23
   

How do you define Time?

 
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 02:34 pm
Hello again twyvel.... what would be your take on the following article as far as the metaphysical quality of time?

Quote:


Locating the Timekeeping Centers of the Brain

Timing is everything. It comes into play when making split-second decisions like knowing when to stop at a red light, catch a ball or modulate a rhythm when playing the piano.

Researchers Stephen M. Rao, PhD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Deborah Harrington, MD, of the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Albuquerque, and Andrew R. Mayer, also of the Medical College, have now identified the areas in the brain that are responsible for perceiving the passage of time in order to carry out critical everyday functions.

Their study is the first to demonstrate that the basal ganglia (brain tissue involved in motor coordination) and the parietal lobe of the brain are critical areas for this timekeeping system. Their study, published in the March 2001 issue of Nature Neuroscience (Vol. 4, No. 3), questions a long-standing and widely held belief in the scientific community that the cerebellum is the critical structure involved in time perception.

"We are excited that our findings can also have application to better understand some neurological disorders," said Dr. Rao, Professor of Neurology and Neuropsychology at the Medical College and principal investigator for the study. "By identifying the area in the brain responsible for governing our sense of time, scientists can now study defective time perception, which has been observed in patients with Parkinson's disease and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), two maladies commonly thought to have abnormal function within the basal ganglia."

Making accurate decisions regarding the duration of brief intervals of time - from 300 milliseconds to 10 seconds - is critical to most aspects of human behavior. Contemporary theories of short interval timing assume the existence of a timekeeper system within the brain, yet identifying these brain systems has been elusive and controversial. Using a novel functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) technique that tracks second-by-second changes in brain activity, investigators identified regions within the brain that are critical for this timekeeping system.

Seventeen healthy young men and women volunteers were imaged while being asked to perceive the duration of time between the presentations of two consecutive tones. One second later, two more tones were presented and the participants were asked to make a judgment as to whether the duration between the tones was shorter or longer than the first two tones.

To make sure that the brain systems associated with time perception were clearly identified, two control tasks were given which involved listening to tones or estimating their pitch, but not making judgments about their duration. Using this fast imaging technique, the investigators were able to isolate only those areas of the brain activated during presentation of the first two tones - when subjects are only perceiving and attending to time. Their results conclusively demonstrated that timekeeping functions are governed by the basal ganglia and the right parietal cortex.

Investigators have long suspected, based on indirect evidence, that the basal ganglia might be involved in time perception. The basal ganglia have nerve cells that primarily contain the neurotransmitter dopamine. People with Parkinson's disease have an abnormal reduction in dopamine within the basal ganglia and they commonly experience problems with time perception. These difficulties partially improve when patients are administered a drug that increases dopamine levels in the brain. Defective time perception has also been observed in people with Huntington's disease and ADHD, two disorders commonly thought to have abnormal function within the basal ganglia. Animal studies have also demonstrated the importance of dopamine in timekeeping.

Medical College researchers are currently using this new neuroimaging procedure to better understand how the brain enables dopamine replacement drugs and methylphenidate (Ritalin) to normalize time perception in individuals with Parkinson's disease and ADHD, respectively. Another study being conducted in collaboration with investigators at the University of Iowa, will examine time perception in the early stages of Huntington's disease, prior to the development of the characteristic movement disorder.

The critical role of the parietal lobes in timekeeping was first suggested by co-author Deborah L. Harrington, PhD, Associate Research Professor of Neurology and Psychology at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque and research scientist at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center. She and her colleagues reported that stroke patients with damage to the parietal cortex on the right but not the left side of the brain experienced impaired time perception. Patients for the study have been drawn from Froedtert Hospital and the Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center in Milwaukee. The researchers are also studying adult ADHD patients who have been seen since childhood at the Medical College.

For more information on this topic, see the HealthLink article One in Every Classroom: Kids with ADHD Struggle to Make the Grade.

Article Created: 2001-02-26
Article Updated: 2003-07-15


MCW Health News presents up-to-date information on patient care and medical research by the physicians of the Medical College of Wisconsin.
0 Replies
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2005 01:25 pm
Hi Gelisgesti
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2005 02:07 pm
What ever happened to the 36 million minutes I spend on this planet thus far?
0 Replies
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2005 03:25 pm
What planet?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2005 03:53 pm
Precisely!
0 Replies
 
bach vu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2005 01:26 pm
twyvel :

Quote:



Assuming the above was correct, then what is consciousness? Why and how is it self-originating? ...Seems to me you are referring to something noone can prove nor disprove.... Could you elaborate on the nature of consciousness? Thanks....
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2005 01:47 pm
"Consciousness" is the biological messages of the brain that provides us with the ability react to our environment.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 09:03 am
Like when a little daisy folds up its little petals when the sun doesn't shine.
0 Replies
 
theantibuddha
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 09:44 pm
It seems to me to be entirely possible that the universe is an entirely solid four-dimensional form in which no movement or variation occurs. It is merely because one slice across the fourth dimension leaves a different three dimensional cross-section that things appear to be moving or changing.

