ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Observations

Observations


Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

Time on the Brain: How You Are Always Living In the Past, and Other Quirks of Perception

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



I always knew we humans have a rather tenuous grip on the concept of time, but I never realized quite how tenuous it was until a couple of weeks ago, when I attended a conference on the nature of time organized by the Foundational Questions Institute. This meeting, even more than FQXi’s previous efforts, was a mashup of different disciplines: fundamental physics, philosophy, neuroscience, complexity theory. Crossing academic disciplines may be overrated, as physicist-blogger Sabine Hossenfelder has pointed out, but it sure is fun. Like Sabine, I spend my days thinking about planets, dark matter, black holes—they have become mundane to me. But brains—now there’s something exotic. So I sat rapt during the neuroscientists’ talks as they described how our minds perceive the past, present, and future. “Perceive” maybe isn’t strong enough a word: our minds construct the past, present, and future, and sometimes get it badly wrong.

Neuroscientist Kathleen McDermott of Washington University began by quoting famous memory researcher Endel Tulving, who called our ability to remember the past and to anticipate the future “mental time travel.” You don’t use the phrase “time travel” lightly in front of a group of physicists for whom the concept is not a convenient metaphor but a very real possibility. But when you hear about how our minds glide through time—and how our memory provides a link not only to the past but also to the future—you see Tulving’s point.

McDermott outlined the case of Patient K.C., who has even worse amnesia than the better-known H.M. on whom the film Memento was based. K.C. developed both retrograde and anterograde amnesia from a motorcycle crash in 1981. (The literature doesn’t say whether he was wearing a helmet, but let this be a lesson.) He can’t remember anything that happened more than a few minutes ago. He retains facts and skills, but can’t remember actually doing anything or being anywhere.

Tellingly, not only can he not recall the past, he can’t envision the future. When researchers ask him to picture himself somewhere he might go, he says that all he sees is “a big blankness.” Another patient McDermott has worked with can explain the future in the abstract, but says he can’t imagine himself in it.

To investigate the perception of past and future in people without brain injuries, McDermott did fMRI brain scans of 21 college students, asking them to recall a specific incident in their past and then envision themselves in a specific future scenario. Subjectively, the two feel very different. Yet the scans showed the same patterns of activity. Areas scattered all over the brain lit up; our temporal perception is distributed. As a control, McDermott also asked the students to remember events involving Bill Clinton (presumably, ones they were not personally involved in), and the patterns were very different. In a follow-up study, McDermott asked 27 students to anticipate an event in both a familiar and an unfamiliar place. The brain scan for the familiar one resembled the one for the act of remembering; the unfamiliar one was the odd man out.

The bottom line is that memory is essential to constructing scenarios for ourselves in the future. Anecdotal evidence backs this up. Our ability to project forward and to recollect the past both develop around age 5, and people who are good at remembering also report having vivid thoughts about the future.

McDermott’s colleague Henry Roediger studies metacognition—thinking about thinking. We express varying degrees of confidence in our memories. How we do this is clearly an issue for the court system. The N.J. Supreme Court recently tightened standards on the consideration of eyewitness testimony, citing the risk of false positives. Roediger pointed out that false negatives get less attention, but are equally bad. The worst eyewitnesses are full of passionate intensity, and the best lack all conviction. In both cases, innocent people can be sent to death row while the guilty walk.

Cognitive psychologists find that confidence sometimes correlates with accuracy, sometimes not. Roediger gave volunteers a memory word test. They had to study a list of words; afterwards, they were presented with a series of words and had to indicate whether each had been on the original list. They also had to say how confident they felt about their answer.

Whenever I hear about such tests, I brace myself for bad news. But Roediger said people actually did pretty well, and their confidence scores tracked the accuracy of their recall. Their blind spots were predictable. They systematically messed up, both in recall accuracy and self-assessment, when presented words that weren’t on the list but were synonyms of ones that were. The findings match what happens with eyewitnesses. We get things broadly right, but are easily confused by similar situations and faces.

It’s not that our memory is a glitchy wetware version of computer flash memory; it’s that the computer metaphor just doesn’t apply. Roediger said we store only bits and pieces of what happened—a smattering of impressions we weave together into feels like a seamless narrative. When we retrieve a memory, we also rewrite it, so that the time next we go to remember it, we don’t retrieve the original memory but the last one we recollected. So, each time we tell a story, we embellish it, while remaining genuinely convinced of the veracity of our memories.

