It made me think about timescales very much: if trees moved at human scale time, we'd think about them in a totally different way, and I'm sure would be very much more open to the notion that they're intelligent in many ways.

---

I'm not convinced that the visual/time part of this is correct. If we follow the analogy with sonic fusion frequency ... there's a point at which a repeating sound will change from being a rythmic experience and instead becomes a pitch. So, if you are in an acoustic environment that is generally filled with pitch information, and you could somehow shift your sonic fusion frequency ... if you moved it down, even some of the non-pitch sounds will become pitches; if you move it up, some of the pitches (the lower ones) will now be perceived as rhythmns instead. But ... and this is the important part ... the actual frequencies of the sounds will not change at all. So there's a fixed physical phenomenon (acoustic pressure waves at various frequencies) which does not change, but the sonic fusion frequency determines what kind of experience we have when we encounter that phenomenon. Notice though, that it's a more or less binary switch: either we perceive N Hz as a pitch or as a rythmn, and varying the fusion frequency doesn't alter that. Nor does it various the actual physical frequencies of the sounds - they continue to be whatever they were.

I suspect this is likely true for visual fusion frequencies too.

Moreover, the comparison with video and/or film is misleading. In those cases, the actual phenomena are a discrete series of images that because of CFFF end up being perceived (or not) as continuous motion. But when looking at the actual world, to within the limits of our senses, ALL phenomena are continuous. If an insect flies across your field of vision, there are no distinct series of images that your brain does (or does not) fuse into continuous motion. There is only a continuous motion, which you may or may not notice (the whole thing may happen too fast for you to even register the entire pass.

CFFF, if I understand correctly, is measuring how fast you need to present discrete visual information for the brain to "fuse" it into continuous information (such as motion, or a persistently "on" LED light. But this doesn't seem to have anything to do with how we and other animals perceive reality, because reality is not a series of discrete images. I don't believe that CFFF has much to do with our ability to perceive time, or even with limit questions such as "how long must something be in our visual field in order to notice that it was there".

Could be that I'm missing something huge here, in which case I hope that Benn or someone else will correct me.