• Embarking on a digital quest through the vast citadels of Google and beyond, an ancient relic was unearthed: the revered "export" scroll dated September 5, 2014. Rejoice, for the chronicles thought lost have been found. Welcome back to the complete tapestry of TTI.

    Read More

Time and Organic Brain Damage



Several years ago I met a fellow who suffered trauma to his brain that resulted in his not having any concept of time after the car accident.
Consequently whenever I ran across this fellow he spoke as if the accident happened the day before. The observer knows that it has been two months since the accident in his concept of time. The subject in his own mind was not living on the same time line. His lack of short term memory and memory post trauma makes him psychologically stuck in time when biologically he is aging along.

Another question I have is "does a species with a shorter life span" experience time differently conceptually than a human that has a longer life span?
(Jesus I am starting to sound like Ajax from Duckman".
Two interesting points.

For myself, I would not say that the fellow with amnesia is living in a different time line, merely that his perception of the current one has been skewed. Certain of his brain cells that are responsible for short-term memory have been damaged.

The point about time perception for short-lived creatures is one I've seen addressed on ETV. It seems to be a coming hypothesis that is gaining favor since it explains several things such as the difficulty in swatting flies.

It is postulated that the fly actually sees things moving more slowly and therefore has a longer warning than we perceive. This allows it to escape easily unless we plan VERY carefully as you well know.
Re:Re:Time and Organic Brain Damage

This seems to be a paradox to me:

Say one person lives to be 100 years old and the other to 50. Does that mean that time went by twice as fast for the 100 year old? I don't think that sounds right. But you may say that the time changes from species to species. But that means how we look at time is based in our DNA. And that doesn't seem right either. I think that time flows at a constant speed for all orginisims.
Along the lines of Lee's thoughts:

This is probably analogous to the increase in processor speeds for computers. If I increase the rate at which a computer can do calculations, then it can respond more quickly to inputs from the user so it can generate, for example, a computer game that goes "faster", i.e. more villains killed, more oil depots exploded, etc.

So overall a fly's brain may be much lest sophisticated than ours, but like a computer chip, it could have one aspect which is better than ours, in that it has a higher "processor" speed when dealing with the passage of time.
Re:Re:Time and Organic Brain Damage

There we go. That sounds good. I agree with that.
Re:Re:Slower time

Hi Kevin

You mentioned here that flies see things more slowly thus giving them time to escape the swatter.

1/ If the fly saw the swatter moving at a slower speed than actual, Wouldn't it be splatted for sure?

2/ About 10 years ago, I were in a minor car accident & for a second time did SEEM to stand still (Before impact while skidding), it was like time had actually stopped, it seemed like 1 second was 5, WHAT DO YOU OR ANYBODY THINK THAT MIGHT BE

Re:Re:Re:Slower time

I think you were probably addressing this to me since I brought up the fly issue. The point of the ETV program was that by seeing the swatter move slower, he had more "time" (by his perception) to react and escape. This seems logical to me if it is in fact true. Not sure how you could test this tho.

I think your perception prior to the accident could be a manifestation of a sort of "dilation" in perception to give you the opportunity to assess the situation a bit "longer" perhaps for a reaction? I don't know but I would consider this a possibility if it is so. Or maybe it's a fear mechanism that wants to slow down the "time" one has left to experience if it appears to be a life threatening situation. Sort of like what happens when you watch something approach the event horizon of a blackhole. It keeps getting closer but never really makes it in. (From the observer's frame of reference.) Or so I hear, according to some theories.
Re:Re:Re:Time and Organic Brain Damage

Not sure I agree with that, but I'm also not totally certain why I don't. I really don't want to sell out the idea that time may be percieved to be passing differently for different species. I'd rather think this is indeed a possibility. Gut feeling, that's all.

BTW, has everyone seen where the cloned sheep "Dolly" is showing that even tho she is young, her DNA has all the deteriorated signs of the age of her host animal. mmm Nasty! Clone a geezer, get a geezer. This was not an expected situation. Time will tell if she ages faster than normal due to this, but it looks like she's starting out with a depleted condition from scratch. This has MAJOR implications down the road.
Re:Re:Time and Organic Brain Damage

...except that I like your analogy better than mine.
Aye, but that shouldn\'t be a problem within the next 20-30 years.....

