It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

You might be seeing this on a 15-second delay: study

page: 2
25
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by demus
 


So with sight, then its kind of like being asleep in a way, even though we are awake, when driving our brain is saying car going down the road, normal, normal normal... someone slams on the brakes in front of us... our brain screams abnormal and we react instantly.

It's why we cannot recall every single make and model of car we see going down the road on our way to work but notice when something happens such as an accident in front of us and can recall every detail as if its in slow motion.
edit on 6-4-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 08:28 AM
link   

OpinionatedB
reply to post by demus
 


So with sight, then its kind of like being asleep in a way, even though we are awake, when driving our brain is saying car going down the road, normal, normal normal... someone slams on the brakes in front of us... our brain screams abnormal and we react instantly.

It's why we cannot recall every single make and model of car we see going down the road on our way to work but notice when something happens such as an accident in front of us and can recall every detail as if its in slow motion.
edit on 6-4-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)


yes, and also in life threatening situations we have more focus, but that is actually the same what you've been saying.
funny smart thing that little brain of ours...?



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


Vision can require effort - just ask any artist or NASCAR driver. Then there is passive vision like when you're watching tv and many shades of in-between, generally corresponding to the relative critical importance of the task at hand. There is some truth to their statement about averaging - we used to call it visual "baselining" when teaching man tracking and camouflage. It is those things that don't fit the pattern that often draw our attention. It's how some people (mothers especially) can seem to notice the slightest thing out of place.

The problem with visual studies are many: subjects are influenced by their state of mind and body, their focus or lack of it, the time of day, their past experiences and by whether it seems truly important to them or not. Showing random visual patterns will quickly invite boredom in the subjects. There are also 2 chemical neurotransmitters called Rhodopsin and Iodopsin that relay signals from our optic nerves to our visual cortex. Humans have limited amounts of these chemicals and our visual performance will be tied directly to the amounts of either available. Scientists have done many crazy studies even putting the eyes of animals back in upside-down only to have their minds turn the images upright again in a few days.

All studies have something to add to our base of knowledge, sorry if I was argumentative in my response earlier. My first post of the mornings tend to show traces of the headache I wake up with everyday. Sorry for that Das.



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


Very interesting. Very cool. Sounds about right to me.

F&S



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


It is a cool study, thanks for the thread.

I watched on tv something to do with how our brains match up with this theory and it was interesting to note that the decisions we make were determined by future stimuli. I know that seems hard to digest in the 'real' world, but they broke the testing down to the basic principles of human survival and people were actually guessing answers in a precognizant manner. I forget most of the rest and don't want to misquote the study, but it tied into what you posted in some way. Visually our eyes have to have this 'filter' or our brains would short circuit and be useless for many of the other tasks we need to do, just while observing something at rest. And all of these elements were proven at the quantum level which opened up a new strategy of though analysis.
If I come across the documentary again I will post it, if you are interested to see.

Thanks. . . AB



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   
I get the reference the brain has to motion "paths". I would expect that. But I am about to click my mouse and there really is no perceptible delay.

"click"



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 07:11 PM
link   
I wonder if this explains part of the "you can't trust an eyewitness" phenomena, as everyone views a different picture of a scene and now, with this new information, some of the blending of and experiencing of that different picture extends to fifteen seconds before something is witnessed. Something like this can actually be used by smart articulate lawyers in court to disprove eyewitness testimony.

Mentioned this once somewhere here, but when Robert Anton Wilson started some of his workshops he'd have people walk in the room from a long hallway. He'd then ask everyone to write down a description of that hallway. Everyone in the room saw a different hallway! and that's the firsthand experience Wilson wanted them to have, so they came away with an experiential knowledge of the phenomena.

edit on 6-4-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-4-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 07:17 PM
link   

intrptr

I get the reference the brain has to motion "paths". I would expect that. But I am about to click my mouse and there really is no perceptible delay.

"click"


no, not perceptional, but according to the brain's "seeing and feeling" it compared to when it really happened, there's almost a half-second difference (at least as I recall the information, please let me now what the current science on this is, anyone. Thanks).



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


I don't have a science link for you. We can train our body to be quicker than a half a second. Ballerinas or pianists come to mind. They train their reflexes to a high degree. But awareness of the moment is like you said a different matter. Less than a second is good for most people.

Less than half a second is really good. So yah, we live in the past.



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Asktheanimals
Does this mean we only slam on our brakes when the 10 second "averaging" seems inclined towards an imminent accident?
I don't buy this study at all.
Like most science these days it looks at small phenomena in isolation then makes inferences on things outside of the study to infer broader implications that often don't exist.


I wouldnt poo poo it really.

This sort of idea is hardly new, I heard decades back about the idea that memory takes about 5 minutes to be laid down. I think delayed memory creation idea also was indicated as meaning that what we are experiencing is technically all on a large delay...

Which begs the question to ask... are we, as in who we think we are really in control? or are we simply viewing the delayed life of the other 'us'. This other us who has actual control of our bodies and makes all the decisions we only believe we make a short while latter...

