Ad hoc theory of one of the reasons why time appears to flow faster in dreams.

A perplexing yet strangely familiar experience to anyone who has ever dreamed, would undoubtedly have been making the occasional observation that much more seems to occur in our dreams than the duration of our sleep alone can account for. After a night of intense dreaming we often remember the equivalent of much a longer time period then we had actually spent sleeping (which is generally much longer than the time spent dreaming). Or when we take a short nap during the day, we're often surprised to learn upon waking that only a few minutes have past after what had seemed like an epic adventure. 
So apparently there's a clear subjective disconnect between dream state and waking state with regard how we perceive the flow of time. I make the assumption that time doesn't actually undergo some substantial warping in our heads in a way that would account for this phenomenon.

Since we're under the impression that more has happened during our dream than the time being asleep can account for, there seem to be a few possibilities as to why that may be. I should mention that I'm writing this blog post without having consulted any particular, specialist literature on the matter, hence the post title. 
One possibility is that our brain processes inner-conjured dream-films with a higher temporal resolution. That is, the dream-films are presented to us with increased speed, but we perceive them as normal, since within our dream state there's no other reference frame other than the dream itself. This hypothesis appears to be amiable to empirical exploration.

The other possibility, which occurred to me recently, is closely related with how our memory works. So the following explanation requires both some assumptions about the mechanics of our memory, but also some assumptions about the actual content of dream-films. The vast majority of us, whenever recollecting some series of events---say our last birthday party, or the recent trip to the countryside---tends to recall vivid snapshots of the more intense impressions, which are more or less arranged in chronological order. The point is that most of us don't remember the entire experiencial continuum, but rater a collection of short vivid fragments. Now, if we think about it, this is how dreams often seem to manifest---in a bunch of , more or less, disconnected situations combined into one weird stream.

Of course when I talk about this, I have only my memory to rely on, so if our memory indeed works as I just have outlined, then I cannot justifiably rely on it to speak of the character of the dream-films. But the point is that it is possible that dreams may be arranged and have the actual content analogous to the way our memory works. That is, dreams may consist of vivid fragments connected haphazardly with a vague chronological cause-effect narrative sense, like a movie trailer. But because our memory also works, as assumed earlier, such that we tend to only recall movie-trailer-like imagery, and only infer all the in-between events that must have occurred, when presented with the dream-film trailer, we inflate its content by inferring that there must have been intervals in-between.

For example, in real life, when recalling our plane journey from one city to another, we may only vividly recall say, the departure and arrival, plus a few more interesting cloud formations viewed through the window on the way, but that doesn't mean that the journey only consisted of those few intervals (the sum of which may consist of less than a minute of vivid mnemonic imagery), because as a matter of fact the journey is much longer (say, a few hours) than the sum of our recollected and vivid fragments---we infer that there must have been in-between intervals, other than those that we can vividly access.

But it's possible that my dream of a similar flight would be a kind of film trailer actually consisting of only the vivid fragments of the departure, a view of the more interesting cloud formations, and the arrival, arranged in a sequence of one vivid fragment occurring immediately after the previous one, without any intervals in-between at all. However upon recalling this 3-scene act when we wake up, it seems much longer because our memory mechanism inflates this vividly dreamed sequence by filling it with inferential content, i.e. a journey like that must have lasted a few hours (there must have been many more scenes in this act).

So the ad hoc explanation of why time appears to flow faster in dreams is that dreams are much like film trailers, but because of how our memory works, we tend to have the impression that we've watched the entire film.

I've also written about about how our memory works in a recent post, and a short story written years ago.

Group memory quality as a function of group size and interaction---an explanation.

I read somewhere, years ago, that species of birds that live in flocks tend to display better group-memory. I don't remember (pun intended) how that was measured, but have observed this to be also true of human interactions. Aside from mere cognitive stimulation---in a group we also tend to interact more, so there's a greater chance of certain facts being continually refreshed---I believe that there's more to what enhances group memory. That is, I think that there's another factor that influences group-memory, not by virtue of cognitive stimulation alone, but the kind of stimulation that has greater likelihood of occurring as the group size increases.



