#subjective time

[eka-mark]

At a distance of approximately 10 to 12 meters, transduction time in the retina, under optimal optical conditions, corresponds to the time the sound takes to arrive at the recipient. Up to this "horizon of simultaneity", auditory information is earlier than visual information; beyond this horizon, visual information arrives earlier in the brain.

Temporal windows as bridge from objective time to subjective time - Ernst Pöppel & Yan Bao

[rook-tx]

Faster Progress Bars: Manipulating Perceived Duration with Visual Augmentations  - Chris Harrison

“This work adds to the nascent field of time design – a discipline that looks at how temporal aspects of interactive systems can be structured and manipulated to improve the user experience. It is argued that subjective time is not only the most readily manipulated, but also the most important. After all, our perception is our reality.”

Read more.

[memeengine]

Two Models of Subjective Duration

We all know - anecdotally - that our senses of duration are unreliable, but in predictable ways... as in "time flies when you're having fun".  It turns out that this effect has been scientifically verified.  Subjects in an experiment were sat down and wheeled either toward or away from the top of a staircase for precisely 10 seconds.  Asked to estimate the elapsed time, the subjects wheeled toward the staircase judged more time to have passed than those who were wheeled away.

Conclusion: Dangerous situations cause time to subjectively slow down.

I've heard two interesting theories that attempt to explain this effect:

Ian Phillips suggests duration is judged by comparing mental progress to physical progress.  As heard in this clip (or in full in this lecture), Phillips notes that when survivors of life threatening situations (ex a car accident) explain "time slowing down", they very often pair that with a descriptions of their "thoughts speeding up".

David Eagleman claims that duration is actually judged post-hoc during recall, essentially by counting up how many "mental snapshots" have been taken by the mind (creating a "flipbook" for each experience as it were).  During moments of danger, the alert mind takes many snapshots, providing a thick flipbook for recall, but fewer are taken in normal circumstances.  For some details on this view, check out this video.

Both of these views have things going for them... Eagleman's "flipbook" view appeals to me with it's simplicity and cleverness.  And yet, it asserts that duration can't be experienced, only recalled.  I like that Phillips' "relativity of mind and material" brings up the topic of events in the mind.  And yet, it makes me want to ask "How do I distinguish between the world moving slowly and my mind moving quickly?" (Or vice-versa)

As a final interesting thought, consider this: What's the value of subjective time-slowing in a crisis situation if the slowing only shows up during recall of the recall?  (and by value, I mean utility that will be naturally selected for!)

[memeengine]

"Since our recording of time is a second hand inference rather than a direct measurement (clocks and calendars are spatial maps of reliably monotonous behaviors of public bodies), we may have the wrong idea about time altogether."

-s33

Quoted from this post.  This raises the possibility that internal, subjective time might be more correct than planetary cycles, or wound springs, or atomic oscillations, or whichever type of "objective" time measurement you prefer.

It would take a lot to make me really believe this... but it may mesh with an (admittedly farfetched) idea I have about human time-perception having something to do with (maybe being limited by) light.  The fact that light-speed is so strictly constant seems like it needs an explanation.