Comments on: “Ready steady slow”: time slows down when we prepare to move

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 16 Sep 2012 16:53:20 +0000

“thePoetGeo” has some intriguing questions, also has anyone measured any physical vitals (Blood Pressure, Heart Rate, Metabolic Rate, etc.) during such experiments? Is there a way of measuring what kind of neural activity is focused on said task? Could the added activity give a better reaction time? Maybe a study with people where a faster reaction time is valued (Drag Racers or Fighters for example) since their reaction times can be quite short.

If we can put focus more mental activity on a single issue, will it be better understood?

Oh and Perception is not always Reality.

By: Kinseher Richard

Kinseher Richard — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 15:27:09 +0000

The slow-down-perception of tennisball or baseball can be explained very simple:
(sorry for my poor English)

1) Make a film with a high-speed-camera of a ball who moves with a high speeds towards the camera (use the same position as the player would see the flight)
2) split up the film and use only the frame*) in intervals of every 125 ms (milliseconds) over the film
3) every frame*) has to be expanded to the duration/length of 125 ms, in the same order as they were taken out of the film > thus we have now a film who has the original length, but consists of sequences, each of 125 ms duration
4) when you show this film to a player who had the ´slow-motion´-perception, then he will agree that this is, what he saw
This means: the film has original length, only the movement is split up > time was not changed, only the perception

And now to the topic perception; our perception works with very simple rules:
“Rule 1 is: We are in a state of conscious awareness (= Stimulus pattern real-life(SPRL))
On perception of a new mental and/or sensual impression (= stimulus pattern input (SPI)) => the brain will combine/add a comparable experience recalled from the memories (= stimulus pattern from memory(SPM)) => to form the new awareness (= stimulus pattern temporary awareness(SPTA)).

Rule 2 is: compare the temporary awareness (SPTA) with the input experience (SPI) and reality (SPRL) for plausibility.

Rule 3 is:
A) When the compare is plausible, then the mixed experience (SPTA) is accepted as our new reality, the perception of awareness (SPRL). With this reality go back to rule 1 and start again with new impressions.
B) When the compare is not plausible, then the level of awareness towards new and recollected impressions will rise when we focus our mind/attention onto the input of our senses – and our brain will go back to rule 1, to start again.”

(The text of the 3 rules is a quotation from my book: Near-Death Experiences completley explained)

Now you can understand the background of the slow-motion-perception: To an event (ball flight) which is well known from the training (=> many different experiences are stored in the memory) the brain will activate a comparable experience from the memory (with the anticipation of the future, thus we can react immediately) – this re-activated experience will become SPTA.
But the ball will move on and when the plausibility examination is performed – the situation is not plausible (The ball is now in another position). Therefore the brain has to activate a new experience which fit to the new position of the ball. and so on and so on > this are experiences similar like the frames*) above, with a duration of 125 ms (in the example)

I hope, my explanation is good enough to explain the phenomenon.
P.S.: All our experiences are made, stored and recalled in PRESENT TENSE; therefore they are Standard Operating Procedures which allow a quick reaction to a certain situation, with the anticipation of the future.

By: Tony Youngblood

Tony Youngblood — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 01:13:14 +0000

T. Brien, perhaps I was unclear in my hastily-composed comment, but I actually don’t disagree. I wasn’t implying that the underlying reality would change.

By: rdiac

rdiac — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 18:39:37 +0000

T Brian and Dave are actually correct. You can test this yourself if you wish – you’ll need a cellphone[mobile], a bathroom and a mirror. Take multiple videos going over single activities. When you download them to your computer you can count the frames, and the test part is that ones’ prior estimations are at significant variance to outcomes when compared to each other. Dopey people probably shouldn’t try this.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 23:10:54 +0000

It would be a worthy use of time to check in with skydivers on this phenomenon. I made many years ago remembering numerous moments when I tried something new or unexpected and risky and the memories years later in many cases are video stills of frames sometimes not even separated by seconds. Adrenaline alters perception and that is enough to change the potential reality. Ask any NFL receiver about being in the moment. The nature of events may not change but if there is a switch to flip on capturing those moments, that is how we can learn more.

By: T. Brien

T. Brien — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:37:00 +0000

Mr Youngblood, I don’t think it says anything about the nature of events. The events transpire at a given rate – a baseball moving at 90+ MPH – if the sampling rate in the brain increases it doesn’t change the speed of the baseball or the fabric of the universe around it. The only thing that changes is the perception of the individual. It is the perception that times slows down because you are sampling more “frames” per second than normal. Perception is not reality.

By: thePoetGeo

thePoetGeo — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 13:55:43 +0000

Research the batter’s EEG paying close attention to patterns of Gamma wave activity. Look for neuronal clusters oscillating together during these periods of synchronized firing

Research using the hypothesis that parts of the batter’s brain are in synchronous resonance and are producing a ‘mind field’; and that the brain, instead of just being just biochemical thought processor, is utilizing groups of neurons as field generators.

Stochastic resonance within this system is attuning the visual cortex to minute changes in movement.
In brief, the batter is not just paying attention to the ball with his brain and its limiting electro chemical transition rates, but with an aspect of his mind: i.e. the processing is taking place within the level of field – quantum computational occurrence – mind as undergoing two distinct computational states – bio computer and quantum

experimental results will differ wildly dependent upon the subject and subjects mental & physical states

Try conducting the same on a Buddhist monks performing various martial arts

See also – “Computing with waves; neurons as resonators” http://bcats.stanford.edu/previous_bcats/bcats04/html/nuallain.html

Also, revisit the consciousness causes collapse theory (e.g. the act of observation affects reality directly)

There is a Nobel Prize up for grabs here – if you can keep your budget non-military

By: lee

lee — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 17:49:52 +0000

Mr Tony Youngblood you just blew my mind!

By: R. E. Hunter

R. E. Hunter — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 17:36:14 +0000

So does this mean that the scientists who said it’s impossible to see a fastball in time to hit it (and therefore batters hit them by anticipating the trajectory from the pitcher’s movements) were wrong?

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 14:46:23 +0000

If I recall correctly, Eagleman had become interested in the concept of fear causing time to slow down based on circumstances such as a priceless vase that seems to fall slowly before breaking. Hagura’s study is a useful adjunct to Eagleman’s work. Apparently, Eagleman was correct that people do experience a sense of time slowing down in such moments, but fear is not the primary driver of this phenomenon. Most frightening occasions involve attempted action to avert disaster – lunging to catch a vase, jumping out of the way of an oncoming car, etc. Fear is the most memorable aspect of the experience, whereas an attempt to take action seems to be an obvious byproduct of the circumstances. Eagleman’s hypothesis that fear was the driving force was reasonable, and it’s helpful that his experiment isolated fear in a circumstance that did not afford subjects an opportunity to take action to resolve the crisis. Otherwise, he may have reached a false conclusion that his hypothesis was likely true. If Eagleman had designed a study combining fear with the necessity to do something to resolve the perception of impending disaster, I wonder if his results would have been different.