felix the word p_________ will never make it…
it is too awkward…anyways people are making up theories all the time and trying to prove it…
why get fancy…
Eagleman is doing interesting work.
what is his most outstanding theory…
Here’s a link to the wikipedia article en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Eagleman
I don’t know. I just started reading about him. He’s very interested in perception of time. For example, why does everything seem to slow down when we are in a life threatening situation? He demonstarted experimentally that the speed of perception doesn’t change. Rather time and memory are tightly linked.When something threatens your life, the amygdala, a seat of emotion and memory, kicks into overdrive, recording every last detail of the experience. The more detailed the memory, the longer the moment seems to last.
That seems rather obvious doesn’t it?
Increase your frame rate, then you will have to increase your playback processing to render it back if you want it to play at the normal speed of normal capture rates.
For instance, The Hobbit is going to be shot in 48 frames per second to increase clarity of capture detail, but to flip it down to 24 fps standard for the bulk release (instead of special select theaters that can handle the 48), they have to do post production processing of the film to convert the processing of the frame rates so that you still end up with the same “natural” speed desired.
So, the standard camera catches at 24 frames per second and the projector plays it for us at 24 frames per second with a light flicker rate of twice per frame; 48hz.
If you just slammed a 48 frames per second film on that while changing nothing on the projector; two things would happen.
The first is that everything on that playback would be slow as you now have twice the amount of film, but haven’t increased your projector’s frames per second so only half the film length is being processed per second than what was originally intended.
Secondly, your light flicker rate is now one for one with your framerate (48 fps / 48hz), which means your resulting image would look more strobed, or framed; like a flip-book animation.
In essence, each frame would have far more presentation of its contents to you than it would normally otherwise.
To play that 48 back correctly, you need to increase your projector to 48 frames per second, and flip your light flicker rate to 96hz (or 177hz if you really are in a nice theater that flicks three times per frame to increase quality of motion portrayal).
So if you leave your playback mode the same all the time, like we do in our brain, yet you increase your capture rate (the amount of frames you tell the camera to give a shit about vs. the amount of frames to neglect) then you will end up with slow motion.
Opposite to this, if you leave your playback mode the same, like our brains do, and decrease your capture rate then you will end up with fast motion.
As far as I’ve been concerned for decades, this is what our brains do.
You augment the attention to capture; more capture rate, less capture rate.
The more capture rate increases perception of time as the playback of the capture does not increase in league with the capture.
Ergo, we have far more time - seemingly - to process and react to what is observed.
If, on the other hand, there is no danger to the slightest degree, the capture reduces in rate as there is a lack of consideration of taking in more information to analyze for safety; all signals state that all is completely safe, and fun. Thereby, entire gaps in the regular playback of time appear; causing time to seem to “fly”.
I’m not entirely sure why this should surprise anyone though.
Just from observing your own experience, and knowing how simple basic level cinematic photography works, more or less immediates the same conclusion naturally.
So…if you really wanted to play with reality truly…then you would install a processor in the human brain to over crank the hz of recall to double that of capture rates during intense moments where it increases, and introduce to them an added regiment of adrenaline.
The end result would be something along the lines of a super emergency human; something akin to how movies show us the world slowing down in time, but superheros moving the same speed through that slowed down time.
It would seem that the individual can move at impossible speeds to all of us because we can’t even process information that fast to keep up with the decision making taking place; let alone move.
But to that individual, they are merely putting out the excited energy level of playing a great game of basketball and being “in the zone”.
That I will die is certainly no illusion. That death is the falling into oblivion [the obliteration of “I”] may be an illusion. But then no one has ever convinced me there really is something on the other side. Other then through a bunch of words they have managed to believe themselves.
But, sure, I’m all for being convinced myself. Just don’t give me a bunch of words said to be true by another bunch of words.
Intelligence is primarily the ability to predict by calculating the most probable and the impossible.
To an idiot, everything is equally possible and nothing is impossible.
Well Eagleman experimentally demonstrated that the speed of perception does not increase in these situation. If that was intuitively obvious to you to begin with, now there is experimental evidence to back it up.
I’m not trying to convince you of anything. Nobody knows what it’s like to be dead unless you count those that have been clinically dead and subsequently revived. I think therir expereince vary. Being under anesthesia seems quite a bit like oblivian, in as much as one may have no memory of it.
Neither Eagleman nor I am saying that everything is equally possible or that nothing is impossible. Are you?
Fair enough. But what we all want to know is our fate after we die. I do not believe “I” exist once the body stops functioning. And those who do believe seem invested entirely in a world of words—one or another rendition of religion or mysticism.
Anything is possible of course. I just need more than rationalizations. Rationalizations bespeak psychology in my view, not philosophy.
No I don’t.
I suppose to me there was already experimental evidence.
Hell, ask any random pothead a few questions and you’ll have your test results regarding perception, time, memory, and motor skills.
That’s why I said, give a guy adrenaline and stick a processor in his head that doubles the Hz of acumen transfer to memory at the trigger of the adrenal gland.
