Intelligent People Experience Longer, Fuller Days.

[cal]

Intelligence being defined as "the processing speed of a person's brain," can be increased by myelination of the nuerons inside the brain. This is something we've known for quite a while now, it's nothing new, almost every neurobiologist understands it and almost everyone will agree it's fact. Whether or not you agree on the last part does not magically un-factualize it, it will remain a fact.

 

That being said, you can actively myelinate your brain more and more (almost indefinitely it seems) by constantly stimulating it and challenging it to process things it could previously not handle. An example of where this is exercised is school. School, or really the active process of learning, is directly an example of when you can consciously change your brain chemistry, by myelinating it. This myelination is often valued poorly by those with poor myelination, but to others who have exercised it often, and have become more intelligent because of it, they tend to see its importance.

 

On top of it just being a very powerful tool that is mostly responsible for driving processing speed in the human brain, it has an interesting affect on what the conscious brain is capable of perceiving. Let's take a step back for a moment and say that you don't understand or agree on what and how myelination is being defined and used here. Could you not still admit that intelligence can be developed and strengthened? To deny that would be to deny that people are more intelligent than they were when they were infants, which is a very foolish thing to deny. So we can all agree that there are people who process information faster than others, even if we don't all agree on the science behind it, right?

 

Let's define 1 Tick as 1/100^th of a second, and define 1 Calculation as 1,000 synaptic firings (or "chemical data transfer between neurons" if you feel that's a better description). So our variable parameters are thus:

 

1 Tick = 1/100^th Seconds

1 Calculation = 1,000 Neuronal Firings

 

Let's say that on average, Zork's brain can make 3 Calculations in 1 Tick, and Zuthulu's brain can make 30 Calulations in 1 Tick, then it is safe to say that on average, Zuthulu's brain can process ten times the amount of information per Tick than Zork's.

 

The difference between processing power of human brain's is often this great or greater (not even taking into consideration the mentally handicapped). So if a person's brain can process input faster than another person's brain for a given second, then we can also safely say that there is allocation in the brain-power of the more intelligent person to process more input in that second than the other person's.

 

What this means- your brain does not idle to compensate for you being more intelligent than everyone below the curve, instead it keeps feeding input and environmental stimulus to you at a faster rate than those less intelligent (and vice versa to those more intelligent than yourself), and if the environment does not supply you with enough stimulus, your brain will come up with its own stimuli to compensate (these are usually experienced in the forms of introspective thoughts, or logical stimulants about internally perceived subjects). Your brain always wants you to keep thinking, because thinking itself is what constitutes your consciousness, and to stop thinking would be to kill your consciousness.

 

And what that means- even though a stupid person and an intelligent person can both perceive a whole second of life, the intelligent person perceived more during that second than the stupid person. The intelligent person experienced more during that second than the stupid person. The intelligent person consciously lived more during that second than the stupid person.

 

This is something to rejoice about, because it means that if you expand the exposure on your camera, you can take more light in; if you expand the container you fish in, you can catch more fish; if you expand your consciousness, you can experience more in your day-to-day life.

 

I just recently referenced this in another thread here but take this into consideration, "If you have a golf-ball-sized consciousness, when you read a book, you'll have a golf-ball-sized understanding; ... and as you go about your day, a golf-ball-sized happiness." - David Lynch

 

[EDIT]: The primary argument in this thread has been condensed into this-

If you set up two cameras to take a picture, one camera taking a 1-Megapixel photo & the other taking a 20-Megapixel photo, both with a one-second exposure, the 20-Megapixel camera will have captured more information during that one second than the other camera, even if the information is just pitch blackness, it's still more information. If you set up two people to live their lives on the same day, one person processing things at below average speeds & the other person processing things at above average speeds, both with an 18-hour waking state in that day, the faster-processing person will have captured more information during that 18-hours than the slower-processing person, even if the information is useless, it's still more information. ERGO, the faster-processing person experienced more that day than the slower-processing person, by transitive property equating to the faster-processing person consciously living a fuller day than the slower-processing person.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Snax

[cal]

Haha, either no replies means no in is interested or no one has a counter-argument.

 

I posted this in a matter-a-fact writing style, but really it's mostly* conjecture. Can I get some feedback on whether or not any of you agree/disagree?

 

Thanks in advance lol :P

Edited March 9, 2013 by Snax

[CraigD]

Intelligence being defined as "the processing speed of a person's brain," can be increased by myelination of the nuerons inside the brain. This is something we've known for quite a while now, it's nothing new, almost every neurobiologist understands it and almost everyone will agree it's fact. Whether or not you agree on the last part does not magically un-factualize it, it will remain a fact.

