reading this article reminds me countless time I have looked at the clock and the second hand it not moving and then it starts, I am sure this takes longer than a second
Not a lot is said directly in the article about focus.
The essence of the human perception of time is focus. To identify and choose those external stimuli which are relevant to the situation pertaining at any particular time. To identify the rate of change of the most salient stimuli and organise the response of the body and brain to those stimuli. Different filters must be clicked in to exclude irrelevant stimuli.
Thus exciting events may be perceived more slowly because unnecessary detail is removed from the perception of the event itself. When the event occurrs more time is available to concentrate upon the salient feature of the event and so respond to it.
Thus the missing phrase in the above article is 'a priori'.
Our a priori perception allows us to focus upon particular events. - the brain effectively having an inbuilt lens for detail.
More time is thus available to focus upon relevant detail in any particular circumstance.
Also when recalling such memory our a priori conceptuality predisposes us to know that in the actual reality of the exciting event we existed in the same way in detail and temporaly as we do when we are subsequently recalling the event. However because during the event we had filtered out much of the normal apriori world that existed before and after the event we 'feel' that the actual timing of the event was slower than in the normal a priori world because during recall we would have to overlay the normal a priori rate of things so as to coordinate the memory with the current conditions of recall.
Thus also the thought of time as a 'feeling' is missing from the article.
This idea is central to Damasios theory of consciousness - that time exists in consciousness and thus is in essence a feeling.
NB there is a coherent physics without time - so it is not beyond the pale that one indeed considers time as an artefact of the 'brain'
The essence of it seems to have been mentioned in the article - the neurons have to be "recharged" between firings, so what we may be experiencing is a slide show between rechargings, sight and sound showing some lack of sync because of the difference in input between speed of light and speed of sound (?), and apparent subjective experiences can be due to adrenalin influence. Schizophrenics might have a neurotransmitter problem which leaves the scrambling for integration.
why should only one set of neurons be monitoring time?
There must be an internal clock monitored by other sets of neurons which coordinates the internal world.
The visible light from the external environment does not give rise to sight but rather the brains interpretation of optical data. We can still see without light..
Time
Sat Oct 24 01:22:33 BST 2009 by Dennis
http://freetubetv.net
I see someone is heavily influenced by Stephen Hawking's work on time. The idea of time occurring at a much faster or slower pace than human cognition can comprehend is fascinating but not sure how they can really prove that.
Thank God!!! I'm not the only one! The 'second-hand' phenomena is really weird. The harder you look, the longer it takes to start, it seems. Thanks, everyone. David.H.
Please don't stare too hard, I beg you. Time might go backwards and the effect could be catastrophic!
I have a theory that when you remember events you make time go backwards to the event itself.
Thats why a memory is never clear - because quantum mechanics precludes you remebering the exact event but rather you can actually recall information about the event which was not present to your conscious self at the time of the event. This means that this time travel backwards does not alter the present. eg when you travel backward in time to the event - you actually really do see the event again but from a slightly different perspective.
This time travel is an ability of mind rather than brain, so is very difficult to measure precisely but its affects can be felt.
It may be possible to travel back in time and reinvestigate an event.
Perhaps this is done in hypnosis.
Add me to the list of people who have experienced the second-hand-not-moving-at-first phenomenon.
I have done that so many times! Yes it does take longer than a second to start again or at least it seems like it.
Time
Thu Oct 22 14:52:37 BST 2009 by ben
http://www.citeulike.org/user/agcs/article/3090361
This is due to saccades.
http://www.citeulike.org/user/agcs/article/3090361
"When voluntary saccadic eye movements are made to a silently ticking clock, observers sometimes think that the second hand takes longer than normal to move to its next position. For a short period, the clock appears to have stopped (chronostasis). Here we show that the illusion occurs because the brain extends the percept of the saccadic target backwards in time to just before the onset of the saccade. This occurs every time we move the eyes but it is only perceived when an external time reference alerts us to the phenomenon."
In more 'joe sixpack'-terms. After you move your eyes fast, they are unable to collect information for a fraction of a second. When the eyes comes back 'online' the brain collects motion-information for an equal fraction of a second, and extrapolates the information backwards to create what things should have looked like and fills this fabricated visual information into your memory. Since the needle (or digit) didn't move while the brain was collecting info for the extrapolation, it won't be able to predict that it moved in the past either.
That happens with everyone, and when you think about how time has slowed or stopped, it goes again. Which makes me think (well actually i know from other experiences) that time is only constant in our concious mind, when where in a trance, not thinking, time around us slows down because of the amount of information we are processing. The more info we process, the slower time goes, almost to compensate. As we dream on the other hand, a 10 minute dream will last for hours, therefore time speeds up.
I often see the second hand actually tick backwards one tick when I first look at a clock. Anyone else have this experience?
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.