Congratulations; you just made a human cat crack-head.
I’m not sure what they want to do with this information, though.
About the only thing you can do with it is dampen or excite this behavior.
I suppose you might be able to create a pill to dampen PTSD behavior activity within the brain, or hmm…possibly reduce the activity of autistic brain behavior.
Without risking bodily harm of the current human biology, you can’t crank up the Hz actually. However, you can reduce the Hz so that lesser processing rates are occurring by comparison to the capture rate.
In fact, a good chunk of what’s out there physically backwashes before the smaller amount reaches our neurons.
So really, you could just take the processor from acumen to memory down a few notches in many different ways and, given this information, you could reduce the input activity of sense processing of the overly noised autistic brain.
Sort of a high pass filter, if you will.
That might be something positive that you could do with this.
Perrenially, it hasn’t been possible to “know”. I don’t find rationalizations helpful either. We don’t know if “I” exists once the body stops functioning or not. The suspicion that it doesn’t may be a motivation for those spirititual practices that seek to shed the ego in this life. Buddhism teaches that the self is an illusion. Even from a purely physicalist or materialist perspective, when we die we will will be one with all that is whether we are aware of it or not. If we were conscious that the ego is an illusion now, we might have the sense that we are one with everything now. If that were the case, death might not be that big a deal. Perhaps that is just a rationalization. 
Talking to a random pothead is not experimental evidence. If you are saying that you process the expereince faster under these conditions, Eagleman’s experiments produced evidence that that does not happen.
I believe the self is always situated out in the world existentially [historically, culturally, experientially]. It is always evolving over time as it encounters new experiences, relationships and sources of information. What I do not believe is that it survives the death of the body; or that it is reincarnated over and again. There is simply no substantive or substantial evidence to warrant such a belief. And Buddhism is no less a rationalization in this regard. It offers little more than a bunch of words saying another bunch of words are true—if you believe they are. And I believe lots of people believe they are because they want to believe they are. Why? Because emotionally and psychologically if you believe you are at one with something that transcends the ego it grounds you in a wholistic sense of reality and that can comfort and console you in a world that often rends dasein over and again.
And while the self is constantly evolving and changing it is not an illusion like a mirage or a magic trick. There are existential relationships that ground “I” in continuities [from the cradle to the grave] that allow for rather substantial social, political and economic interactions with others.
In other words: Because we die life [living] means nothing; and because we die life [living] means everything. It is the tension inherent in this paradox that makes a sense of self so vital…and so precarious.
I have a tendancy to think that we shouldn’t necissarily think in terms of Possibilianism but recognnize that we already do. in other words we think we know things but do we really? Just because we have seen all we can see doesn’t mean there isn’t something beyond our perception that is real.
I think science is somewhat just in that it is essentialy Possibilianism: one gathers evidence and asserts that what they have gathered evidence for is most likely, thats why things are called theories, the possibility for an idea being shown less likely is reserved. The problem I would see with science is that alot of the people that follow science tend to think that it actually prooves things, which leadsd to many problems, one of the worst being people thinking that just because someone says it has been scientificly “proven” that somthing is the best thing to do or believe. Really I would say anything that says something is scientificly “proven” is asserting a non scientific idea, science is about theory not proof.
Further I would assert this: How can you argue anything is proven? Don’t you first have to prove that something can be proven, that there is proof? But how do you prove proof? In otherwords when you say something is prooven the premise is that anything can be proven in the first place, and don’t you have to validate the premise before you can gurantee any sort of value to the arguement?
What I was discussing refers to the opposite of that taking place, which would line up with the study.
Pot reverses the process so that time seems too fast. It may feel slow, but most potheads feel like things need to slow down if things around them are in a buzz of activity.
Pot slows down the process. If you slow down the process (turn down the projector below 24fps/48Hz) then you start missing frames of what was captured (24fps film strips; a.k.a. eyeballs).
Ergo, people (which I do not condone) giving pot to Autistic afflicted individuals and celebrating the alleged success.
Yes, it will help in some cases by slowing the processor down through creating inhibitors on the synaptic relays, but what you are doing is essentially carpet bombing the brain for something that really only needs a specific area addressed; intake transfer from acumen to memory.
For that reason, I consider such a practice; though allegedly marginally effective; reckless.
Believe what you will. We don’t know.
It also offer experiences.
Assumption that the universe is one thing. We are parts of it. Whethter or not that consoles a person is another thing which may depend on how they experience this fact.
Are you sure? How do you know? In what sense is the unitary self more than a language mediated social constuction?
Really? What are they?
I think I get what you mean. Finite existence includes being and non-being and requires the “courage to be” in order to flourish.
Right. I agree with you about science being essentially possibilian and that science is a matter of theory and empirical evidence not proofs.
OK then we agree about that. I just mentioned that experiment in response to turtle’s question anyway. It’s peripheral to the issue of possibilianism anyway. I haven’t read Eagleman’s book “Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain” yet but I plan to soon.