 

That being said, you can actively myelinate your brain more and more (almost indefinitely it seems) by constantly stimulating it and challenging it to process things it could previously not handle.

I posted this in a matter-a-fact writing style, but really it's all conjecture. Can I get some feedback on whether or not any of you agree/disagree?

So, you are stating that you represented conjecture as well-established fact.

 

Snax, this is a blatant violation of our site rules. Don’t do it. Hypography is not intended as forum for seeing if you can get away with making unsupported claims.

 

The first 2 claim in your post are obviously, to anyone with even an introductory knowledge psychometrics and neurology, incorrect.

 

The term “Intelligence” is used in many contexts, but outside of science fiction, I’ve never seen it defined as “the processing speed of a person’s brain.” Many people able to perform tasks that one might consider unusually fast “processing”, such as lightning calculation, are savants, who have such low general intelligence (IQ or g scores) that they are considered mentally disabled, and are unable to have academic and/or professional careers.

 

The ability to perform mental tasks unusually fast is, in general, associated with 2 causes:

• Having learned and practiced special techniques (such as mental calculation techniques)
  
• Suppressed function of brain areas associated with “higher” mental fuction, either via artificial means, such as rTMS, or due to deformity or disease, such as brain lesions
  

Myelin increases the speed that nerve impulses travel along the long axion process of a neuron. However, the chemical synapses that connect neurons typically take about 10 times as long to transmit a signal as the axion. Myelin is not present in the synapse, and can’t effect synapse transmission speed, so does not much affect the total speed of nerve signals.

 

Repeated use of nerves can causes long-term potentiation by altering the synapses. It does not cause nerves to myelinate. Most types of axions have myelin sheaths, which become abnormally thin or incomplete due to disease.

 

I know of no credible theory or research that shows that “challenging it to process things it could previously not handle” myelinates a axion. If you do, post a link or reference to it. If not, don’t make the claim. Don’t make stuff up!

[cal]

So, you are stating that you represented conjecture as well-established fact.

That's not what I said, now is it? I said my writing style was entirely matter-of-fact, as in, I wrote it without leaving much room for people to comment on. That does not make it entirely false. Everything past the first few paragraphs was done in an a priori (non-empirical) manner, that does not mean it is wrong, that just means the hypothesis isn't fully tested yet, but again, unless you can find a flaw with the concept, I'm thinking it's true.

 

 

The first 2 claim in your post are obviously, to anyone with even an introductory knowledge psychometrics and neurology, incorrect.

...

Myelin increases the speed that nerve impulses travel along the long axion process of a neuron. However, the chemical synapses that connect neurons typically take about 10 times as long to transmit a signal as the axion. Myelin is not present in the synapse, and can’t effect synapse transmission speed, so does not much affect the total speed of nerve signals.

> The first 2 claim in your post are obviously... incorrect.

> Myelin increases the speed that nerve impulses travel along the long axion process of a neuron.

That's hypocritical. You're agreeing with what I said after denying it.

 

If all synapses are on average, using the same transition speed, then that factor is negligible in relation to what we're talking about. If it can't be sped up or slowed down, then it doesn't matter, now does it? Let's say it takes ten seconds for the synapse to transmit a chemical signal across it, you're saying the extra second the axion adds on doesn't matter. Well yes it does matter, it matters a lot, in fact it matters to the point that it's specifically what this entire dialogue is about and evading what it effects is more or less a straw-man argument. On top of that, if the axion adds on one second, or three, or one-fifth a second, you will have significantly noticeable net change in speed. Again, I will use the argument that babies think proportionately slower than adults (note I said proportionately, so that means the number of connections is also taken into consideration).

 

 

The term “Intelligence” is used in many contexts, but outside of science fiction, I’ve never seen it defined as “the processing speed of a person’s brain.” Many people able to perform tasks that one might consider unusually fast “processing”, such as lightning calculation, are savants, who have such low general intelligence (IQ or g scores) that they are considered mentally disabled, and are unable to have academic and/or professional careers.

I'm delineating the use of "Smart" from "Intelligent", and outside of this forum, I've never seen intelligence defined as anything other than "the processing speed of a person's brain."

I think you may be mixing smarts in with intellect. Also, we're not talking about savants, are we, so again I'd have to think you're creating a bit of a straw-man argument. I even specifically said that this topic excluded the mentally handicapped here, "not even taking into consideration the mentally handicapped." So we're not talking about lightning fast differences, and as you stated earlier there are other things that affect the processing speed of the human brain, so the raw number of calculations (as I've defined them) do not end up being the only factor in what is consciously experienced, but that being said, it is very obvious if you step outside for ten minutes that different humans process things faster and slower than other humans. I don't think any links or references are needed for that statement to be honest, because all it takes is one verbal conversation with someone to immediately recognize it. If you want empirical evidence for that claim, reference every conversation you have ever had- not all of those you've spoken to reply as quickly (or slowly) as others.

