around in a group of humans until almost everyone has that meme. Unfortunately, racial hatred is such a meme, but there are many good examples too.

But in all of these cases, each individual has the meme or the instinct, even though they share them, either genetically or memetically with the group. They are not "stored" in some disembodied consciousness. And in almost every large group, you will find some who do not share that instinct or meme. That fits in strongly with the idea that they are individual, not group characteristics.

How do believers in "the collective unconsciousness" explain those nonconformists?
It is not a particularly easy concept to explain, but I feel the best way to describe time is as the sequence of events. Think of how you measure time. You measure minutes and hours by the sequential change of the hands of a clock (or, these days, digital readouts.) You measure days as the sequence of earthly rotations. Years, as trips around the sun, etc. Events with tiny time increments may be measured by the sequence nuclear vibrations of certain atoms (atomic clocks). Long events may be measured by the sequence of radioactive breakdown of certain elements (radioisometric dating).

In each of these cases, you are measuring something moving in relation to something else, be it atoms or planets. I'm not going to go into time dilation or special relativity (because I'm not that well educated), but for most of us, time is the sequece of events as they occur relative to each other. This gives meaning to the terms "before" and "after". You can also compare the length of these events by comparing them to some sequence of events with a recognized length (like the rotation of the earth, or the phases of the moon).

So as you can see, the term, "before time" has no meaning, because "before" is an expression of time. Likewise, the term "preserving the moment" is a way of saying "remember it". You cannot truly preserve a moment, because as long as anything is happening anywhere in the universe, the moment moves on.

I bring up that last point to talk about something that was presented to me recently, though I don't claim to be able to either accept it or explain it completely.

Since time is the sequence of events happening relative to one another, how could there be such a thing as "no time". Something is always happening somewhere, right?" Well, maybe not. If certain theories of the Big Bang are true, there was nothing "before" the Big Bang. Nothing was happening because nothing existed. There was no sequence of events, because there were no events. In fact, the term "before" the Big Bang is itself contradictory. Time simply didn't exist. This is a difficult concept to fathom. It is like trying to imagine how much is infinity.

Now, it is tempting to say that God was still here doing something or other, but if He was, then that is an event. The processing of thoughts is an event. To me, that makes it nonsensical to say God existed before time, because there would be no way of knowing. It would be a statement of purest faith, and zero evidence.
Actually, I was just echoing what Iacchus was saying, in that unless you are conscious and awake, it doesn't mean anything. I was doing so to point out to him the contradiction this poses with his list of dreams that he thinks mean something.

But for myself, I do not say that dreams mean nothing. I know well from experience that they often reflect things that are going on in your mind. If you are troubled, you are more likely to have nightmares. More than once, after a day of performing some repetitive task, I have found myself dreaming that I was doing that task.

I think dreams are just like thoughts, but less structured. You can consciously allow your mind to free-associate, so it should be even more pronounced when you are not forcing your mind to think in logical pathways.

But what do they mean other than that your brain is resting and doing some housecleaning? Do they foretell the future? On occasion, they do, but that is fairly rare (unlest your fortell that the sun will rise the next day, or something utterly predictable). But the vastly overwhelming majority do not. We'd be in a pretty big mess if they did. Are they communications with God? Obviously, lots of people think so, but that would mean that God is trying to confuse us by sending his important messages when your brain is not fully functioning. Also, it would be hard to reconcile all the very different messages that God sends to different people. It seems much more rational, and very typical of dreams, that this too is just your imagination unleashed. People who think about God a lot during the day probably tend to dream a lot about Him too.

This is pretty much a truism: Whatever you think about a lot in the day tends to appear in your dreams as well, often in garbled form. I have a lot of bizarre dreams about sex. Go figure.
I agree with this almost completely.
Indeed. I have known some men who, when they are in the grip of hormones, their brains perform almost no function whatsoever.

Um...a minor correction is required here. First off...Jung was not a psychologist. He was a psychoanalyst, which is an entirely different animal. Psychoanalytic theory is a very, very small sliver of current psychological thought, of interest mostly for historical reasons. Are there Jungians today? Yes, but there is also a flat-earth society. Modern psychology is not built on the foundations Jung laid. Modern psychology overwhelmingly rejects Jung's collective unconscious. (Even those who still speak of it use it as a metaphor for a genetic memory, the sociobiological influences on our behavior, and not as Jung viewed it.)

