Talk:Sense of time

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment

Giving it a High Importance rating; though non-obvious, the human sense of time is intrinsic to our understanding of Time overall.

Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—Yamara ✉ 15:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Beginning comments

Does anyone know anything about a Swiss man who supposedly trained himself as a human chronometer?24.215.77.125 01:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Pharox

I don't think Hawkings' suggestion should be included in the article as it has no experimental support.

Change in sense of time while undertaking certain tasks

anyone have any info on how a computer users sense of time is altered? like time seems to pass more slowly for them? Especially prevelant when playing video games.

Distortions in Perception of Time Through Causation

Does anyone have any information about how someone's perception of time can be altered when they are the one causing the event? Anything relevant to Dr. David Eagleman's or Benjamin Libet's work would be appreciated. Bella'sTwilight 05:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The source of time as a chemical reaction

In Chemistry, chemical reactions are often calculated as going to completion and next going back to a midpoint. There is the objective possibility that those reactions are like the calculations. If biological chemical reactions are anything like that, there would be reactions in the body - including the brain - that swing back and forth. Such swinging would likely act as the pendulum of a biological chronometer. Verification is only a matter of finding which reactions are responsible. P.S. Hawking's idea is not true to any physical process.. it doesn't seem relevant. 74.195.25.78 (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference instead

This was what I was talking about. I'll try and find the reference in the meantime, but I don't think I will be able to. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Aha! I found another one.

Neural bases and models We have so far highlighted a growing collection of psychophysical findings that suggest that time judgments can distort, recalibrate, reverse, or have a range of resolutions depending on the stimulus and on the state of the viewer.

Reference = 3/10 down.

It can go further though, but that wouldm't be beneficial to most readers. Ummm:

At the level of the behaving animal, experiments in monkeys have shown that posterior parietal neurons can encode signals related to the perception of time. Neurons in lateral intraparietal area (LIP) seem to represent the passage of time relative to a remembered standard duration (Leon and Shadlen, 2003). Janssen and Shadlen (2005) recorded the activity of LIP neurons while monkeys made saccades to peripheral targets after a variable delay period. The timing of the "Go" signal (dimming of the fixation point) was a random value whose probability distribution was fixed throughout a block of trials. The conditional probability of an event given that it has not yet occurred is termed the hazard rate. The subjective hazard rate is a blurred version of the theoretical hazard rate based on the assumption that time is known with uncertainty that scales with elapsed time (Weber's law), a ubiquitous property of time perception. Many LIP neurons modulated their spike rate as a function of elapsed time in a manner that mimicked the subjective hazard rate of the Go signal. Thus, LIP activity appears to signal the animal's subjective perception of time.

It basically has to do with brain-derived neurotrophic factors with enable gorwth among the neurons to establish neural pathways in relation to other "durational-type" thoughts/synaptic plasticity, or other neurotrophics which can establish different voltages, or potential, etc (I think). Either way, disussions are always welcome. In the meantime, I am going to revert in a couple days. Please assume good faith. InternetHero (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the following sentence (but not the ref) from the article. It needs to be clearly formulated and clearly related to the paper (ref) by Eagleman et al (which, by the way, is very interesting!).

"Those lack of proper estimations are generally attributed to the idea that the more neurotransmitters active in our brain, determines the ratio to which our conscious and sub-conscious selves can perceive perception in relation to time."

As I read this sentence, it is saying that incorrect or inaccurate estimations of duration are related to the number of active neurotransmitters? Does the source say this?

Also, the phrasing "to perceive perception" can't be necessary. "To perceive time", or timing, might do. --Hordaland (talk) 08:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey. I feel that below holds truth to that statement:

Neural bases and models We have so far highlighted a growing collection of psychophysical findings that suggest that time judgments can distort, recalibrate, reverse, or have a range of resolutions depending on the stimulus and on the state of the viewer.