So go easy on your friend who caught the 150-pound catfish. He wasn’t consciously lying, which is why he spoke with conviction, but that still doesn’t mean you should swallow his tale. To confuse is human; to accept we confuse, divine.

Speaking of fish, as neuroscientist Malcolm MacIver of Northwestern once put it to me, electric fish are the fruit flies of neuroscience—model organisms for studying how we sense the world. MacIver told the FQXi conference about his astoundingly comprehensive, leave-no-stone-unturned study of a species of Amazonian electric fish, using everything from supercomputer fluid simulations to an working model of the fish (captured in this video) and even an art installation.

The fish generates an electric field of about 1 millivolt per centimeter at a frequency that ranges from 50 to 2000 hertz. Water fleas, its prey, give themselves away by disrupting the field. (You can build a proximity sensor based on this concept. I use one to control the lights in my study.) What gets ichthyologists flapping is that, when this fish is out hunting, it doesn’t swim straight ahead, but at a 30-degree angle to the axis of its body—a seemingly cuckoo behavior that nearly triples the water drag force.

But MacIver demonstrated that the orientation also increases the effective volume of water sensed by the electric field. The fish strikes a balance between mechanical and sensory efficiency. Generalizing this insight, he distinguished between two distinct volumes around an organism: its sensory volume (the region it can scan for prey) and its motor volume (the region it can directly reach). For this fish and most other aquatic animals, the two are comparable in size—there’d be no point in looking out any farther. A fish’s reach does not exceed its grasp.

For land animals, though, things are quite different: their sensory volume is much bigger than their motor volume, since light travels much farther in air than in seawater. So when our ancestors crawled out of the sea, they gained the opportunity to plan their behavior in advance. No longer restricted to reacting to immediate stimuli, they had time to take in the scene and deliberate before moving. Animals that could arbitrage the difference in sensory and motor volumes gained an evolutionary advantage.

MacIver speculated that this set the stage for the evolution of consciousness. After all, what is consciousness, but the ability to make plans and gain some advantage over our environment, rather than lurching from crisis to crisis? Psychologist Bruce Bridgeman proposed this view of consciousness in the early 1990s. MacIver elaborated in a post on his blog, Science Not Fiction, earlier this year.

The fun thing about neuroscience is that you can do the experiments on yourself. David Eagleman of the Baylor College of Medicine proceeded to treat us as his test subjects. By means of several visual illusions, he demonstrated that we are all living in the past: Our consciousness lags 80 milliseconds behind actual events. “When you think an event occurs it has already happened,” Eagleman said.

In one of these illusions, the flash-lag effect, a light flashes when an object moves past it, but we don’t see the two as coincident; there appears to be a slight offset between them. By varying the parameters of the experiment, Eagleman showed that this occurs because the brain tries to reconstruct events retroactively and occasionally gets it wrong. The reason, he suggested, is that our brains seek to create a cohesive picture of the world from stimuli that arrive at a range of times. If you touch your toe and nose at the same time, you feel them at the same time, even though the signal from your nose reaches your brain first. You hear and see a hand clap at the same time, even though auditory processing is faster than visual processing. Our brains also paper over gaps in information, such as eyeblinks. “Your consciousness goes through all the trouble to synchronize things,” Eagleman said. But that means the slowest signal sets the pace.

The cost of hiding the logistical details of perception is that we are always a beat behind. The brain must strike a balance. Cognitive psychologist Alex Holcombe at Sydney has some clever demonstrations showing that certain forms of motion perception take a second or longer to register, and our brains clearly can’t wait that long. Our view of the world takes shape as we watch it.

The 80-millisecond rule plays all sorts of perceptual tricks on us. As long as a hand-clapper is less than 30 meters away, you hear and see the clap happen together. But beyond this distance, the sound arrives more than 80 milliseconds later than the light, and the brain no longer matches sight and sound. What is weird is that the transition is abrupt: by taking a single step away from you, the hand-clapper goes from in sync to out of sync. Similarly, as long as a TV or film soundtrack is synchronized within 80 milliseconds, you won’t notice any lag, but if the delay gets any longer, the two abruptly and maddeningly become disjointed. Events that take place faster than 80 milliseconds fly under the radar of consciousness. A batter swings at a ball before being aware that the pitcher has even throw it.