<center>"BTW, has everyone seen where the cloned sheep "Dolly" is showing that even tho she is young, her DNA has all the deteriorated signs of the age of her host animal. mmm Nasty! Clone a geezer, get a geezer. This was not an expected situation. Time will tell if she ages faster than normal due to this, but it looks like she's starting out with a depleted condition from scratch. This has MAJOR implications down the road.</center>"

Aye, I've heard that on one of the news channels I watch, sadly I don't remember which one it was. {Either CNN or FoxNews, maybe Discover or even TLC...} Anyhow, to get to my point, even now people are studying the part of our DNA which seems to control aging. {For a brief rundown for those who may not know, theirs a part of our DNA which gets smaller everytime our cells divide, and when this "tab" runs out, then so do we...} So, hopefully, {or hopefully not, dependings on your viewpoint} in the next 20-30 years people will be able to get a "refill" on life so to speak by restoring that part of the person's DNA. {Yes, I know it tech isn't really DNA, but I'm too lazy to actually look it up right now...} ::wry smile::

Besides, even if we can't do that, then whats stopping someone who taking a cell sample when they are 25 and therefore get a 25 year-old clone when they are 70? The newest cutting edge style Catscans could, in theory, read minds, so with a little work, why couldn't they transmit those thoughts as well? OR, if that scares you, then a person could, inj theory get a brain transplant, although that would only extend your life as your brain would be your "true age" and therefore would die at some point in the future...

Of course, all this is theory, so it doesn't prove anything, but its something to mull over isn't it? ::sly wink::

<center><font color="navy"><font size="+1">-=Ravor=-[/COLOR]</font size></center>
Re:Aye, but that shouldn\'t be a problem within the next 20-30 years.....

Yes the point about the sample taken at age 25 is well taken but, it still does nothing for the person who is 70, nor does it solve the problem for the proposed clone. Of course it would be preferable to clone the 25 year old sample as opposed to the 70 year old one, but you still have a problem.

Even tho the clone is still a new unique individual, it unfortunately has to start life with 25 year old DNA from infancy. I'm not sure it's fair to do this to someone. Why "create" people in this manner who get to start out with a handicap.

Frankly, I've heard the usual arguments AGAINST cloning and find most of them lacking. The superhuman specimens and all that nonsense since we could do that now without cloning. This DNA age issue however is another story. To me, if there ever has been an argument against cloning humans, this one is it.

We do all this genetic research in the hope of wiping out birth defects, then come along with a new technology that produces a new heretofore non-existant one. Not a good idea.

At least in-vitro fertilization starts with the usual sperm/egg cells that only contain half the chromosome pairs, resulting in a normal fetal development. The poor clone fetus is already chronologically aged from the moment of conception. Given the choice of how I would want to start my life, the choice is easy. Not as a clone for sure, at least in view of this.

As it appears now, anyway.

But as you say, who knows what the next 20-30 years will bring.
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • Cosmo Cosmo:
    Does it do that one?
  • Cosmo Cosmo:
    I think it does that one
  • Cosmo Cosmo:
    Welcome back
  • Num7 Num7:
    👽 Oh, welcome!
  • Num7 Num7:
    Titor is one and Titor is all.
  • Cosmo Cosmo:
    Titor is the one true graviton which binds us all.
  • Mylar Mylar:
    Hi anyone saw this one with Tyson
  • L LeoTCK:
    Interesting theories, some of them. The rest is just fantasy or plain wrong. Also the thing about black hole because that assumes that black holes (as originally described) really exist. Rather than what I heard myself that the infinite mass thing is simply based on a mathematical error nobody seemed to challenge.
  • Mylar Mylar:
    Uhm ok I see
  • Num7 Num7:
    Titor bless you.
  • Mylar Mylar:
    I read this on a french YT channel about UFOs, that: Magnetic field + gamma rays can be used to create a circulating light beam that distorts or loops time, which can lead to a twisting of space and time. Looks like what R.Mallet working on it. What's your thoughts on this?
  • Mylar Chat Bot:
    Mylar has joined the room.
    Mylar Chat Bot: Mylar has joined the room.