Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Why Time Flies

First off, I hate when people look back on a week and say, "Man that week flew by" or, "Ugh! This week will never end, it's going so slowly!" Unless the earth slowed down on its trek around the sun, the days and weeks still went by at the same rate. And yes I am somewhat aware of relativity, but as long as none of us were going light-speed, I believe we were all going about the same speed as we stayed attached to the earth. (That being said... I can't help but say it sometimes)

I'm going to present two ideas, none of which are mine, but that do seem to provide likely answers as to why we get these feelings of time 'flying' and why we always have to let everyone else know that it is for us.

1.
I read this one awhile ago, but I can't recall where I read it. Its simple, yet makes complete sense. After one year of life, that past year was 1/1, or 100%, of your experience. After your twentieth year of life (of which I am about 4 months from completing!!!), the previous year was 1/20th of your experience. So each year, since we are unable to expand our brains,  causes the percentages of our brain to get reconfigured. While this does seem too simple, and it probably is, it does make sense and is most likely correct to an extent.

2.
This one comes from Jeff Hawkins (creator of the PalmPilot) in his book, On Intelligence. One of the main subcategories to his overarching theory is that the brain's neocortex has a hierarchy of cells. Thus, there are lower levels and higher levels to it. The lower level take in basic sensory experience and then relays this up to the next level. At the next level, those cell's input is comprised of the various neuron firings from the lowest level. As this level recognizes patterns, it relays to a higher level where they see a pattern and begin to do different things with it. This a very poor reconstruction of his argument but I think it will do for this. 

Now when these patterns are something we've seen before, they follow a certain path and this pattern fits the previous path and so we recognize it (from memory). When it is new, it does not follow a common pattern. So while we see a person and we recognize (from memory) that it is a person on one of the mid-levels of the hierarchy (because all our low-level inputs show a pattern consistent with the inputs a person has normally given us), that is where it stops and we cannot associate a name with the person (which would be a higher-level task). So when a new series of inputs fits a pattern we've already seen, it is 'recognized'. If an experience is completely new, our neocortex takes notice of it and it goes all the way up the chain to the Hippocampus, where it is stored (in a sense).

Now how does this relate to why time flies???? Well Hawkins suggests that over time, and after more and more experience, we see less and less 'new' things. So while we may see 500 baseball games, they start to blend together because not a lot of 'new' experiences are occurring. We remember our 'first baseball game at Wrigely,' but we most likely won't remember the 73rd one, unless it happens to be the game the Cubs win the World Series (which would certainly be 'new' for us!!). In his diagram then, as a pattern is familiar, it will follow similar paths that we already have. If nothing new results, then it doesn't make it to the hippocampus. But if a guy spills his beer all over you in the 8th inning, that is most likely a new experience and it makes it all the way to the hippocampus to be stored. So while you may not be able to tell a friend how many strikeouts Zambrano had, you will certainly remember that spilled beer.

Again, I seem to avoid the question! But here is what it comes down to. As we experience more and more, less and less becomes 'new', because we have all this background that our brain is able to relate to the current situation. I think Hawkins uses the quote, "The more you experience, the less you remember." So in regards to the passing weeks of our life, as we experience less and less new information, it tends to not make it all the way to the hippocampus and as a result, we do not remember it. So weeks where we do 'the same old thing' are not the 'memorable' ones and our brain aptly 'discards' them.

another good example is people's names. Lets say you meet a new person and their name is generic, like Sarah. If you know 50 Sarah's that is most likely going to be tough to remember. But if her name turns out to be Jerra, it will most likely be foreign to you and you'll comment "Wow, that is a different name!" and you'll most likely remember that person and their name. While this is something we've all experienced, I'm still amazed at how Hawkin's theory is able to explain it scientifically and anatomically.

Side note: On Intelligence has become one of my top 2 or 3 books of all time. I've read it in two days and am disappointed it is over with. At the beginning of the book Hawkins says that when people read his book, they find themselves nodding in agreement with the things he says and how they can relate it to their lives. What is brilliant about his book is that it takes all these different aspects of our lives (on the scientific as well as social levels) and provides a theory of the brain that explains almost every part of them! While reading it, I did just what he said people usually do and thought back to all these instances that have occurred in my past that this theory explains. Now, after reading it through, I experience something and immediately think back to his book and how it perfectly explains what just happened (like with why people say "time flies"). 

I strongly encourage everyone to read this book! I know people always bombard you with these different books that they think is the greatest book ever, but seriously, this will change how you view your every-day life. I'm not saying you're going to quit your job and divorce your wife, but it will provide insight into why we do things we do and why we experience different things the way they do.

12 comments:

  1. Where did you get the name Jerra? That has to be the ugliest name I've ever heard. Not positive that I wouldn't have killed myself if that was my name. Just saying.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It was just an arbitrary, fictitious name. Where did you get the name Anonymous?

    Also, is there a reason you avoided adding a subject and the present form of 'to be' to your last two sentence fragments?