The cohesiveness of consciousness is essential to our judgments about cause and effect—and, therefore, to our sense of self. In one particularly sneaky experiment, Eagleman and his team asked volunteers to press a button to make a light blink—with a slight delay. After 10 or so presses, people cottoned onto the delay and began to see the blink happen as soon as they pressed the button. Then the experimenters reduced the delay, and people reported that the blink happened before they pressed the button.

Eagleman conjectured that such causal reversals would explain schizophrenia. All of us have an internal monologue, which we safely attribute to ourselves; if we didn’t, we might think of it as an external voice. So Eagleman has begun to run the same button-blink experiment on people diagnosed with schizophrenia. He reported that changing the delay time did not cause them to change their assessment of cause and effect. “They just don’t adjust,” Eagleman said. “They don’t see the illusion. They’re temporally inflexible.” He ventured: “Maybe schizophrenia is fundamentally a disorder of time perception.” If so, it suggests new therapies to cajole the brains of schizophrenic patients into recalibrating their sense of timing.

In the experiment for which Eagleman is best known, he sought to find out why time passes more slowly when we’re scared. Does something really happen in the brain—for instance, the time resolution of perception speeds up—or do we just think it does, in hindsight? After brainstorming scare tactics that probably wouldn’t have passed muster with a university ethics committee, he hit upon asking volunteers to take one of those Freefall or Demon Drop rides you find in amusement parks. They wore a special watch whose digits counted up too quickly for people to register them under normal conditions—thinking that, if perception really did speed up, people would be able to read the digits.

Alas, they couldn’t. Although they consistently reported that the ride took about a third longer than it really did, this must have been a trick of memory; their hyperacuity was a mirage.

Our memory becomes distorted because our brains react more strongly to novelty than to repetition. Eagleman investigated this effect by asking volunteers to estimate the duration of flashes of light; those flashes that were the first in a series, or broke an established pattern, seemed to last longer. This feature of consciousness, like the 80-millisecond rule, explain so much about our daily experience. When we’re sitting through a boring event, it seems to take forever. But when we look back on it, it went by in a flash. Conversely, when you’re doing something exciting, time seems to race by, but when you look back on it, it stretched out. In the first case, there was little to remember, so your brain collapsed the feeling of duration. In the second, there was so much to remember, so the event seemed to expand. Time flies when you’re having fun, but crawls when you recollect in tranquility.

I suspect that this inverse relation in our perception of time also explains how our experiences shift as we age. When you’re a kid, you wake up and say to yourself: “I’ve got a whole day ahead of me. How will I possibly fill it all?” But when you’re an adult, it’s more like: “I’ve got a day ahead of me. How will I possibly get it all done?” And don’t get me started on how people swear that the first year of their baby’s life went by so fast. (A second child is usually enough to disabuse them.)

You can probably tell from my lengthy description of Eagleman’s talk that it seemed to zip by at the time. The physicists in attendance found it one of the highlights of the conference. Not only was it engrossing in its own right, it had some professional interest for them. All theories of physics begin with sense-data. As Eagleman said, “We build our physics on top of our intuitions.”

We also build our physics on a recognition of the limits of perception. The whole point of theories such as relativity is to separate objective features of the world from artifacts of our perspective. One of the most important books of the past two decades on the physics and philosophy of time, Huw Price’s Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point, argues that concepts of cause and effect derive from our experience as agents in the world and may not be a fundamental feature of reality.

Time plays a variety of roles in physics, from defining causal sequences to giving a direction to the unfolding of the universe. How many of these roles are rooted in the contingent ways our brains perceive time? How might an alien being, who perceives time in a radically different way, formulate physics?

Brain image courtesy of Washington University of St. Louis. Fish image courtesy of Malcolm MacIver lab.

George Musser About the Author: is a contributing editor at Scientific American. He focuses on space science and fundamental physics, ranging from particles to planets to parallel universes. He is the author of The Complete Idiot's Guide to String Theory. Musser has won numerous awards in his career, including the 2011 American Institute of Physics's Science Writing Award. Follow on Twitter @gmusser.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 18 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. Wilhelmus de Wilde 9:11 am 09/17/2011