 

 

Repeated use of nerves can causes long-term potentiation by altering the synapses. It does not cause nerves to myelinate. Most types of axions have myelin sheaths, which become abnormally thin or incomplete due to disease.

 

I know of no credible theory or research that shows that “challenging it to process things it could previously not handle” myelinates a axion. If you do, post a link or reference to it. If not, don’t make the claim. Don’t make stuff up!

Or abnormally thick due to repeated use. How and why do you think myelination (past the initial layer) is developed? It's not just magically happening like some out-of-control function of the schwann cells.

 

Just think about this for a second, I mean really think about it and tell me if there is even another possible conclusion-

 

You have these things called Schwann Cells which we know for a fact (the fact being established in what you've already linked) functions to insulate the axon of a neuron because of the electrical signal that travels down it. We know the sheath that the cells produce can be strengthened and weakened by a few factors like

Sphingomyelin

, as well as other methods stated in the wiki page you linked. So myelination occurs to reduce the electrical charge outside the axon, to reduce capacitance, and areas that are heavily myelinated are found to be the "white matter" in the brain when autopsies are performed (again in what you've linked). So think about this... just for a second think... we know the areas that are heavily used are more myelinated... would you not also come to the conclusion that your brain follows homeostasis and tries to reduce electrical leakage in the more active areas by insulating said areas more?

Can you not say that by trying to insulate the more active neurons, that your brain is myelinating the parts that are more stimulated? If you somehow find a way to disagree with what is to me the most logical conclusion, can you still see the point I'm making in the rest of the OP, that those who think faster experience more?

 

Also, was it really necessary to move this to the strange claims forum lol? I think I've backed up my argument enough now for it to be returned to where it was (which I think was philosophy, btw, so I don't see why you're being so strict on the science behind it rather than the reasoning I used to get to my conclusion).

Edited March 12, 2013 by Snax

[Rade]

Intelligence being defined as "the processing speed of a person's brain," can be increased by myelination of the nuerons inside the brain.

Snax, one definition of intelligence in Webster is....'ability to respond quickly and successfully to a new situation'. So, speed is not the complete picture, one can quickly respond to an event and kill self in the process, so not very successful if the goal of life is to continue to survive. Thus, intelligence cannot be reduced to processing speed of information, this is not the defining characteristic. The defining characteristic of intelligence deals with 'quantity of variety' of information, being able to deal successfully with a broad range of abstractions to form concepts. Processing speed alone does not always translate to success, it may, it may not.

 

However, you are correct that some aspects of intelligence are related to myelination process, which normally stops in humans about age 50 from what I read...here is a reference to a publication in 1994 by Miller and his 'myelination hypothesis' to support that intelligence and myelination process are positively associated:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=tP9OkhJrfgoC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=intelligence+relates+to+myelination+increase+processing+speed+of+brain&source=bl&ots=iO1LKZwtLW&sig=455Bd-ni5Z2wnd4BbzhH2EKaY8E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ncs9Ufa8DOW-2gWovYH4CQ&ved=0CGMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=intelligence%20relates%20to%20myelination%20increase%20processing%20speed%20of%20brain&f=false

 

And here is the 1994 publication by Miller:

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886994900493

 

 

....you can actively myelinate your brain more and more (almost indefinitely it seems) by constantly stimulating it and challenging it to process things it could previously not handle.

Do you have published report that one can actively myelinate past age of 50 ? It is my understanding that myelination process stops about age 50' date=' no matter how much you think and game play (e.g., activate neurons).

 

So we can all agree that there are people who process information faster than others, even if we don't all agree on the science behind it, right?

I think all would agree with this, so Zuthulu can process information quicker than Zork, but suppose Zuthulu in her hast to process makes 100 times more errors in successful interpretation than Zork and gets killed in the process, would not Zork then be the more intelligent ?

 

"If you have a golf-ball-sized consciousness, when you read a book, you'll have a golf-ball-sized understanding; ... and as you go about your day, a golf-ball-sized happiness." - David Lynch

But, happiness has nothing to do with size of consciousness, but with constrain on variety of information. Two different golf balls of the same size can have completely different variety of information, thus one happy and the other sad.

[cal]

Snax, one definition of intelligence in Webster is....'ability to respond quickly and successfully to a new situation'.

Awesome, but that's not how I defined it, so...