Please...take a look at any introductory psychology book. Jung is covered, certainly, but as a historical figure, not as a contributer to our modern knowledge. Pavlov was earlier than Jung, and we still build on his work. Jung? Sorry, his version of psychoanalysis was a dead end. Psychoanalysis as a whole was a dead end. It is a collection of unfalsifiable pseudoscience, and is part of psychology's history, not part of its present.

Is that why they call it "Junque Science?"

(Sorry. Just getting even for that "current" thing. )

digi cuttle; collective unconsciouss, genetic memory, memes, instinct, intuition, whatever! of course these are all describing the same thing, if there is such a thing. i think whatever IT is is fascinating and surely worth pursuing? i agree with both of your assumptions that memory is individually recognised only, but it is undoubtedly powerful spanned over a group (which surely can be considered a conceptual entity, as a human or any other object is: on closer inspection simply a group of smaller entities working in unison).

as far as intro psychology books are concerned: beware, one must never assume anything as fact, a grave error. i've looked into many a psychology book in my short time as a (non psychologist) human on earth, and there seem to be some disturbingly large Given's amongst them.

for a start to believe in "the collective unconsciouss" would be to nonconform where i come from anyway. it is a consciouss choice, like believing in science, psychological theory or religion etc.

But to be ignorant of ones own biases and instincts, no offence, this would be dangerous. I believe one can create his/her own reality if one wants (subject to complex cause/effect principals), but by taking a look at past experience and the experience of others, one can make better judgements about ones own experience.

surely one must be most critical to ones own self, no? it is the most true thing there is relative to any thing else, but of course everyday problems and prejudices can be found. collective unconsciouss, god, anything of the sort, to me, is an example of judgement of ones self compared to another: if one deliberately nonconforms and takes matter into his/her own hands then crucial mistakes could be made.

note: this idea of hermitism (own experience creating own reality) has a lot of positive points also, don't get me wrong, but many of us live among others and must in turn learn to accept others opinions/actions.


This is interesting and certainly worth debate. if 'certain theories' were correct and 'nothing' existed 'before' 'time', to assume that the human race and it's tools of investigation have the capacity or ever will to 'prove' the concept would surely be a statement of refined ego would it not? nothing exists today; true/false/niether/both/synthesis of any or none?

remember 'time' is a signifier in the english language, and its signified may be as fantastic (and potentially humanly imagined) as god him/her/itself.

yes, logic is limited but powerful. peace

---<(meditate)>---

That seems like it ought to be right, but I don't believe most people use the terms interchangibly. But I understand what you mean. Certainly some of those things exist, and they are not paranormal.
Not if by CU you mean instinct etc. That is what I mean by other people not accepting the synonymity of these words.
Definitely no offense taken. While I'm not sure about "creating one's own reality", even with your caveats, I am in general agreement with everything you said. Only a great fool would deliberately ignore the lessons of history.
Must? No. Should? Yes. Is? Not in my experience. Damned ego keeps getting in the way.
Sorry, you lost me there. Are you saying one should not be a nonconformist because you might make a mistake? That doesn't sound right.
It is true that being nonconformist is fraught with peril. However, it is also true, to some extent, that most progress is made by nonconformists. This is NOT to say that all nonconformists make progress. Some just make trouble.
I agree. Humanity spent a lot of time constructing this social order and it has a lot going for it. The parts we don't want to "conform" to, we try to change from the inside, unless you really prefer being outcast. Personally, I don't.
As I said, I don't completely understand it or believe it, but it does have a certain logic to it. Yet, it is difficult for me to get my head around this hypothesis, and of course, it can never be provable or falsifiable. So actually, calling it a "theory" was a mistake on my part.

I was kind of hoping, though, that you would comment on my portrayal of time and moments apart from the "no time before time" thing. Was it a rational way of explaining what "time" normally means to us.
I'm not familiar with the term "signifier" used in this context. But if you're saying that some people go all google-eyed when holding forth on the subject of Time, just like some do when expounding on God, then I don't think you have to look far to find evidence of that.
Agreed.