    Time is one of the real Foundational experiences that cannot be declared as a scientific Law , so the FQXi really did well to arrange this seminar and so originate reactions all over the world.
    Time and consciousness are in my opinion very close together, you could imagine that it is our consciousness that creates our arrow of time, isn’t it so that also in our sight we perceive only 5% of the whole picture and the rest is “computed” by our brains/mind/consciousness, this computation creates the world as we are aware of, and here I have to adjust myself, because I have to say the world as I am aware of. Not just because of the 80 milliseconds , but surely because of the fact that as an observer I have an unique place in the universe, on this special place i receive all the signals from events that took place in the past, so had to travel each of them a different road to reach me, and a whole different road to reach another observer. The absolute simultaneity as mentioned by Albert Einstein is only possible when you use the so called Block Universe, a slice of the spatial universe (without time) wher all events happen simultanously, this however is only one way to express our universe and the way that our consciousness is dealing with it.
    Time is different for each observer, so each observer is creating his own universe, his own center.

    keep on thinking free

    Wilhelmus

    Link to this
  2. 2. jgrosay 10:38 am 09/17/2011

    Schyzophrenia is probably not a disorder of time perception, although it can influence the way patients suffering from it perceive time, just the way people that use Cannabis do have the perception of time flow being slowed down. Freud accurately described psychosis as a “narcissistic neurosis”, patients have a blockade in libido, in fact these persons are highly sensitive to inhibitory or repressive commands. The libido being blocked from attaching to something outside,it comes back to the subject and builds a self-rewarding loop. Professor Ramon Sarro established that delusions and hallucinations of psychotics have the value of waking hours dreaming, and thus can be interpreted as dreams are, considering them satisfactions of unconscious wishes, besides that delusion’s content varies in different cultures. The regions in the brain that control time perception are almost the same that those supporting memory and instincts, and as Eduard Punset said, brain is tuned for survival of the individual and the species, all these asspects having interactions. An spanish poet, Antonio Machado, who worked as high school teacher, wrote: “Our hours are like minutes when we expect learning, and centuries when we know what can be learned”. Feelings of “deja-vu” or “jamais-vu” that some consider symptoms of mental disease are probably just byproducts of how our brain handles memory, and of our brain internal pacemaker or clock. Physics: When a body approaches the speed of light, time flow in the body relative to time flow in something not so fast slows down, and the time elapsed in the slow part is more than the time elapsed in the fast one, thus saving time in the traveller; however, matter has an internal time or clock, that can be connected to the half life of its constitutive elements before they disintegrate, and this is some kind of a constant, you can gain time from the place of your departure, you age more slowly while travelling fast that while not moving, but your atoms will finally become older and dissapear, and unless you find the way of going to an earlier time point and renew all the atoms in your nature, you’ll finally fade. Fortunately for us, our death as living things comes before the disintegration of the matter we are build of.

    Link to this
  3. 3. chuckjoey2101@yahoo.com 1:15 pm 09/17/2011

    Wonderful article about the great 80 millisecond reality blank. I agree that it must take time to transfer information from sensory system to the brain and to process it within the brain before we become conscious of it. Then we react and that also takes processing and transmission time to drive the muscles. And this later part is in addition to the incoming lag of 80 ms. Perhaps the total is 150 ms to 200 ms. How then do we survive on the highway at 75 mph in dense traffic?

    Link to this
  4. 4. mhenriday 9:33 am 09/18/2011

    «… The worst eyewitnesses are full of passionate intensity, and the best lack all conviction. In both cases, innocent people can be sent to death row while the guilty walk.» In that case, perhaps we should be considering abolishing «death row» – at least the artificial one, as opposed to the inexorable one on which we all reside….

    Henri

    Link to this
  5. 5. MarkHarrigan 12:07 pm 09/18/2011

    Delightful – wish I’d been there!

    So we still don’t know if time is fundamental, emergent or even exists at all (except in our minds?).

    I think I’ll hide in the 2nd law – at least that has irreversibility!

    Must get the Huw price book!

    Thanks George (loved your book the idiots guide to string theory too, at least what I can remember of it, or will remember, doh!)

    Link to this
  6. 6. eogord 11:59 pm 09/18/2011

    It is interesting that our brain is not designed like a computer, to record an accurate record of events; rather it works on the memory to construct a fiction which, perhaps, is an iota better in helping us survive the next crisis. The neuropsychologists, exploring the whole area of creativity, must find this fact. now experimentally supported, very interesting.
    And teachers who find the students do not reproduce previous lessons should have, then, more sympathy for students. We now have a better understanding why we dissemble, and the basis for the creation of great fiction.