 

I recognize "intelligence" already has a definition, but I couldn't think of another word to replace "the speed at which the brain processes" and I didn't want to type the whole phrase out every time, so I used a new typedef at the beginning. Again, I realize it's confusing, but I still can't think of a better word to replace it with.

 

 

Processing speed alone does not always translate to success, it may, it may not.

I recognize this as well, which is why I'm not saying processing speed it all that's required for functional existence, I'm just using it as the rough estimator for how much is perceived in any given second- how much is processed in a given second. You should also take into consideration that not all of it is consciously processed (a lot is done subconsciously), but quite a bit more seeps into the conscious stream (otherwise we wouldn't be seeing things, or hearing things), which is the point I'm trying to make.

 

I'm not after the quality of what's perceived, I'm after the quantity.

 

Thanks for the links btw, cool stuff!

 

 

Do you have published report that one can actively myelinate past age of 50 ? It is my understanding that myelination process stops about age 50, no matter how much you think and game play (e.g., activate neurons).

No. My understanding also coincides that the human brain stops developing once you hit a later age (I've heard even as soon as 35). I meant that until you hit that age, you can almost indefinitely finesse your brain's processing speed; or as I said, that's what it seems like, because there are people that always seem to be significantly growing intellectually. Usually when I use a parenthetical, I've made it a parenthetical so it's not included directly with the rest of the sentence. Don't take any of my parentheicals as anything other than conjecture (or at least I don't think you should, lol).

 

 

So we can all agree that there are people who process information faster than others, even if we don't all agree on the science behind it, right?

I think all would agree with this...

Then the core concept of my original post stands valid.

 

 

...so Zuthulu can process information quicker than Zork, but suppose Zuthulu in her hast to process makes 100 times more errors in successful interpretation than Zork and gets killed in the process, would not Zork then be the more intelligent ?

I used those names to avoid gender specificity, but you've tied the one you argue is more flawed to a female, I've failed. Haha.

 

Again, I'm not using "intelligence" by the classical definition, so no, Zork is not more intelligent, Zork still processes slower, and you shouldn't imply that it's always on purpose that one processes faster than others. I mean, do you think out the consequences of your actions faster than your dog on purpose? No, you just do because your brain has been built up to the speed it is and thus it always runs at a faster pace. You can think faster on purpose if you focus to intentionally do so, but for the sake of these arguments it's fair to assume that by default some people process faster than others, with no extra effort to do so.

 

Unrelated: I would like to note that what I've just quoted of yours sounds a little more like a comparison of who would be more wise rather than more intelligent (considering the classical definitions of these things), because one lead to life and the other lead to death, but I guess that's just the way I'm interpreting it.

 

 

But, happiness has nothing to do with size of consciousness, but with constrain on variety of information. Two different golf balls of the same size can have completely different variety of information, thus one happy and the other sad.

This is true if you're talking about the capability of having the emotions in the first place, remember we're discussing quantity not quality. What you're saying is not true in relation to how much of that emotion you can have. Your conscious mind is a tiny boat on the sea of your subconscious, this tiny boat has a tiny net that it casts off the side, catching a tiny amount of Happiness Fish. If you're sailing on a bigger boat, with bigger nets, you will experience more happiness than that of a person who limits what they feel.

 

I'm really trying to not cross over the arguments between the other thread's we're in lol, but it's very tempting. =P

 

===========================

 

Consider this argument (which I've also included as an edit to the original post)-

If you set up two cameras to take a picture, one camera taking a 1-Megapixel photo & the other taking a 20-Megapixel photo, both with a one-second exposure, the 20-Megapixel camera will have captured more information during that one second than the other camera, even if the information is just pitch blackness, it's still more information. If you set up two people to live their lives on the same day, one person processing things at below average speeds & the other person processing things at above average speeds, both with an 18-hour waking state in that day, the faster-processing person will have captured more information during that 18-hours than the slower-processing person, even if the information is useless, it's still more information. ERGO, the faster-processing person experienced more that day than the slower-processing person, by transitive property equating to the faster-processing person consciously living a fuller day than the slower-processing person.

 

===========================

 

Also, it's starting to seem that my posts are getting downgraded without reason (quite literally because no one has presented their reasons for downgrading my posts), and they are all getting downgraded across the board as if people have gone through all my content, new and old, and downgraded things simply because they don't like me. This is doubly amusing to me, because the threads themselves have not been downgraded, only posts inside the threads, which means that the content I've created is still ranked highly. lulz

Edited March 12, 2013 by Snax

[Rade]

I recognize "intelligence" already has a definition, but I couldn't think of another word to replace "the speed at which the brain processes" and I didn't want to type the whole phrase out every time, so I used a new typedef at the beginning. Again, I realize it's confusing, but I still can't think of a better word to replace it with.