---<(ooooooommmmmmm)>---

yes, slight confusion there. but there is some truth; for example if one gets to the point in life where one asks ones self: what have i done? why do i do what i do? where am i heading? where do i want to be....etc. one is then making conscious decisions and uncovering ones own past and learning from that; therefore sort of 'reprogramming' ones self to head in the desired direction, and learning to 'override' instictual urges and negative wish's etc. and to be necessarilly cliched about it: living from the heart.
yes i'm not 100% with that 'creation' slip their either (hey i'm from an artistic family, its almost instinctual ) but i think some people do pretty much that: (un?)consciously manifest/destruct and extremify/downplay there own experiences and therefore there own version or memory of life (reality?).

yes point taken. trust me no-ones perfect.

sorry i get a little authoritarian sometimes..... i don't mean should or should not, but rather 'think about' or 'assess for ones self'. ie. one could possibly be a nonconformist for the SAKE of being a non conformist and become obsessed with the very notion of nonconformity to the point of simply not achieving anything. (i have i weird but wonderful imagination which can sometimes get the better of me)


i think it was certainly a rational description and a perfect example to demonstrate a seemingly universal experience. a linear experience of time is generally accepted in day to day experience. cycles are also very universal within this seemingly linear concept: think of moon cycles, human bodily cycles etc...

in dream states sometimes time does not seem linear, but hopping around and skipping scenes etc. dream states are 'real' for me and are therefore part of my reality. they join the multitude of experiences that make up my reality. so i might try and think a little outside the square on that one, but that is more my own experience.
note: also memory of dreams, and indeed memory in general of time sequences do not appear linear to me, but again, that is most probably not universal but rather, my own experiences and my own mind 'messing with the results'!

still, time is elusive and enigmatic and certainly not easy to generalise about.

by a signifier here i am referring to a literary concept that words 'refer' or 'signify' external observations, phenomena, objects etc.(i think 'postmodern' guys like Lyotard, Derrida, Baudrillard, etc. talk about it) ie. the word bus is the signifier of an 'actual' bus (signified). but an 'actual' bus is still observed and percieved slightly differently by everybody, depending upon each individuals own experiences and physical makeup (eg. visual (sight) capacity) etc. and so the word or signifier is in a generalisation.

Actually a good person to look up is Wittgenstein (sp?), for introductory stuff about language.

therefore the concept of time is a broad generalisation about something that everyone experiences slightly differently. and as we as humans made the word up, we should probably pay a little more attention to its meaning, rather than only it's objective application. i am not sure i make my opinions clear, but i'm doing my best

cheers

--<(meditate)>--

I figured that was what you meant. Yes, I can see the artisan in you, and I approve. I'm kind of split in that respect. I love art, music, poetry, but I have this very boring, skeptical, realistic side which knows that emotions don't really come from the heart. And though I am a lover and a liver, I believe the brain is the heart of the liver. How's that for poetry?
I agree, but we all have elements of both in us. Depending on the situation, I may either magnify or obscure my own observations. I like discussion boards, because I get to hold forth. In the real world, I keep my mouth shut about a lot of my bizarre beliefs.

And wouldn't they be boring if they were? Yes, the old "rebel without a cause" syndrome. I think a lot of the people who appear at protests are like that. They exist to rage against the machine, and it doesn't particularly matter exactly what part of the machine they're raging against.

Everyone should have an imagination. Everyone should also recognize when it is being employed. I think you are well grounded, Magus.
"Thank you" (says Goozleberry after having a successful 'compliment fishing' trip.)
Yes, in dreams, memories and imagination, all rules are void. Yet, they are not really. All of these dreams and memories happen in real time. For example, you might say, "Monday I dreamed I was fifteen years old and Tuesday I dreamed I was ten years old." Your age in your dreams is not linear, but Monday and Tuesday are right on schedule.Then a Day Planner would probably not be a good gift for you, eh?
Oh, sure you can.

