Time perception, just like vision, is a construction of the brain
eagleman.com
eagleman.com
With no proof or otherwise, I had always conjectured that this was because time is compared proportionally. When I was 6, the three months of summer were approx 3 / 72 of my life = 1 / 24. When I am 60, those three months will occupy 1 / 240 of my life.
To get around it, I think having less abstract experiences would be a good approach. If you're thinking in a highly abstract manner, maybe all your mornings might be identical and can be compressed into the unit 'morning.' In particular, I mean mindfulness, through meditation. Or you could just throw yourself into something new.
This conjecture then tells one to go out and experience new things regularly!
Or find a way to experience routines as fresh and new every time.
The problem is, the brain is a causality-building machine; it loves to find causality where there is none.
If you tell a room of 100 people the following story: "A person fell, there was a sound of a gunshot, and another person was seen running", and then ask each member of the audience to retell the story and explain what happened, a majority of the audience will reconstruct the story by placing the gun shot first, and explain that what happened is the person was killed by the gun.
In this example, no perception-lag is involved; if a story doesn't make sense the way it's told, but makes sense with a few "minor" alterations, then the brain automatically makes those alterations in order to generate meaning.
Hence: superstition, unreliability of witnesses, etc.
It's like conditional probability: Knowing that they're being communicated to me, it's very likely these facts are related.
Imagine if we had that ability here.
http://www.mystacki.com/#!/post/126/john-dobson:-on-the-toni...
We see a universe of matter and energy in space and time. Matter and energy are the same thing-- Einstein put that together with E=MC2; Space and time are the same thing. Einstein put those two together also with his theory of General Relativity and gravitation. Now whatever you look at you see it in the past (the light that carries the information has to reflect from an objects surface to your eye and that takes time.) You can't see anything when it happens. If you look at it from the point of view from Einstein's equations, the separation between you and what you see is always zero. You see things away from you in space by a trick of seeing backwards in time. You see the sun 8.5 light mins away by seeing it 8.5 light minutes ago. This what Indian philosophy calls Maya or illusion and maintains that space and time are mental concepts. Dobson terms Einstein's equations as the "Equations of Maya or Illusion" http://www.mystacki.com/#!/binder/41/john-dobson
If there isn't one, I may have to write it. It sounds really trippy.
I got a bit of a sense of the effect. Maybe someone can improve upon it.
(Assuming the startle slow-down is a side effect of the brain kicking up retention, based on the current experience having valuable information, we might learn to implicitly associate side-effects like time dilation with "this is valuable experience information". But mostly I have no idea what I'm talking about; I'm not even sure it's a well-formed testable idea.)
Thinking about it, 24fps (good old fashioned film), even though laughably low by the standards of modern displays, manages >1 frame per perceptual time-quanta, which is enough to give the illusion of motion. Any lower than that, and you start getting "frames" where there's no change in the film frame, and the motion illusion breaks down.
a) 24FPS are easily detected as flickering; our true flicker fusion frequency is found around 60-80Hz.
b) Perceptual time discretisation heavily depends on the modality and even the task in question. For motion extraction, this "limit" may be much lower or higher than for olfactory tasks or memory retrieval. Overall, it's really hard to put a time delta on neural processes -- after all, biological systems are more or less continuous.
Shooter player here. This is a laughable statement. Pretty much anybody can tell the difference between 60hz and 120hz - even the mouse cursor moves smoother. Good players try to play at higher than 120hz rates, because it does make the difference.
If the mouse were moving continuously you would be able to see the full trace of its path and not just a few discrete locations along the way. A higher frequency would get closer to this.
Also, in an interactive scenario, the frame rate will impact how quick you get feedback on your actions. With 60Hz, the frames each take 17ms, meaning the next frame will be on average 8.3 ms away. Thus if you perform an ingame action, you will get visual feedback in ~8.3ms, whereas with 120Hz it will come in 4.1ms. There is probably some kind of buffering done, so likely your action will not end up in the currently drawn frame but the one after that. So the response will on average come 3/2 frames after your action: 25ms later for 60Hz v.s. 12.5 ms for 120Hz. 10ms faster reaction time should be noticeable.
It also depends on darkness and color, so I really doubt the eye's fps has anything to do with the brains perception of time.
Here's a great article on this subject: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
Games are essentially sampled screenshots. With virtually no hints as to what happened between samples. Just, in one frame an item is in coordinate X. In the next, it is in Y.
Movies, on the other hand, were not discrete samples of time. If between frame A and B, an item moved between point X and Y, then it will leave a blur between them.
That is, the information is distorted, but it is there. Unlike the discrete sampling where the information is just lost.
Shutter speed is different from framerate.
In high light situations, you won't end up with (much) motion blur.
The takeaway is that the perceptual frame rate for brightness is higher than the perceptual frame rate for motion.
Well, consciousness is more than that. It is also self awareness.
But to make a useful world model the brain has to constantly recalibrate model construction in reference to what you could call, well, what else but, the self.
It's trivial to say that consciousness gives us the ability to do many things, still it escapes a definition mainly for the very fact that it does something, as opposed to everything else that falls under the umbrella of science(s), where description by attributes (e.g. the charge of the electron) sort of says what an objects says. It still escapes an ontological knowledge (we don't have the eye of God, as Putnam put it), but the electron doesn't really do anything, so we're not forced to explain something else than its properties, intrinsic or extrinsic.
Page 330, Search for the sentence "What is the force that moves a people?" and read from there to be taken on some kinda existential journey.
The longer we live, the more the "meaning-making" and hence it reflects as compressed time.
However, meditation does "stretch" time back to how it felt like when I was a kid (in my memory at least).
In many of their more sciency, less blowy-up-y experiments, they're actually quite good about following the scientific method.
If they had a large enough sample size, which when they bring in people for experiments is very easy to make large enough, then they are very likely measuring a real effect. The question is what are they measuring?