    ReplyDelete
  3. How does this theory jive with the old adage, "Time flies when you're having fun?" Let me take a shot at it, and then you can respond if you want:

    It seems we could take this adage in one of two ways, the first which doesn't work with the palm pilot inventor's theory and the second which could:

    (1) We have fun when we experience new things. Time seems to go slowly during the monotony of repeated experiences (such as working day in and day out at the office). However, when we are able to get away and experience new things (say, on vacation), we find our precious time slipping through our fingers quickly.

    (2) We have fun when we experience familiar things. Thus the etymology of the word "amusement" is from "muse" meaning "think" and the negation "a." When we are able to do what we want to do, that which is familiar to us, we don't form many new experiences but rather enjoy the familiarity of old ones.

    My sense is that both (1) and (2) are plausible definitions of what it is to have fun. In fact, they don't have to be incompatible but might be two different ways of having fun. But (1) doesn't fit well with the theory presented above, while (2) fits perfectly.

    My sense is that there is more to the "time flies" experience than the neurological explanation alone. I think there is also something to the phenomenological or subjective aspect of experience and memory of experience such that it can seem like time goes by fast when experiencing new things (as long as they are, in fact, fun experiences) and time can seem to go slow when experiencing familiar experiences (as long as they are boring ones).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Awesome D.C.! I was hoping someone would comment on that part of time flying. I did have some ideas but I wasn't satisfied enough with them to justify making my post even longer than it already was. Plus I don't want this site to be totally me spewing my view of the world.

    My best shot was to say that we tend to focus on the experience of the thing or the thing itself, rather than the recognition of the experience? I'm not sure that is a real distinction, but that was what i got ha.

    I agree with one. It may also go along with what my initial thought was, that with new things, our focus is upon the thing and the experience of it, rather than an awareness that we're experiencing it. Again, maybe I'm stretching.

    I really agree with 2! I think the focus is upon the 'thinking', for this one, and for number 1.

    In conclusion, I agree with your comment ha. Thanks for posting! Phenomenological things as they pertain to experience is something I'm quite unfamiliar with.

    P.S. To further back your point, I really like the non-intellectual quote from Einstein in regards to relativity: “Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity.”

    ReplyDelete
  5. I bet your mom wears a bonnet.

    -From the original Anonymous who hopes this sentence is structurally correct.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Three points:

    - Leave the mothers out of this.

    - That's the problem with having a name as common as Anonymous, they're all the same. In fact, I'll probably forget who you are within the week.

    - Lastly, I'm sorry to announce that, as much as I appreciate self-reference, your pseudo-sentence in this post was, like half of your last post, nothing more than a fragment. You again failed to include a subject, which is an integral part of the English construction of a sentence.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What are you going to do, put me in a head lock?

    ReplyDelete
  8. "In fact, I'll probably forget who you are within the week." Hahaha, hilarious. Pardon. Sentence Fragments.

    My line of study, unfortunately enough, does not lead me down very stimulating paths (intellectually or otherwise), and yes I am aware that is due to my own choosing. Thus, I am regulated to simply trying to understand some of these discussions to the best of my ability. Most does make sense, thanks to the dumbing down of the material. I will add that it is all very intriguing and interest-piquing. However, I will most likely limit my comments to those things that I understand fairly well. Which leads me to the point of this comment, pertaining to the first (and simplest) theory as to 'Why Time Flies'. I am very certain as to where you heard that theory, and perhaps you will remember while reading this. It would have been at least a good handful of years ago, probably while pondering this very blog subject, that I doodled the fractions on the backside of a notebook, proving (to a very minor degree) why time seemed to move more quickly as we got older. This theory doesn't address the aspect of certain weeks seeming to move faster than others, or the effect that 'fun' has on a person's time perception. It basically states that each allotment of time (e.g., a year) that passes by only seems like less of our lives.

    I would also like to add that "Anonymous" has gotta be the one and only Brock Armington, haha.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Self-reference is great. Sentence fragments too. only when used in a self-referential way. However, pure sentence fragments in and of themselves only portray a lack of understanding of English grammar.

    Ya, I figured it was Brock after the first one; his subsequent posts only solidified my suspicion. I'm glad you were able to spot a ignoramus as well as you have.

    So it was you that came up with that?!? I did not remember that.

    But ya, most things do not often have one answer, and so all of these answers most likely work together to create our perceptions of the world as we experience them.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Fan-TAST-ic book. You start out thinking, "How good can this tech geek turned scientist really be?" but the quality comes in subtle waves. I nodded along throughout as well.

    I think you get the record for reading it the fastest; that one big chapter in the middle took a few sittings and some head-scratching.

    I'll let you know when I build a computer that works efficiently with HTM, and then you can let me know what to use it for.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ignoramus? What is this, The Cask of Amontillado?

    ReplyDelete
  12. By the way, that last comment was most certainly by Chon Schrock and not Brock Armington.

    ReplyDelete