"Time and tide wait for no man."
"There is no time like the present."
"To everything, there is a season."
"Ars longa, vita brevis.

And other "timeless" quotations.

Of course, I'm joking. It is because of its elusive nature that "time" appears in so many famous quotations.
Oh hell! I'm still trying to understand "qualia", and now you throw in "signifiers". Sounds like they are related. It also sounds like all nouns are signifiers, so "time" is not so special in that respect.
Perhaps. When philosophers start talking, my eyes glaze over. I'd rather have a normal person give me the "Cliff Notes" version.
You are doing great. I understand you completely, though I don't agree with you on everything. There is a place for deeper meanings, and there is a place for pure, unadorned objective application.

(Judge: Your time was slower than others, so you don't win.
Racer: But isn't time really different for all people?
Judge: You're right! Okay, you win the gold medal.)
***
By the way, does your name have any special significance? I know what a magus is, and I know what a niche is, but I can't help but think that you intend more than just the combination of those two words.

Gooze already noted that these are not the same thing; I would like to add that, of this collection, the odd one out is "collective unconscious". It is chock-full of additional baggage which has absolutely no support.

As for "spanned over a group"...depending on what you mean by this, you may be right or very wrong. There are decades of research on group processes, so the suppositions you are making can actually be answered. One must never assume anything as fact? Um...psychology is a science--in science, all "facts" are provisional, and subject to examination and correction. So you are telling us to beware of something that does not happen. Secondly, by what standard are you evaluating psychological research? If it disagrees with you, how is it that you know you are the one who is right? Do you also disagree with the givens in physics and chemistry books? You admit you are not an expert, and yet you do not hesitate to pass judgment. You prefer your view of the world, your view of memory, dreams, the unconscious, and if the experts disagree with you, they must be wrong.

Owwie! Somebody must have touched a nerve!

Heh. That's nothing. Get on the wrong side of me in an argument about daycare or vaccinations, I'll take your head clean off.

hey goozleberry, we seem to have some similar views and yes forums are great to get out what builds up inside!
there is a set of 'beginners guides' (with cartoons and stuff) to philosophers and thinkers etc. which has been integral in my general knowledge. my name here is something i came to because the words sounded good together: magus is what i identify with and niche refers to my first name which is nick.

Digi cuttle, to tell you the truth, i love a good argument! i have always gone by the phrase sticks and stones etc.... so bring it on! its all in the name of discussion. negativity can be positivity disguised by energy consumption.

yes, it seems people around these parts definately have pejudices against the CU idea. here i am referring to a conceptual entity (like the mind, or body) that has an influence over life and matter. i haven't done EXTENSIVE research into the matter but some books like 'future of the body: research into possible further evolution of the human body' (something like that by Michael Murphy) are a cool read (its damn thick though and i aint read all of it).

and i will bring up the underrated jung again, as he is a hero in many alternative spiritual circles. why blindly reject what he has to say? he is simply treading into places many would never be comfortable in and uncovering observations about people and the way their mind (both conscious and otherwise) affects things. his work is fascinating and collates research from cultures around the world, to try and work out some universal 'memories' we as a human race may all have. also his stuff about coincidence/synchronicity is great.

would you guys agree that all organs influence the brain? eg. the heart rate in symbiosis with the brain? or does everyone here assume the brain controls all? i wouldn't be so sure.... eastern thought often draws on 'energy chakras' and things of this sort, where organs and areas of the body have sensory function as well as mere bodily function. i am not willing to simply reject all of there thousands of years of wisdom because science cannot 'rationally prove' it.

i am getting to the point where i reckon conscioussness can run on many levels (infinite degrees) it just depends on where one 'draws the line' as to whether or not one is 'conscious'. does anyone find this useful? to me it is profound because it means certain groups of people could all be running at a certain 'frequency' if you will, and therefore changing the world around them to suit their OWN reality. fascinating, and surely not judgeable?
yes and i 'must' be 'wrong' in their eyes too (as if there is a right). disagreements are potentially not necessary, me thinks. if everyone accepted that there are differences among all of our thought processes etc. maybe........yes it's utopian.

catchya round...