Snax, See this link:

http://www.learningrx.com/cognitive-definition-faq.htm

 

You may want to consider using the term 'cognitive skills' in place of intelligence, and 'processing speed' (=the speed at which the brain processes), and then make it clear, as stated in the link, that processing speed is but one of many core areas of knowledge necessary for a complete understanding of cognitive skills.

 

I'm not after the quality of what's perceived' date=' I'm after the [i']quantity[/i].

Fine, however information is by definition 'that which removes uncertainty', which is a function of how variety of information is transmitted (between neurons or between you and me). Thus, it is QUANTITY OF VARIETY of bits of information that must be considered for perception, not quantity of number of bits.

 

Your conscious mind is a tiny boat on the sea of your subconscious' date=' this tiny boat has a tiny net that it casts off the side, catching a tiny amount of Happiness Fish. If you're sailing on a bigger boat, with bigger nets, you will experience more happiness than that of a person who limits what they feel.[/quote']I disagree. So, consider that tiny conscious boat A has on board 5 happiness fish ( ~1 ~2 ~3 ~4 ~5 ), while boat B has 10 (~1 ~2 ~3 ~4 ~5 ~6 ~7 ~8 ~9 ~10). Now, you assume the happiness fish are independent, that 'only quantity counts' . However, this is not how happiness would be stored and transmitted within the brain. Greater happiness could occur for boat A when we consider that each ~ can form interaction links with other ~, thus it is very easy to see how many more interaction links could in theory result for boat A compared to boat B. In other words, you can be happy happy chewing gum (~1) and walking (~2) and thinking about nature (~3) simultaneous, and the total happiness that results can be much more than 3 units depending on how the ~ activities interact within the brain. Sorry for the silly explanation but just following the happiness fish ~ model you offer.

 

 

Consider this argument (which I've also included as an edit to the original post)-

If you set up two cameras to take a picture' date=' one camera taking a 1-Megapixel photo & the other taking a 20-Megapixel photo, both with a one-second exposure, the 20-Megapixel camera will have captured more information during that one second than the other camera, even if the information is just pitch blackness, it's still more information. If you set up two people to live their lives on the same day, one person processing things at below average speeds & the other person processing things at above average speeds, both with an 18-hour waking state in that day, the faster-processing person will have captured more information during that 18-hours than the slower-processing person, even if the information is useless, it's still more information. ERGO, the faster-processing person experienced more that day than the slower-processing person, by transitive property equating to the faster-processing person consciously living a fuller day than the slower-processing person.[/indent']

 

But, the capture of photos of light by camera results in independent "bits" of information that are processed by the eye to form an image, whereas the capture of "bits" of information perceived by the brain results in interactions of information bits, and it is the QUANTITY OF VARIETY of interconnected bits, not quantity of number of bits (such as captured by a camera), that determines how much happiness any human will experience during a day.

[Lancewen]

I might agree with your topic title, but for a very different reason than you gave.

 

Intelligent People Experience Longer, Fuller Days.

 

Remember back when you were just a kid, when everything in the world was new and interesting? I can remember some days I thought were never going to end. Admittedly the only thing that makes one day seem longer than any other day is how much new experience you have. I would submit that more intelligent people are going to seek out and have more new experiences than people of lower intelligence, and therefore have longer fuller days.

 

Conversely people who allow their lives to become mostly routine ( not much new experience ) have not only non-memorable days but the weeks and months seem to fly by as you try to remember anything worth remembering and scratch your head wondering where all the time has gone.

 

Many of us get suckered into the routine life, because we accept boring routine jobs that don't leave much left at the end of a day to seek out any new experience. We get home tired, watch a little TV, eat some dinner and then go to sleep to do it all over the next day. Again, the more intelligent and better educated people have the best pick of available jobs and much more opportunity to make a living that's anything but boring and routine every single day.

[cal]

You may want to consider using the term 'cognitive skills' in place of intelligence, and 'processing speed' (=the speed at which the brain processes), and then make it clear, as stated in the link, that processing speed is but one of many core areas of knowledge necessary for a complete understanding of cognitive skills.

Alright, you gave me a point so I'll give you one. Intelligence is mostly a misnomer here, I just want it to be clear that I'm talking about the raw processing speed. And I'm fully aware that raw processing speed is but one of many factors in over-all intellect, I'm not saying it makes you a better or worse person in terms of cognition, all I'm saying is that it is probably directly responsible for our perception of how much external input we contiguously experience. I should spend more time in my original posts to make it clear about what, specifically, I care about in said topic, so people stop bringing in other things that don't affect the core idea (or my cares). That's not a jab at you, or anyone on this forum, I just tend to leave my topic posts too open for discussion, which is bad for me because I look for specific things in them. So bleh.