    Link to this
  7. 7. KerenaShefa 2:27 am 09/19/2011

    This is a very interesting article, that still brings closer the “spiritual-metaphysical” claims of thousands of years ago and current, cutting edge research.
    In this view, I think it might be very interesting to conduct the same researches not on casual students, but on practitioners of different spiritual practices, like meditators, shamans etc. I would suspect that at least some of the more practiced followers of the “conciseness-evolution” paths might show a slightly different perception of time. It would also be interesting to check how artists’ and visionarys’ minds work when they depict future and past events, as they are habitually less confined by “status quo” thinking like the rest of us mortals.

    Link to this
  8. 8. S.T. Ranscht 3:56 am 09/20/2011

    From personal experience and anecdotal evidence shared by people I know, I respectfully suggest that Eagleman’s Demon Drop experiment was flawed. To experience the perception that time moves in slow motion, it is not enough to be “scared”; one must truly fear losing one’s very life. (Amusement park rides won’t do that unless they break down — your brain assumes it’s safe when you get on it.) I have experienced slow motion time twice, and on both occasions the illusion of expanded time allowed me to react quickly enough to save myself from dying.

    My theory about this phenomenon is based on the discrepancy between how many bits of information/second our brains receive, and how many boi/s we are consciously aware of. Our brains take in 11,000,000 boi/s, yet we consciously process only 40 boi/s. I suspect that in times of dire stress, driven by our instinct to survive, we process many more than 40 in a second. But the brain uses its accustomed time frame, so that the 400 bits of information it consciously processed in 1 second was interpreted as taking 10 seconds. That give the person in danger time enough to react if possible, and to escape harm.

    Perhaps David Eagleman needs to experience the phenomenon himself just to know that it’s as real as any other perception of time.

    Link to this
  9. 9. GratefulRob 10:06 am 09/21/2011

    Another example of how the rate of time seems to change is how the first time you drive somewhere new it seems to take much longer than after one is used to the drive.
    And in response to the comment about testing people of different spiritual practices, research by a man named Stuart Hammerhof (sp?) has shown that the hallmark of being conscious (as opposed to anesthetized) is something called Gamma synchronization (gamma brain waves usually have a frequency around 40~50 Hz). The Dali Lama sent some of his best meditaters whose gamma frequencies where about 90~110 Hz (they literally raised their ‘vibrations’) I’d be curious to see how they perceive the passing of time.

    Link to this
  10. 10. GratefulRob 10:50 am 09/22/2011

    I have also experienced ‘slow time’ on 2 different occasions, and it was not when I was just afraid, but afraid for my life. Visually, instead of perceiving motion, I saw a series of vivid still frames (about 10 a second) and seemed to have several seconds to think about each one.
    I believe the reason that just being scared appears to slow time is that the memory of the event is more detailed. In fact other experiments have shown that any type of stress increases the ability to recall it in detail. For example vocabulary tests done on people whose arms were immersed in ice cold water performed significantly better than the controls who were not.

    Link to this
  11. 11. squeezy 11:33 pm 09/22/2011

    Re “As long as a hand-clapper is less than 30 meters away, you hear and see the clap happen together.”

    I just read that, despite the fact that light arrives faster, the acoustic “image” is purposefully lagged in the subconscious (at small distances) to wait for the greater processing time required for the much larger quantity of visual sensory data before synthesizing the the complete image (e.g., of moving lips and their words).

    Link to this
  12. 12. cping500 5:41 am 09/23/2011

    Hello Chuck #3

    The model needs complementing with this for example:

    ‘Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain’
    Chun Siong Soon, Marcel Brass, Hans-Jochen Heinze & John-Dylan Haynes,
    Nature Neuroscience 11, 543 – 545 (2008)

    or earlier work by Benjamin Libet which shows that you make decisions before you know about it.

    Exploring both the the notion and praxis of ‘Skilled Performance’ provides explanations of how you make use of this.

    Roughly….

    -self or guided learning of routines and then skills
    -good habits
    -practice (do it often and review performance.. re-learn)
    -alertness and scanning (glance in the mirrors?)(helps the non conscious anticipation of decisions)
    -and keep to the speed limits! (give the system time)

    ‘Skilled performance’ flows…. as NIKE says…. ‘just do it’ No thought required.

    Link to this
  13. 13. spiralsun1 11:05 am 09/23/2011

    This reminds me of an extremely interesting book I read by neuroscientist Steven E. Romer entitled “The Textbook of the Universe: The Genetic Ascent to God”. In it he also refers to time and causality being created in the way we perceive it by neurons. But then he says something else must be giving us our unified consciousness because of the limited nature of information in neurons — such as the glial cells, which he goes into some depth about how they might offer a solution to paradoxes of consciousness (or something like them must) and our ability to form analogy and metaphor and perceive meaning in language and life, etc..