It has to do with both the abilities and limitations of each individual, and the fact (conjecture) that those abilities/limitations vary significantly among individuals. The hypothesis underlining this idea is simple---it's very plausible that given that we've been a social species for most of our evolutionary history, it would appear to be an adaptive trait to distribute cognitive abilities related to memory and recollection over the entire group. In particular, there may be a significant variation of the temporal ranges that individuals are capable of recollecting proficiently. That is some people would be better are remembering recent events, with high fidelity, whereas other's mid-term or long-term memory may be much better. After all it's the sum of all memories, fed into the social collective that counts, so it needn't be preserved by each individual---that would be an unnecessary over investment of neural-power.



From careful observation of my family and friends I have noticed that some of us display great proficiency in recollecting great amount of detailed information of current affairs, i.e. information gathered in the recent days or weeks, but may struggle holding that detail for a long period of time, and their memory of current affairs progressively fades over time. Others, on the other hand, display much better long term memory than others.

Perhaps such traits can be shown to be more generally diversified with respect to temporal ranges of optimal recollection. Moreover, there may be variance regarding the kind of of information that is remembered---some people may be better at remembering how to perform certain actions, others at phenomena that occurs in the surrounding environment, and others still may be really good at keeping a moral tally of group members, i.e. those displaying altruistic actions and those that exploit the benefits offered by the group. Combining those individual abilities in a social group would obviously enhance the group memory, simply by virtue of mutual compensation of individual limitations. So, such a social mnemonic mechanism would result in the group super-organism as a whole displaying much better memory than each of its members alone, on the condition that information flow is unhindered.

Those ruminations on the nature of memory are an unintended interest of mine. I just can't help but make conjectures about it. I've explored this subject matter before, via a short story---in particular how perception influences our memory and recollection.

L.I.F.E

last edited 23 August 2009

It was both the unbearably increasing monotony of most of the daily activities, and the discovery of the mechanisms governing the illusion of time that led the brilliant employee of the Institute of Advanced Studies, Martin Parmenstein to finally bring himself to carry out a project which he had been anticipating intermittently since college. Deeply harbored metaphysical concerns fueled Martin to consider himself as the first test subject of this existential optimizer device. This is why writing the Life Intensity Full Enhancement (LIFE) algorithm would not only be the first step of this grandiose project but it would eventually change his life forever. 
Martin’s PhD dissertation The Influence of Prior Stimulus Distribution Saturation on Time Perception and Memory Enhancement essentially proposed what could be understood as an elixir of youth simulation. The theory explained the commonly known phenomenon of changes to our subjective perception of time with ageing and proposed a way of eliminating it by simulating an experience of being that is lucid, enthusiastic and carefree: the hallmarks of youth which nature inevitably denies us in later life.

Martin’s explanation relied on the widely documented evidence of our adaptation to repeated stimuli. Repeated exposure to similar stimuli eventually ceases to register as unique, and we have no conscious memory of it, or more specifically we have no way of distinguishing one repeated stimuli event from another. This is naturally the result of the evolutionary optimization of energy strategy which our brains employ.
Eventually this results in a task distribution in accordance with what is today referred to as Parmenstein’s Law, which essentially states that the level of consciousness governing the response to a given stimuli is inversely proportional to the frequency of exposure to that stimuli . Simply put the law states that the more frequent the occurrence the lower the level of consciousness which will deal with it. This makes an activity such as walking practically automatic.
The consequences of this fact carry over immediately to our memories of the world; the very rare and hence unique experiences will stand out above others in our minds, whereas the chains of routine ultimately dissolve into oblivion of amnesia at best. The other alternative that awaits mundane and repeated experiences is that of mutual homogenization resulting in a collage of memories of an action to make up the actual memory; remembering the act of locking the front door last week is no more than a mnemonic tapestry of the more lucid fragments originating from all the times this act has been performed. Such a chimera is the best raft of clarity in this otherwise ocean of amnesia that our mind can construct, and hence nominate it to the status of a memory.