 

 

Fine, however information is by definition 'that which removes uncertainty', which is a function of how variety of information is transmitted (between neurons or between you and me). Thus, it is QUANTITY OF VARIETY of bits of information that must be considered for perception, not quantity of number of bits.

No, if you go down that slippery slope we can't have this conversation. The way information is being defined and used in this thread is as a descriptor of raw data, nothing else. The variety of the data gives way to quality sure, and better quality information would equate to a better quality day (at least I think that's what you were going for), but that doesn't matter to the core argument, because we're not discussing if the day was good or bad, just how much of it was experienced to begin with. After we conclude the initial concept, then we can move on to whether or not the quality is as important.

 

 

I disagree. So, consider that tiny conscious boat A has on board 5 happiness fish ( ~1 ~2 ~3 ~4 ~5 ), while boat B has 10 (~1 ~2 ~3 ~4 ~5 ~6 ~7 ~8 ~9 ~10). Now, you assume the happiness fish are independent, that 'only quantity counts' . However, this is not how happiness would be stored and transmitted within the brain. Greater happiness could occur for boat A when we consider that each ~ can form interaction links with other ~, thus it is very easy to see how many more interaction links could in theory result for boat A compared to boat B. In other words, you can be happy happy chewing gum (~1) and walking (~2) and thinking about nature (~3) simultaneous, and the total happiness that results can be much more than 3 units depending on how the ~ activities interact within the brain. Sorry for the silly explanation but just following the happiness fish ~ model you offer.

Naw, it fit the model, no worries.

I think we both error'd here. My error was using emotion as the measurement, yours was for thinking I was exclusively talking about emotion. What I was describing was that a bigger boat catches more, not more happiness, not more sadness, just more. What happens with the fish afterwards is of no concern to us for this thread. It doesn't matter if the fish escape or breed with each other, or are grilled for dinner, the number of connections made by them after doesn't really matter. The entire point of this thread that I've been asking, is that if a consciousness is bigger, and captures more, then is that consciousness not experiencing more of it's surroundings? The quality is of no concern right now, stop thinking it is.

 

 

But, the capture of photos of light by camera results in independent "bits" of information that are processed by the eye to form an image, whereas the capture of "bits" of information perceived by the brain results in interactions of information bits, and it is the QUANTITY OF VARIETY of interconnected bits, not quantity of number of bits (such as captured by a camera), that determines how much happiness any human will experience during a day.

Who says what's perceived is only perceived via the quantity of variety? Show the research for this. In fact, if things have to be varied in order for them to be perceived, then how come plenty of purely static things are always perceived, like static color and sound? Also, we aren't really talking about the happiness experienced during a day, again I apologize for using that example because it set up a false premise, and I'll give you that emotion can be heavily influenced by other factors than raw data, but I'm not concerned with emotion whatsoever, just how much is perceived, not what is perceived. And I still hold that those who process faster and take-in sensory perception faster experience more every day than those who process slower.

 

I'm trying to keep this reduced to the most basic and core argument I can, and I don't think it's an argument that warrants the label of strange-claim, because it's not all that strange nor is it merely a baseless claim, but I suppose the lack of proper argument otherwise might mean that it's strange in the sense that this is the least debated thread I've started on this forum lol. Silly hypography Admins.

 

 

Remember back when you were just a kid, when everything in the world was new and interesting? I can remember some days I thought were never going to end. Admittedly the only thing that makes one day seem longer than any other day is how much new experience you have. I would submit that more intelligent people are going to seek out and have more new experiences than people of lower intelligence, and therefore have longer fuller days.

I think you have an idea that you can create valid arguments from for this topic, I would also say that combining your idea and my idea would make a stronger argument (cover two angles at once?). But I also think some of what you're saying can already be accounted for by other things, I think Vsauce explains a lot of what you're saying

.

[paigetheoracle]

Well, coming late to this Rex Jung and others in creativity studies have found that there are certain states that induce thinking and others that suppress it. This I called work, rest and play after the UK Mars bar advert. Rest doesn't help you solve problems apparently and work counters it directly by focusing intently upon one thing but 'play' leads to distraction, increasing the creative ability to solve problems. Dr Simone Ritter in Holland (Nijmegan)found that through the use of virtual reality headsets, where normal objects were made to react abnormally, defying the laws of physics, creativity or problem solving was increased by about 13% on average (BBC TV 'Horizon' science documentary last week.