    Anyway, in that book, he goes over some obscure mathematical work by some Russian physicists about a “mirror Universe” naturally arising from the mathematics of this universe where time flows in the opposite direction that might also offer a direction to look as to how these brain structures might be more than they seem by looking at them — because evolution has formed our perceptions to look “out there” at the world to further our causal existence, not at brain processes properly. If neurons make our time sense, then some aspects of brain function might look one way looking at brain matter, but actually be outside our one-way perceptions of time. Just enough to cause meaning and consciousness and retrograde messenger for learning maybe etc.

    One of the most stimulating and amazing perspective in any book I ever read. he also re-defines evolution as primarily an information process of the physical universe(rather than survival of the fittest or sex or food etc) which makes evolution of brains MUCH clearer to understand and puts facts and information on the table as PRIMARY objectives of natural selection! Anyway, I would be interested to hear what a physicist thought of Romer’s ideas… and the relation of brains to physics inside and out…

    Link to this
  14. 14. Wayne Williamson 9:28 pm 09/29/2011

    nice article…thanks!

    Link to this
  15. 15. KittyAntonikWakfer 5:02 pm 10/2/2011

    Very interesting article and is proof (among many other instances) of what comes from “cross pollination” of ideas between peoples who think deeply though very often on what appears to be totally different subjects.

    Like commenters ST Ranscht and Grateful Rob, I and husband Paul Wakfer experienced a life-threatening event – together! – that for both of us appeared to be slowed in time. Neither of us had had quite that type of experience before. The mental slowing effect enabled Paul to actually think about how he (the driver in our excellent vehicle) should best respond to a vehicle passing in front of us (ricocheting across lanes on a major highway after hitting a concrete barrier) with both going at more than 60mph. I truly thought at the time that we would hit it and a terrible pile-up occur with our deaths likely. I was frozen both in sound and motion. Paul told me afterwards that he estimated that the car would complete its pass before our car reached that point ahead – and his best move was to not alter direction, though he had taken his foot off the gas when he first peripherally noticed a direction change of that vehicle 2 lanes to our right and slightly ahead. He did not feel “frozen” as I did but rather purposefully did not change direction.

    Like ST Ranscht, I suggest that David Eagleman “needs to experience the phenomenon himself” to improve his theories of what is happening. An amusement park ride just doesn’t come close. Maybe an experience that is “controlled” but without Eagleman’s awareness and without his knowing when or where such an event will take place. But on 2nd thought, if he knows that a “Deus ex Machina” will save him, he probably would not respond the same way….. Seems like there’s nothing like the real thing!

    Link to this
  16. 16. Jasephase 10:46 pm 07/22/2012

    If the ability to “arbitrage the difference in sensory and motor volumes gained an evolutionary advantage” for higher animals and gave birth to consciousness, then if the 80ms delay were to hypothetically become reduced to an instantaneous perception over both short and great distances, what might be the implications to consciousness?

    Whether intentional or side effect of the practices of the realized psychonaut: the ascetic deep in meditation, the artist caught up in flow… the perceived interval of control, as it maps directly onto feedback, reduces to zero. The overwhelmingly agreed upon subjective experience of those to have reached this state, depending on the object of awareness, is of omniscient oneness. All duality is reconciled and the border of self extends.

    Link to this
  17. 17. LitheLifter 1:32 pm 11/5/2012

    The vivid recollection of past events can help us shape our future. When I start a new, foreign subject, I think of successful techniques used in the past to accelerate learning, or when I need to rely on resourceful thinking for the present to shape my coming years in the way I wish to live, I recall past skills that I successfully employed. While I remember the less successful, painful moments of development, I choose – emphasis on directive thought – to focus on positive experiences to lead me forward to positive pursuits! I love this article!

    Link to this
  18. 18. horsager 12:35 pm 05/15/2013

    The concept of how the brain computes the perception of time is also being addressed at http:hypothesy.com. You can find the Q&A discussion here: http://hypothesy.com/question/how-is-the-perception-of-time-represented-in-the-brain/

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Dinosaurs

Get Total Access to our Digital Anthology

1,200 Articles

Order Now - Just $39! >

X

Email this Article

X