Indeed, it doesn't mention NTs (neurotransmitters) but I would have to go to this clause (2nd set of "bullets"). IMO, you don't need a specialist to translate that to anything the reader wouldn't understand. Indeed, it would be in far less interests to go any further with DNA and BDNTs (that—together—establish the synaptic plasticity and matter for "mimicing-NTs" in relation to time). I remember a discussion on the internal combustion engine article explaining that the article should be named "internal-combustion engine". I think it all depends on what the reader is in habit of thinking. InternetHero (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Two threads moved here, where they belong for context, from Hordaland's user talk page

Sense of time article

On the sense of time article, you made this edit which deleted one of my edits pertaining to one of the websites I read once. I didn't know <--- how to put references back then, and it seems I need an account to check out the website again. Please look here. In the 1st article, it said that the more active neurotransmitters produced from brain-derived neurotrophic factors determines the ratio to which we can percieve. Studies in monkeys show that its also the regions of the brain that can add DNA sequences (BDNTs) to other thoughts correlated wit time without the advent of a conscious perception. I can add another reference if you want, but its going to be different. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph beginning "Imagine you are travelling in a car,...", which had been there for over two years. That's an un-enclycopedic way of writing, addressing the reader as "you", as I believe I mentioned in the edit summary. --Hordaland (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Well, you removed mine too. It's all good, I'm gonna re-add mine, though. I found a new reference anyway. Cheers. InternetHero (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Hello. On this edit you copy-pasted a section of an article. If you read the licencing of that site, you'd see that it is not GFDL compatible. That is why I had to put it in my own words. Let's try and work together on this. Again, I'd have to go with the easy verifiability clause and leave my addition. InternetHero (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

A short quote, quoted verbatim and appropriately attributed, is not copyright violation. See Non-free content: Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim. and What about fair use: Under guidelines for non-free content, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only with full attribution.

Sentences in our own words are, of course, great -- but only if the content can be supported by a (good) source. --Hordaland (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

---End, two threads moved here. --Hordaland (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's funny how I'm replying to myself now... :-) Anyway, I try to implement what Wikipedia is. I don't think that simple definitions should be contained—but rather preserved and contributed to. I suggest a truce and both add to the sentence in question. InternetHero (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If you mean adding back in this: Those lack of proper estimations are generally attributed to the idea that the more neurotransmitters active in our brain, determines the ratio to which our conscious and sub-conscious selves can perceive perception in relation to time., no, I do not agree. "Those lack" is an impossible construction, as is "perceive perception". And I haven't seen any support for "the more neurotransmitters active", nor for the bit about a "ratio". You need to either paraphrase the source you do have or find a source which supports what you claim. --Hordaland (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No, thats was a simplified version. This page was pretty laid back so I suggested an easily readable version of the article. The other article that I had in the 1st place basically said the same thing.

I'll try to dispute this properly, though. Basically, the sentences below is in relation to my sentence:

At the level of the behaving animal, experiments in monkeys have shown that posterior parietal neurons can encode signals related to the perception of time. Neurons in lateral intraparietal area (LIP) seem to represent the passage of time relative to a remembered standard duration (Leon and Shadlen, 2003).

1) Probably white-matter mimicing (if its in the post-par Lobe) and/or a DNA change to ecompass the potential voltage's for ion channels (indeed, I heard that men have a higher math-ability because of zinc ions...) or to the synapses directly (BDNFs), etc.

2) Simple word.

3) Simple word. Adds to my right per: "only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and".

4) Backdrop to the 3rd clause of my dispute (percieve perception, but we can change that).

5) See: Lead.

Anyway, I try to implement what Wikipedia is. I don't think that simple definitions should be contained—but rather preserved and contributed to. I suggest a truce and both add to the sentence in question. InternetHero (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That last sentence is impossible: "Those lack of proper estimations are generally attributed to the idea that the more neurotransmitters active in our brain, determines the ratio to which we can perceive in relation to time."

To simplify it slightly, it currently says, "Those lack are because having more neurotransmitters determines the ratio to which we can perceive in relation to time."

What is it supposed to mean? We have not just grammar and syntax problems here (improper idiom, subject-verb disagreement, needless verbosity, inappropriate comma, wrong preposition, missing object), but a confusing jumble of words. Is it supposed to say that "Errors in estimating elapsed time may be caused by changes in neurotransmitter levels"?

I'll fix the language if you'll tell me the actual content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hows about this: "Errors in estimated time intervals might be caused by the varying levels of neurotransmitters that can be active in the brain."??? InternetHero (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Better. Is "Errors in estimated time intervals might be caused by varying levels of neurotransmitters in the brain." still accurate? (It omits needless words.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. It's still accurate as well. Thanks, thats good to know. InternetHero (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)