 

It has also been found that people staying physically active are less likely to come down with Alzheimer's Disease, which may be related to this as in the program it was stated that walking and other activities, help the mind sort out problems as much needed distractions and maybe vegetating in care homes, especially if dosed to the gills with various sedating agencies for easier handling, would work against this awakening interest in life.

[cal]

creativity studies have found that there are certain states that induce thinking and others that suppress it. This I called work, rest and play after the UK Mars bar advert. Rest doesn't help you solve problems apparently and work counters it directly by focusing intently upon one thing but 'play' leads to distraction, increasing the creative ability to solve problems.

No doubt that there are other internal factors that affect problem solving and making processing more/less efficient, but in terms of raw processing speed, people who are more intelligent to begin with absorb more of their surroundings, no?

[Guest MacPhee]

Snax, in his valuable post#1, seems to suggest that the faster you think, the slower time ought to pass.

 

Personally I find the opposite to be true. Consider for example doing a Sudoku puzzle. The puzzle requires fast mental processing.

Suppose I start the puzzle at say, 2 o'clock. Then concentrate fully on working out where the numbers go, and pencilling them in.

When the puzzle is complete, I feel that only 5 or 10 minutes has elapsed. But then I look at the clock - and am surprised to see it now shows 2.30. Half an hour of objective time has passed! It was thinking that made the time go faster, not slower.

 

For intelligent people, who think a lot, time goes fast. It's only stupid people who experience long boring days.

Edited March 24, 2013 by MacPhee

[Rade]

Snax, in his valuable post#1, seems to suggest that the faster you think, the slower time ought to pass.Personally I find the opposite to be true. Consider for example doing a Sudoku puzzle. The puzzle requires fast mental processing.

Suppose I start the puzzle at say, 2 o'clock. Then concentrate fully on working out where the numbers go, and pencilling them in.

When the puzzle is complete, I feel that only 5 or 10 minutes has elapsed. But then I look at the clock - and am surprised to see it now shows 2.30. Half an hour of objective time has passed! It was thinking that made the time go faster, not slower.For intelligent people, who think a lot, time goes fast. It's only stupid people who experience long boring days.

I have a different explanation of your Sudoku experience. First, time is not slow or fast, it is long (many) or short(less), that is, there is either a long interval of time between two moments or a short time interval. The experience many in sports call 'being in the moment' is the subjective feeling that time does not exist during some activity. We call it losing track of time, as if time like money is a thing that can be lost. Each pencilling in event in Sudoku is a moment of thinking (an event where time can be lost), and if there are many such events, there must be more time lost than if there are fewer. So, for example, let X = a pencilling in event in Sudoku, and . = a time moment, then suppose person A has this thinking activity pattern during the game A = { X1...X...X...X.X.X....X.X..X...X10} over some time interval, say 30 minutes from start to end of game. Suppose person B over the same interval has this activity pattern B = { X1............................X2 }. It is clear to see why person A would experience that less time had elapsed than person B because person A had more moments involved in motion of pencilling thus leaving less time to experience (e.g., more time to lose track of).

 

Thus, the general rule is that when there is an experience in the mind of lost time (such as due to more thinking) between two moments (such as a 30 min Sudoku game), the illusion presented to the mind is that time goes by fast (we say time flies by). When thinking stops, there is no time to lose track of, and the illusion created by the mind is that time goes by slowly (feeling of being bored). This explanation derives from a rational definition of time, that time is a measure of motion (or rest) that is intermediate between two moments.

Edited March 24, 2013 by Rade

[Lancewen]

I clipped this quote from Wikipedia article

 

Time perception

Seems to make sense to me. What do you guys think?

 

 

Long-term

Psychologists assert that time seems to go faster with age, but the literature on this age-related perception of time remains controversial.^[11] One day to an eleven-year-old would be approximately 1/4,000 of their life, while one day to a 55-year-old would be approximately 1/20,000 of their life. This is perhaps why a day would appear much longer to a young child than to an adult.^[12] In an experiment comparing a group of subjects aged between 19 and 24 and a group between 60 and 80 asked to estimate when they thought 3 minutes had passed, it was found that the younger group's estimate was on average 3 minutes and 3 seconds, while the older group averaged 3 minutes and 40 seconds,^[13] indicating a change in the perception of time with age. People tend to recall recent events as occurring further back in time (backward telescoping) and distant events occurring more recently (forward telescoping).^[14]

 

It has also been proposed that the subjective experience of time changes with age due to changes in the individual's biological makeup.^[15]

 

 

Illusions of time

A temporal illusion is a distortion in sensory perception caused when the time between the occurrence of two or more events is very short (typically less than a second). In such cases a person may misperceive the temporal order of the events. The kappa effect is a form of temporal illusion verifiable by experiment^[16] whereby time intervals between visual events are perceived as relatively longer or shorter depending on the relative spatial positions of the events. In other words, the perception of temporal intervals appears to be directly affected, in these cases, by the perception of spatial intervals. The Kappa effect can be displayed when considering a journey made in two parts that take an equal amount of time. Between these two parts, the journey that covers more distance will appear to take longer than the journey covering less distance, even though they take an equal amount of time.