That's just an idea though.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 10:34 pm
All in our minds, I'm sure.
0 Replies
 
Reyn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 10:40 pm
Is it possible that in order for "time" to exist, there must be cognitive entities present?

It's like the philosophical pondering:
"If a tree falls in the forest and "no one" is there to witness it, does it make a sound?"
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 10:47 pm
I think of time as a 'capacity', not so much a 'quantitative' capacity but a capacity of potentiality. I believe time immeasurable is infinity. Since the product of any attempt to quantify time is time, time is a dimension separate from our three. Intuition leads me to believe that not only is time separate, it engulfs all other dimensions, lending order to otherwise chaos.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 11:17 pm
Gels, But time is based our our solar system - which in effect is the 'environment' in which all earthly life forms must exist. The only problem is the fact that our 'concept' of time may be perceived wrongly - limited by our (in)capacity.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2005 05:51 pm
CI, I beg to differ.

Time apparently does exist outside of our perceptions of it. It also seems to run at different speeds at different locations. It also never bears a direct relationship to the speed of light. It also never bears a direct relationship to motion. Our notion of time is (IMO) best described as a sequential ordering of events. (evolving if you would)

I am willing to say that I sure don't know what "time" is, but I do know that it always runs a little faster than I do Smile . No matter what direction I am going in Exclamation

Seconds, days, and years are indeed based on our solar system but that is only a human definition of time. I don't think that they are applicable to gamma particles and as far as I can see time doesn't work well in Quantum Mechanics either. Religion is another field of inquiry that finds time irrevelant.

What seems strange to me is that time is kind of like the Abrahamic perception of "God". You can use it, appeal to it, or talk about it. There is no trouble at all until you try to describe it. Thats when the troubles begin :wink:
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2005 06:31 pm
akaMech, My opinion of time doesn't seem to diverge too far from your post. After all, we humans are the only ones that attempts to define what time is.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Mar, 2005 06:30 am
If all life was instantly erased from the planet (and the rest of the universe for that matter), how long would it take for the earth to travel one more time around the sun? I'm going to go out on a limb and say "about one year".

On the nature of time, I think Einstein worked out that space and time were not seperate entities, but one he refered to as spacetime.

I have a personal theory that matter is nothing more than condensed spacetime, meaning everything can be broken down into different densities of the same material.

Of course, I have no evidence for that...neat and tidy though don't you think?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Mar, 2005 10:41 am
Some scientists believe that earth is some 400 million years old. Humans perceive that period as being relatively very long, but our perception of time is based on our 24 hour days. That 24 hour day can be much faster than we humans perceive it; we just don't have the wherewithal to conceive it to be any different. Just say for the sake of argument that the 400 million years is really just a small spec of galaxy time, but we don't relate our experience in those terms. Our perception of time may be exaggerated.
0 Replies
 
theantibuddha
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2005 10:34 pm
Eorl wrote:
If all life was instantly erased from the planet (and the rest of the universe for that matter), how long would it take for the earth to travel one more time around the sun? I'm going to go out on a limb and say "about one year".


I agree... well, except I don't believe in time. Except I don't think the nature of four-dimensional existance of the Earth and Sun would be altered by the death of humanity. For the sake of ease of speech I'll just say I agree with Eorl.

Quote:
I have a personal theory that matter is nothing more than condensed spacetime, meaning everything can be broken down into different densities of the same material.


Wow, that's the same as my personal theory... at least on the nature of matter.

Quote:
Of course, I have no evidence for that...


Me either, aside from a few small pieces that seem to neatly fit with that, regarding wave/particle duality. Hey Eorl. I'm getting sick of agreeing with you. Say something stupid already, won't you?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2005 11:16 pm
That would require 'time.'
0 Replies
 
theantibuddha
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2005 11:22 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
That would require 'time.'


When you only use one sentence pronouns are a bad idea.

A) What are you referring to by "that"?
B) Whom are you talking to?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Why does time not exist? - Discussion by edgarblythe
Putting Time In Perspective - Discussion by Olivier5
What happens when time stop? - Question by 5D
Time simply does not exist - Discussion by xxxx
The elusive NOW - Discussion by Rickoshay75
Time - Question by Genius600
simple relativity question - Question by ralphiep
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.25 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 02:01:30