A really big question

[Astyanax]

But if you don't remember where you are remembering something from or how you remember it, how do you tell the difference between the two?

Sorry, you lost me there. The difference between the two what?

[Astyanax]

Isn't awareness a necessity for biological life?

No. Not even for advanced biological forms such as humans. We sleep, we pass out, get knocked unconscious, yet continue to live.
 

Really, I'm not mystified by "consciousness," because I view it like a mandatory part of the operating program. 

 
Have you figured out, then, why it's needed? What mandatory function it is supposed to serve?

Perhaps you need to think all the way through what your predicates imply before asserting them.

[BeyondKnowledge]

Sorry, you lost me there. The difference between the two what?

Bearly remembering something from the past that is like what is occuring now and the feeling that something has already happened before. Almost remembering something as opposed to deja vu.

How are the two to be differentiated?

[Randyvine]

Bearly remembering something from the past that is like what is occuring now and the feeling that something has already happened before. Almost remembering something as opposed to deja vu.

How are the two to be differentiated?

The several bouts I've had with Deja vu seemed to have very little to do
with memory if any at all. Because there was no memory of the subject
matter until until the deje vu ocurred. One other tiny detail for me was as 
the episodes were occurring my conciousness would slip into what I can
only describe as a sort of dream state. Really brief and when it's gone the 
the whole event is over. So IDK but I bet deje vu is very subjective by
the individual but the memory part seems isolated to the experience yet
definitely, More than a feeling.

[Astyanax]

Bearly remembering something from the past that is like what is occuring now and the feeling that something has already happened before. Almost remembering something as opposed to deja vu.

How are the two to be differentiated?

Have you never felt déja vu? It is qualitatively different from merely remembering something.

In fact, the whole point about a déja vu episode is that you don’t remember. You have a strong sense that you have passed through the moment at some earlier time in your life but have no actual memory of such a moment.

Nothing can be less like the feeling of half-remembering something but being unable to recall it, or suddenly bringing back to mind something you had forgotten.

Déja vu is a mental state; memory is a mental process. Chalk and cheese.
 

*     *     *

 

Because there was no memory of the subject matter until until the deja vu occurred.

Exactly.   
 

One other tiny detail for me was as the episodes were occurring my consciousness would slip into what I can
only describe as a sort of dream state. Really brief and when it's gone the the whole event is over.

This, too, is exactly right.

[quintessentone]

I wish them every success but I fear they're barking up the wrong tree.

My own belief is that we are approaching the limits of human comprehension in our understanding of (what we provisionally term) reality. Have you ever tried to visualize a four-dimensional object? Then you have an intuitive sense of the problem. There is a world of things we do not sense (and perhaps cannot sense) or even discover, and another world of things (such as 4D objects) we can infer and manipulate theoretically but cannot picture or internalise.

My particular interest is physics, I suppose; not that I'm any kind of an expert, but I have some understanding of the science (which I studied at university long, long ago) and have talked to quite a few real physicist. I know from what they tell me that the science, today, has reached something of an impasse. And worse, over this impasse hangs the terrifying suggestion that the amalytical method (trying to understand things in terms of their more fundamental components) may be a hiding to nothing. What does it profit us to know that matter is made up of vibrating 'strings' or loops and kinks in spacetime? To make sense of such ideas one would need to be, effectively, a god. 

Maybe we shall be gods one day. For the present, however, mortality confines us.

As for them barking up the wrong tree, perhaps you may be right, in that, with openness of mind they may be find themselves barking up too many wrong trees and miss the right one altogether, if there is a right one. Then again, shouldn't every tree be investigated save the barking?

This article explains better what point I am trying to make.

----

"While scientific research has shed light on the neural mechanisms underlying déjà vu, the phenomenon remains shrouded in mystery, with many questions left unanswered. One lingering mystery is why déjà vu tends to occur more frequently in certain individuals or under specific circumstances. Some researchers speculate that personality traits, such as openness to experience or sensitivity to novelty, may influence susceptibility to déjà vu, while others suggest that cultural factors and environmental stimuli play a role in shaping individual differences in déjà vu frequency. 
Moreover, the subjective nature of déjà vu poses challenges for scientific investigation, as researchers grapple with the complexities of measuring and quantifying a phenomenon that is inherently elusive and ephemeral. Despite these challenges, ongoing research holds promise for further unraveling the mysteries of déjà vu and providing new insights into the workings of the human mind.
 
In conclusion, déjà vu represents a fascinating intersection of neuroscience, psychology, and subjective experience, offering a window into the complexities of human consciousness. While scientific explanations for déjà vu abound, the phenomenon continues to captivate the imagination and challenge our understanding of memory, perception, and reality. As researchers continue to probe the mysteries of the mind, déjà vu stands as a testament to the enduring enigma of human cognition and the boundless possibilities of scientific inquiry."

https://vocal.media/psyche/unraveling-th...nd-deja-vu

[Astyanax]

This article explains better what point I am trying to make.

----
"While scientific research has shed light on the neural mechanisms underlying déjà vu, the phenomenon remains shrouded in mystery, with many questions left unanswered. One lingering mystery is why déjà vu tends to occur more frequently in certain individuals or under specific circumstances. Some researchers speculate that personality traits, such as openness to experience or sensitivity to novelty, may influence susceptibility to déjà vu, while others suggest that cultural factors and environmental stimuli play a role in shaping individual differences in déjà vu frequency. 