Unless you are speaking metaphorically again, you still have the problem that for anything non-physical to have an influence over matter, you are looking at a violation of the laws of physics as we understand them. Now, of course, this is not impossible (I did say elsewhere that all scientific truth is provisional and subject to correction), but there is no gaping hole in our knowledge of physics that cries out for some mystical influence to correct our knowledge.Underrated? With that level of evidence, the fact that people still pay any attention at all makes him seriously overrated. Blindly reject? I am quite familiar with Jung, from his split with Freud to archetypes to CU to mysticism...I reject him with eyes wide open. Yes, he is popular, especially in some circles; this is despite the evidence, though, not because of it.There is a huge leap from the obvious "the whole body has an influence" to "energy chakras". In addition, your last sentence is pure strawman. Thousands of years of wisdom support the geocentric universe, too...and we do not "simply reject" chakras; we note that they are not supported by any evidence, and at this point conclude there is no reason to think they exist. As always, all it would take is evidence, and science would embrace the concept; there is no "simple rejection".Why do you reckon this? Just because it sounds good? Or what evidence (loosely speaking, of course) leads you to this view? Strawman again. Of course there are differences. That does not preclude the notion that whole classes of ideas are wrong (there may or may not be a "right", but there certainly are things which are either physically or logically impossible).

Digital Cuttlefish, are you a academic brain master, or are a hobby psychologist?
Just curious.
I have to agree that you know much about the brain, though.

__________________
The Heavenly Afterlife exist.

Well, since it's just as easy to ask who created God, i.e., in an attempt to divert our attention or, insist we're barking up the wrong tree, who or what created the laws of physics? Or, are we referring to pure happenstance, in which case everything we see, feel and experience around us is based upon nothing. Whereas nothing by itself if, in fact that's all there wasn't is not a law of physics is it?

In which case might I suggest it's much easier to accept something based upon something, as opposed to nothing?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I won't pretend I understand everything you said here, Iacchus, but I do have two comments. First, asking who created god is not an attempt to divert attention. If god is invoked as the thing that created the universe, we must then ask who created god, or we have not carried our investigation to its fullest. Of course, if the answer is "god needs no creator", then we must go the other direction and ask whether the universe needed one. So it is not a diversion at all, but simply the next logical step in the process.

Secondly, the laws of physics (rather, the laws of physics as we know them) are not the sort of thing that needs a creator. You have been corrected on this before, I think. They are descriptive laws only; that is, they are the most parsimonious description of our observations of the universe around us. As such, they are subject to change when we find explanations that fit better (like the Copernican model supplanting the Ptolemaic, or Einstein supplanting Newton). If we consistently find something that does not fit the laws, the laws must be rewritten to fit reality--we do not cite reality with a violation of the laws, and give it a ticket. The fact that our laws of physics have been re-written a few times should tell us quite clearly that they are not "created".
(BTW, this does not mean the whole thing is "happenstance" either--I know you like to create these dichotomies, but that does not make them real.)

It shouldn't matter, Human. I could tell you I have a Ph. D. in experimental psychology, and teach courses in belief, history of psychology, and other applicable stuff, but to you I should just be some person who posts on an internet site. I urge you to check on the things I say, just as I would urge you to be skeptical about anything else you read here (or elsewhere). I don't mean you can never believe anything--not at all! I mean, check the credibility, check the sources, check the methodology...educate yourself! There is good and bad research out there, but it is not terribly difficult to recognize which is which, once you know what to look for. A place to start would be with a course or a book on Research Methodology, which gives a good overall grounding in how to read and evaluate research, no matter what the field. There is a lot of good research out there, and through this research we know an awful lot about our brains, our behavior, our experience. Other research tells us an awful lot about our planet, our solar system, our galaxy, our universe. When you look for answers, it is just as easy to ask the experts as it is to ask people who just make stuff up.

That's fair enough, I just didn't like the idea of having duplicate posts. I probably should have posted the whole thing on a new thread, rather than leave the original post here (for the new thread), albeit it was in response to your post and I posted it here out of courtesy. And, in case anyone needs to know, I had already determined to create a new thread before posting it here. So, you may have noticed that I just reinserted the post you're referring to. Thanks.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?