 

The stopped clock illusion, where the seconds hand of a clock appears to freeze in place when initially looked at, is another illusion of time perception.^[17] Later it was found that saccadic eye movements could cause compression of time as well as space.^[18] Terao, Watanabe, Yagi, & Nishida (2005) were able to show that reducing the visibility of a flash by means of dimming was sufficient in reducing time interval estimation.^[19] Taken together these findings suggest that when vision is tainted in some way, as in the case of a saccade when vision is blurred or in the case of a dimmed flash when the flash is harder to identify, that time perception is also affected.

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/Sense_of_time

 

 

[cal]

Snax, in his valuable post#1, seems to suggest that the faster you think, the slower time ought to pass.

There's a reason I put this in my signature, "take everything I say literally," because I meant it. I am not suggesting anything other than what was explicitly expressed by the specific words I used, none of which anywhere in this thread have said anything about time going slower or faster, not even in relation to the perceiver. I'm only dealing with faster-processing people taking in more life in any given time frame, not how their perception of it ends up, but how it starts, in raw form.

 

 

When the puzzle is complete, I feel that only 5 or 10 minutes has elapsed. But then I look at the clock - and am surprised to see it now shows 2.30. Half an hour of objective time has passed!

Wait, who takes half an hour on a sudoku puzzle? lul

 

 

For intelligent people, who think a lot, time goes fast. It's only stupid people who experience long boring days.

A lot about what? The two posts following yours I think have helped explain the phenomena of subjective perception of time, but I'd like you to also consider that all of our perceptions are relative to each other, and you shouldn't assume your perception is a reliable one to base the average off of. I've had incredibly long days filled with exceptionally large amounts of pleasure take place in under five hours, that seemed to last forever, and in return had incredibly short days filled with nothing take place in over twenty hours, that seemed like no time passed at all (symptoms of a meth addict?), so I'm just saying...

[paigetheoracle]

Intelligence and speed? Physical speed or skill comes from knowledge but learning requires slowing down processes / sequences, so that you can observe them in action and see how they are linked together. To learn you need to be a passive receptor not an active transmitter. Speed blurs perception and keeps us simple minded, slowing things down creates perception in depth (detail): This is personified by the saying 'Still waters run deep,' implying that fast rivers are shallow. It's also probably why the old are considered wise and the young reckless (Fools rush in where angels fear to tread). So to summarize, yes skilled people move faster than unskilled ones but this is because bafflement slows us down to observe and learn, and we need both states to exist plus it is all relative.

[Deepwater6]

I clipped this quote from Wikipedia article

 

Time perception

Seems to make sense to me. What do you guys think?

 

Good article Arkane, I spend a great deal of time thinking about this. The reason being my age and the fact that I'm currently perceiving time differently. So much so that I'm often taking time to focus on this perceived accelerated/lost time. :blink:

 

I've been with my company so many years now that I have 5 weeks of vacation a year. I took this week off for my first week of the year. I have no travel plans, the only reason I took the week is to burn one of the weeks before the end of the year. I hadn't realized that it was the end of August already and I had not taken any time off. I will not use all the weeks and every year I seem to use less and less.

 

It's not that I can't get away because of work. everybody is replaceable no matter how important you are or think you are. The time just moves so fast anymore I have trouble gauging it.

 

Someone touched on the difference between daily time perception as opposed observing how fast a year or a decade has gone by. Time on a daily or hourly basis seems to be slightly faster, but for me the macro time continues to accelerate.

 

I believe one of the reasons for this is, as I slow down with age my days are far more preoccupied. Chores that used to take me three hours on a Saturday now take five. everything in my daily life takes me a little longer making it harder to keep track of time.

 

The speed of macro time perturbs me. Now that I'm aware of the anomaly I feel like I'm always chasing it. In some sense you would think nature would have made this the other way around. With time seemingly passing fast as a youth and slow as and adult, but it is what it is.

 

As far as intelligence and time correlation, I know when I'm having a good time, time seems to fly by. If days are longer for intelligent people then ignorance must truly be bliss.