The final piece of Martin’s Thesis was the claim that it is those unique experiences that serve as the mnemonic milestones dictating the perception of the passage of time and hence also its anticipation. Anticipation of time has a fundamental importance in making plans and setting goals, which are essential in furnishing our lives with meaning. Furthermore the temporal “spaces” between these milestones, Martin believes, are constant due to neurological hardware limitations.
The conclusion then is that our perception of time is determined by the richness of our experiences. To a child, every day brings new and unique experiences, such as going to the movies for the first time or seeing the sea or just hearing a fire engine siren. Hence the weekend seems like a very long time, and the school brake almost like eternity. As we grow older this constant set of stimuli does not change substantially and what’s more we tend to gradually diminish it with our daily, self imposed routine, a tendency which enhances the impoverishment of stimuli. Weekends become insignificant instants mainly due to the fact that a two day period rarely brings anything unique enough t o register as a milestone. By this merciless mechanism, in old age we are but somnambulists whose dreams are no more than kaleidoscopic projections of our memories of childhood and youth.
If one was able to enrich the distribution of stimuli in one’s life then not only the anticipation of each day would be comparable to that of what a child experiences on the eve of Boxing Day but also the memories of it would be proportionally rich and vivid. The implementation of LIFE to one’s life, Martin believed was the answer.

In theory, LIFE’s function is essentially the inverse of Permenstein’s law; it would counterbalance the inevitable suppression of awareness of stimuli to lower levels of consciousness by substantially reducing the frequency of repetition of stimuli by means of novel modifications of their content. For example the route taken to the office every day by a given subject would have certain alternations and idiosyncrasies introduced in order to make each journey vividly distinct. The means of transport may be proposed to alternate between driving, public transport, taking a taxi, riding a bike or a scooter, or some combination of those during a single journey. On public transport one may be advised to engage in conversation with strangers.
Such behavioral differentiation would be implemented to all other facets of life, such as choice of leisure or culinary dishes. Incidentally LIFE had been condemned by the Vatican, soon after Martin’s paper appeared in Nature, due to the necessary promiscuous tendencies it advocated. Needless to say the New York Times headline “Pope condemns LIFE” provoked an outrage within the entire Christian community, consequently reviving the abortion debate. As a matter of fact LIFE’s parameters would naturally be custom calibrated to correspond to each client’s deeply cherished beliefs so neither a religious person would be encouraged to commit adultery nor an atheist expected to make the Hajj. Effectively the subject would appear to an onlooker as adventurous, spontaneous, curious, possibly immature and finally outright childish.

Prior to receiving his PhD in Algorithmic Metaphysics, Martin encountered three serious objections to LIFE, one from each of the three academic auditors. Naturally those objections had to be refuted in order for his dissertation to be accepted. The first one questioned the efficiency of LIFE’s mechanism, by pointing to the supposedly excessive set of novel changes and alternations its application would require.
After all, the professor argued, rendering a set of experiences unique can be achieved a lot more efficiently using a formal approach. This means that no actual states of affairs need to be altered, but only the perceptual construct of the subject. By dramatically changing a given subject’s worldview one could thereby change the subject’s experience of the world. So for example, instead of alternating between various means of transport taken to the office and the random introduction of idiosyncratic behavioral tendencies, an alternation between radically different psychological constructs would make each journey equally unique. Insofar as human imagination is capable of accommodating and harboring an almost infinite variety of worldviews, a pre-fabricated set of metaphysical and epistemological systems could be within reach to absorb and allow seeing the world in a new light. After all an ordinary bus ride experienced with the conviction that all that exists, does so in virtue of being perceived isn’t the same as riding it tormented by the thought that this bus ride is just a way filling out a sequence of events which are necessarily predetermined . The technical aspect, although non trivial would certainly not be insurmountable; a world system generator placed on the bedside table would instantiate a new Grand Unified Theory each evening which would then be absorbed by the subject during sleep. A mere rewiring of the cerebral cortex would have the effect of conjuring up a new universe each morning.

This approach Martin argued, although attractive due to its apparent simplicity of method and robustness of effects, could not be considered for ethical reasons. A person’s mind tampered in this fashion would in principle be equivalent to being rendered schizophrenic with a unique delusion dominating each day. Furthermore, the overwhelming contrasts of meaning and significance resulting from the irreconcilable worldviews would make it impossible for any coherent memory thread to exist, since its content would be interpreted with systematic inconsistency. As a result no genuine notion of self could emerge – a consequence surely undesirable for anyone with the hope of improving their experience of the world. If there wouldn’t be a self experiencing this epistemological freak show, then there can be no talk of any variety of experience at all.
To be continued...