"Moreover, the subjective nature of déjà vu poses challenges for scientific investigation, as researchers grapple with the complexities of measuring and quantifying a phenomenon that is inherently elusive and ephemeral. Despite these challenges, ongoing research holds promise...

I’m afraid that ‘article’ is just AI slop. ‘Ahmet Kıvanç Demirkıran,’ my eye – even the ‘author photo’ is AI.

But slop though it may be, it still proves my point, not yours. Because all it offers is another bunch of tantalising questions, with not an answer in sight.

Even if you ignore thousands of years of ritual magic practised in cultures all over the world – none of which has been ever been found to work reliably – what people call ‘psychic research’ has been undertaken extensively in the West since at least the Victorian era. The Society for Psychical Research was founded in Cambridge in 1882. Its American cousin dates from 1885, and though it functions under a bit of a cloud nowadays, it still exists.

You’d think a century and a half of research would have produced at least one reliable fact proving at least the existence of nonphysical objects or forces. But all they’ve come up with is a big fat nothing. For all their earnest efforts, not a single datum of reliable knowledge has emerged from paranormal research. Not one.

In the meantime, boring old science has given us all this. And even that impressive list is only of the most important discoveries in the physical and biological sciences. An exhaustive list would be, for all practical purposes, endless.

Yet hope springs eternal in the breasts of those who want to believe in magic. I know just how they feel, because I was like that, too, until I wised up. 

When you come across some actual, tested and proven evidence for nonphysical (metaphysical, if you like) phenomena, we can resume this conversation. For the moment, I see no further reason to discuss it further. Let’s get back on topic instead.

[quintessentone]

I’m afraid that ‘article’ is just AI slop. ‘Ahmet Kıvanç Demirkıran,’ my eye – even the ‘author photo’ is AI.

But slop though it may be, it still proves my point, not yours. Because all it offers is another bunch of tantalising questions, with not an answer in sight.

Even if you ignore thousands of years of ritual magic practised in cultures all over the world – none of which has been ever been found to work reliably – what people call ‘psychic research’ has been undertaken extensively in the West since at least the Victorian era. The Society for Psychical Research was founded in Cambridge in 1882. Its American cousin dates from 1885, and though it functions under a bit of a cloud nowadays, it still exists.

You’d think a century and a half of research would have produced at least one reliable fact proving at least the existence of nonphysical objects or forces. But all they’ve come up with is a big fat nothing. For all their earnest efforts, not a single datum of reliable knowledge has emerged from paranormal research. Not one.

In the meantime, boring old science has given us all this. And even that impressive list is only of the most important discoveries in the physical and biological sciences. An exhaustive list would be, for all practical purposes, endless.

Yet hope springs eternal in the breasts of those who want to believe in magic. I know just how they feel, because I was like that, too, until I wised up. 

When you come across some actual, tested and proven evidence for nonphysical (metaphysical, if you like) phenomena, we can resume this conversation. For the moment, I see no further reason to discuss it further. Let’s get back on topic instead.

AI is humans, it is not in itself anything but a data collection tool. That article puts forth my point, which you choose to ignore, that's fine, but as to who has wised up remains to be seen.

You have just made my point, in that, psychic, paranormal, and now the re-emergence from UAP/UFO/alien disclosure of remote viewing contact with aliens is here to stay because there are those who believe there is a there there. It may be those who are doing the research don't understand what the thing or force is therefore can really never develop the proper methodologies to find the right questions or procedures.

Reread the OPs first thoughts as it is an open thought and therefore any open thinking relating to the mysteries of the unknown or what we think we know within our limited knowledge of physics/mathematics which break down upon different observations and/or asking different questions. I believe we all here are on topic, that being, there is not one really big question, there are many confounding questions that can't be answered.

---

"The laws of specialized models/theories mentioned above are called "effective" in science, and opposed to "fundamental" laws that are meant to be universal and exceptionless. Some theories originally intended as fundamental turned out to have a limited range of applicability beyond which their laws break down. Newton's laws, for example, break down at high velocities, the Standard Model at high energies, general relativity at small scales, etc."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

---

"A number of important questions remain open in the area of physics beyond the Standard Model, such as the strong CP problem, determining the absolute mass of neutrinos, understanding matter–antimatter asymmetry, and identifying the nature of dark matter and dark energy.[sup][2][/sup][sup][3][/sup]
 Another significant problem lies within the mathematical framework of the Standard Model itself, which remains inconsistent with general relativity. This incompatibility causes both theories to break down under extreme conditions, such as within known spacetime gravitational singularities like those at the Big Bang and at the centers of black holes beyond their event horizons" (Wikipedia)

[Astyanax]

AI is humans

Of course,  of course. 

And war is peace.

And freedom is slavery.

And ignorance is strength.

Oh well. I did my best.

[quintessentone]

Of course,  of course. 

And war is peace.

And freedom is slavery.

And ignorance is strength.

Oh well. I did my best.

War is a necessity for warmongers to keep power.

We were and are never free.

Ignorance is weakness by keeping a closed mind.

If you really want to do your best, try having an open mind, but I'm not here to change your mind, I'm here for discussion.

And he haven't yet addressed the OP's George Costanza phenomenon.