Time
I have wondered, before, about the speed of time. I think that this is a natural wonder for anyone who has ingested psychadelic substances, but even for those of you who have not, think about how time seems to linger when things are boring, when things are exciting, etc.
Time's apparent rate of passage seems to indicate the relative attention paid to Objects. When things are boring we have ample attention, therefore we can pay more attention to latent Objects, which means that they seem to move "slowly." When things are exciting our attention is heavily taxed, so we don't have much to spare on any one object.
-----
A little bit on depth and Object decomposition:
When we are excited about a math problem it seems to have many parts. We can decompose it into smaller Objects, each capable of attracting attention. A problem could beg questions, could hint at hidden structure, etc. These are the deeper "objects" of the question, which require Excitement to perceive.
When we are bored with a problem it seems flat, trivial, lacking depth or structure. It is singular, essential. It is one. Thus, it is a single thing which attracts our attention.
This is not to say that structure or decomposition-ability corresponds to the quality of "interest." It is to say that the perception of structure is a necessary to disperse interest.
-----
The weird question, for me, is what are the relative time-rates of Objects' evolutions being compared to? Is there a base-line rate?
As long as we make the assumption that the brain/mind's mechanism is composed of a Small* number of distinct functional parts, we must assume that the rate of time's passage corresponds to an event X which occurs regularly, and which acts as the backbone of our temporal abstractions.
Is X observation? Do we serially observe? Is our awareness cyclical? High frequency?
No one asks these questions, but they seem to almost follow from first principles. Don't they? Is there another way to construct a model of "relative" time rates?
Time's apparent rate of passage seems to indicate the relative attention paid to Objects. When things are boring we have ample attention, therefore we can pay more attention to latent Objects, which means that they seem to move "slowly." When things are exciting our attention is heavily taxed, so we don't have much to spare on any one object.
-----
A little bit on depth and Object decomposition:
When we are excited about a math problem it seems to have many parts. We can decompose it into smaller Objects, each capable of attracting attention. A problem could beg questions, could hint at hidden structure, etc. These are the deeper "objects" of the question, which require Excitement to perceive.
When we are bored with a problem it seems flat, trivial, lacking depth or structure. It is singular, essential. It is one. Thus, it is a single thing which attracts our attention.
This is not to say that structure or decomposition-ability corresponds to the quality of "interest." It is to say that the perception of structure is a necessary to disperse interest.
-----
The weird question, for me, is what are the relative time-rates of Objects' evolutions being compared to? Is there a base-line rate?
As long as we make the assumption that the brain/mind's mechanism is composed of a Small* number of distinct functional parts, we must assume that the rate of time's passage corresponds to an event X which occurs regularly, and which acts as the backbone of our temporal abstractions.
Is X observation? Do we serially observe? Is our awareness cyclical? High frequency?
No one asks these questions, but they seem to almost follow from first principles. Don't they? Is there another way to construct a model of "relative" time rates?