Makes you think... maybe 'I' am nothing but a mental parasite living off of the experiences of this other being, but some how deluding myself into thinking its actions and choices are in fact my own. Like how everything you are seeing or experience is happening inside your head, literally, its just the combined output of a bunch of external sensors being 'viewed' inside the 'mind'... every time I think about that my head feels odd and very claustrophobic


Ok ive gotta go sit in the corner for a bit in the fetal position... or maybe the real me will.

edit on 6-4-2014 by BigfootNZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 09:24 PM
link   

intrptr
reply to post by Aleister
 


I don't have a science link for you. We can train our body to be quicker than a half a second. Ballerinas or pianists come to mind. They train their reflexes to a high degree. But awareness of the moment is like you said a different matter. Less than a second is good for most people.

Less than half a second is really good. So yah, we live in the past.


The pianist example is a good one, because there is a standard in all music and dance and painting and writing - the best stuff occurs when "you" aren't driving (i.e. the brain and nervous system are performing while the consciousness is doing that quarter of half second catch up), and are just watching or listening. What people call "letting loose" may be just reacting to the moment before the moment when we become conscious of the moment. (and then it's turtles all the way down)



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


Heres a couple vids about quick draw artists. YouTube is full of them…
This one is a reflex response from a tone on a timer.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


I'm going to keep this in mind when I look at something for the sake of appreciating it (like art or scenery). I think I'm going to start counting to 20 seconds when looking at art from now on.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


That first video is 'mazing. I've never seen anyone draw and shoot a gun as quick as he does and put it back in the holster. Thanks.

The vid pertaining to the OP, all of that happens almost a half-second before anyone perceives it as happening. The delay talked about here is the time it takes for the brain to take in all the sensory information of a moment - the photons in the eye, the rest of the nervous system reading out what signals it's getting - then choosing which parts to image, and then making the image in the brain which is what we think of as "real life out there".

The selection process is a big part of it, as our body receives millions of signals every moment, and the brain chooses just a tiny part of them to create the world-we-perceive on an instant-by-instant basis. So for the quick draw artist, by the time that he's aware of deciding to pull his gun, shoot, and holster it again, an eternity in micro-time has already passed.


edit on 8-4-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Elton
 


The subconscious mind does it. When we become accostumed/skilled/experienced at something we do it without conscious thought of it.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
BS theory



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Some people are missing the point. this is an amazing study imo... tho i would like to personally test it.



I mean... your visual perception eases the stress on your eyes and your mind by averaging it. It makes perfect sense.

I mean... when you are starting at your computer.. the pens, the loose change, the mail, glass, a pop can on your bench... those are a "blur" so to say. You cannot recall anything about them.

these are not important and your mind just makes them a low priority items, thus it uses "fake" imagery to compensate instead of over use of sensory system.

meaning.. you eyes are not "live -updating" the pens, the loose change, the mail, glass, or the pop can. Those are just averages.


Amazing theory, whether it becomes true or not.


Thanks!
edit on 4/8/2014 by luciddream because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   

daaskapital

...visual perception of things is influenced by what we saw up to 15 seconds ago....sacrificing some accuracy.... that cup of coffee, the face of your co-worker, your computer screen - may be a time-averaged composite of now and the past.


Wouldn't this mean there would be common examples of people not seeing things that happen suddenly because of this delay?

Say a cup suddenly falls from a table. We all see this happen the moment it happens. Yet if this delay is real, then those experiencing the delay would not see it until they heard the smash of the cup on the floor, at which point their sight would be updated. The result: it's on the table - smash it's on the floor - how did that happen?

OK, i think i've figured it out - the composite bit is the key, right?


The brain does register change immediately, but unless there's change it's a 15 second old part of the image you're seeing (there's no need to re-render it because there's no change).

I may be wrong, but isn't this how video compression works? The file size is reduced by only altering the parts of the image that change?!

Sorry to ramble - very interesting thread!




edit on 8-4-2014 by McGinty because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   
This is interesting to me, it makes a lot of sense, especially if you've messed around with hullucinogens before. When your in that state your vision can get pretty stragne, like its not wired quite right. it plays all kinds of tricks on you



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Elton
If this is true then how do people catch a ball? or play tennis? these things require split second timing and even a small delay will mess things up.



I suspect it's because your brain is smarter than that, the 10 second 'averaging' need not be static but can include velocity estimation.

In engineering, it's called Kalman filter---it's updating an internal best estimate of state with new data, providing balance between speed of estimation and noise reduction.

Don't take the simplest most literal interpretation of a scientific results' popularized description ("you might be seeing this on a 15 second delay") and argue against it. It's not a "delay line" --- that would be evolutionarily idiotic.

The underlying result is that there is an approximately 10-15 second timescale for this 'kalman-filter' like state estimation and updating, which is reasonable. It doesn't mean that instantatneous changes are not reflected in state estimation, but that they are smoothed over a time interval for noise reduction and probably biological effort reduction.

The value of this is suggestive of good approaches for robotics, e.g. automatically driving vehicles.


edit on 11-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join