Humans' never experience real time. We always are observing the past, and live in the future. It is impossible to live and respond in real 'time'. Until you engage your brain processes, and are willing to examine your awareness of reality your journey into time, will still seem real! We may create a fourth dimension, but in reality there are at least five dimensions. The fifth time conception, which contains all dimensions is Observer.
This is a little different than what was discussed in the article but I was once knocked out during a fist fight in high school and while walking to the nurse I distinctly remember believing that my eventual trip to the end of the hallway may have occurred the day before. In other words I confused my expected near future with the past.
I too have seen experiments involving a falling subject who carried a fast moving digital clock with them. They were asked to stop the clock at a certain time during their fall compared with when they were stationary on the ground. On average the test subject was able to stop the clock nearer to the target value when they were in the falling state than when they were stationary. This was explained by the effect of noradrenaline and adrenaline release in response to the falling motion - a fear,flight, or fight response. It would appear that our perception of time and inbuilt time clock is linked to our metabolic state and the effect of these hormones. This might explain how we remember shocking events like moments as if time has dilated, eg just before a car collision, with the effect of a sudden rush of adrenaline. Perhaps the experiment could be repeated on say a roller coaster ride? Of course a physicist might point out that time is different for a falling observer rather than a stationary one, but I think that relativity effect is very small compared with the adrenaline effect.Its interesting that certain anaesthetic drugs used in heart surgery ( and which block adrenaline) seem to be associated with a perception of time standing still. ie patient wakes up as if they had just been anesthetized when in fact many hours have passed. For me there are two types of time - the one that governs the Universe, which is a constant, and the other how we then percieve it, which is a variable. The idea we record info as a series of snapshots also makes sense, at least in a quantum reality. Is there any link between quantum states of the atoms that make up neurons for example, and the frequency of these snapshots?.......
Well It's A Bit Rambling (my Comment) But Thought Provoking. .
~ mmm.. we need to get away from the inbuilt concept harking from classical physics that dictates things operate in a 'clockwork' universe, and the reductionistic idea that to know the whole, understand the parts.. consciousness alters throughout the day from waking to work to play to sleep. there is no set measure and it alters differently for all. time is essentially 'a measure of change' in whatever system, and that rate is relative to that system only, ergo consciousness' perception of time is an individual thing, and yet can have real results. Don't believe me? --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
so what this boils down to is that of reality is in fact relative to anything else. ie.to perceive something, you literally need anything else to compare against. the arguement is therefore reversible and so anything is really only there because of anything else. the basic architecture behind this is ultimately 'quantum' in nature. ultimate 'reality' is far more crazy and wildly interesting than anything from a text book that has been written in the last 100yrs or so.. and i reckon there's some irony in that.
I've got your time illusion right here:
http://grasshopperx.com/mind-games/how-to-stop-time/
"Sure enough, when he span a wheel at certain speeds, all subjects reported seeing it turn the "wrong" way."
Umm... was the lighting incandescent or fluorescent? Unless the lighting was incandescent, this is just a strobe effect from the 50hz pulsing of the fluorescent light - it has nothing to do with "our visual frame rate."
I think Rufin needs to brush up on his Physics before he tackles neuroscience
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.