Ep33 "Why do they start sprinters with a bang instead of a flash?"

Published Nov 6, 2023, 11:00 AM

Why do they use a gun at the Olympics? And why can you get off the blocks after the bang but still be disqualified for jumping the gun? Few things are as bizarre as our time perception. From sprinters to basketball players, from Kubla Khan to Oppenheimer, from television broadcasting to hallucinations, Eagleman unmasks illusions of time that surround us. Why does the brain work so hard to pull off editing tricks? And what does this tell us about our perception of reality?

Why do they use a gun at the Olympics to start sprinters? Why not use a flash of light? And by the way, how can a sprinter come off the blocks after the starting gun but still get disqualified for jumping the gun? Or here's another question. If you watch someone dribbling a basketball, it looks like when the ball hits the ground, the sight and the sound are synchronized, and if you back up a ways, it still looks synchronized. But when you get to a very particular distance one hundred and ten feet, it suddenly goes out of sync. Why and what does any of this have to do with Robert Oppenheimer, or television broadcasting, or the Emperor Kubla Khan or schizophrenia. Welcome to Inner Cosmos with me David Eagleman. I'm a neuroscientist and an author at Stanford and in these episodes we sail deeply into our three pound universe to understand why and how our lives look the way they do. Today's episode is about time perception, which is an area that I've studied in my lab for years. For example, my first episode was on what happens when an event seems to go into slow motion? When you're in fear for your life. But today we're going to talk about a different aspect of time. And specifically, what we're going to talk about is that you have a three pound mission control center that sits in darkness and silence and has to figure out the timing of events in the outside world. But this is a massive challenge because signals stream in through different senses at different rates, and we'll see how and why your brain works so hard to pull off editing trail to get the timing right. I recently saw the movie Oppenheimer, and if you haven't seen it yet, you should. It's terrific. It's about J. Robert Oppenheimer, who led the Manhattan Project to build the first nuclear bomb. As you may know, the first test of the nuclear bomb was in the middle of New Mexico in a place called White Sands, which is a big empty area. They weren't sure if the nuclear bomb was going to work, because, as Oppenheimer often said, theory takes you only so far. So after four years of work and two billion dollars and hundreds of people on this project, they were finally going to get a chance to test the first ever nuclear bomb, to see if this idea was going to work as the equations predicted. So they set up the spot where the bomb would be set off, and then they set up a few observation sites, with the closest one being ten miles away from the explosion. So in the movie we witness a reconstruction of this scene, and it's tense because this is the culmination of years of work, and this is the project that might turn the tide of a world war, and this is gonna be the first time to get to see if it works. So the countdown clock begins, and Oppenheimer and the rest of the scientists put on their goggles, and finally the clock hits zero and the detonation button is pressed and they watch this giant, white and red pillar of fire reach up into the heavens. And in the movie it's silent. You just hear their heavy breathing as they watch this massive mushrooming cloud of incendiary flames, just silence. We see the explosion, but we hear nothing, and after about fifty seconds of this, suddenly we the audience hear a massive shaking boom. So after the movie, I was talking with a friend and he hypothesized that the director had done this for cinematic effect. The long drawn out silence was done so we could appreciate the terrifying success of the race to build a nuclear bomb. But I pointed out this was not a cinematic effect. This is how it really was and how it had to be because light travels ten miles very fast. It only takes about point one seconds for the light to travel from the bomb to the observation station ten miles away. But in contrast, sound travels about a million times more slowly. Because remember sound is just traveling by pushing around the molecules in the air, compressing them together and pulling them apart. And so how long does it take sound to travel one mile About five seconds. So for the folks at the observation station ten miles away, the nuclear explosion was silent for fifty seconds, fifty seconds of watching the most terrifying destructive force humans had ever made in total silence. And this is also what it was like for victims on the ground in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. People who were one mile away from ground zero saw the mushroom cloud but experienced silence for five seconds, or if you were across town twelve miles away. You'd have a full minute of watching what must have looked like a colossal monstrosity that reached the sky, but it must have felt the way it does to watch a television with the sound off for a full minute. And of course you know about this delay between light and sound because of watching lightning, which is followed only later by the thunder So it takes five seconds for sound to travel a mile, So if you count ten seconds after the lightning, that means it's two miles away. Okay, so there's this difference between the speed of light and the speed of sound. But we're about to see something very weird, which is that, unless we're watching something like a bomb or a thunderbolt, we don't perceive those time differences. Why don't we perceive these normally? Since sound is a million times slower, why doesn't someone talking to you from across the room look like a badly dubbed film. After all, the sight of their mouth and the sound of their voice arrives at different times, just like the bomb or the thunderbolt. And we're generally very sensitive to small differences in timing. So why can't we pick this up? So to reach our arms down into this problem. I'll give you a do it yourself demonstration that will unmask for you the deep weirdness of how much your brain constructs your reality. So watch some kid dribbling in basketball. It will seem like as the basketball is hitting the ground, the sight and the sound of that are synchronized. Now what you do is you start backing up. So you back up, you back up. They're dribbling, You're watching them, and it seems synchronized. The more and more you back up, it still seems synchronized until you hit one hundred and ten feet and then it doesn't seem synchronized anymore. Then suddenly the sight and sound seem off. The basketball visually hits the ground and then you hear the thump. It's asynchronous, like the badly dubbed movie. So what is going on here? Strap in, because we're about to see some things that will blow our minds, specifically, how much editing work your brain does behind the scenes to try to fix timing across the senses until the difference is simply too great and it says, okay, forget about it. So let's zoom out for a minute and consider the big picture. Of what your brain has to do. Your conscious perception requires the brain to compare different streams of sensory data against one another. You've got these different channels of information coming in. You've got vision, hearing, touch, and so on, and your brain has to put these together to make a big picture of what's happening. But there's something which makes this a really big challenge, and that is the issue of timing. All of these streams of sensory data are processed by the brain at different speeds. So think about sprinters at a racetrack. It appears that they get off the blocks the instant the gunfires, but it's not actually instantaneous. If you watch them in slow motion, you'll see this sizeable gap between the bang and the start of their movement. It's about one hundred and sixty millisecond because it takes time for signals to move through the brain, for the bang of the gun to work its way through their auditory system and over to their motor system and then down the spinal cord into the leg muscles and launched them off the blocks. In fact, if they move off the blocks before that duration, they're disqualified because they've jumped the gun. Because racing commissions know that this signal transmission takes time, so the rule is that if you move within one hundred milliseconds after the gun, you are disqualified. This came up in July of twenty twenty two when a hurdler named Devin Allen got off the starting blocks too early. He didn't go before the gun went off, he went after the gun went off. But he launched at ninety nine milliseconds after the gun, and even for a great athlete like him, this is below the possible reaction time, and there was a storm of activity on social media. But the fact is that one's reaction time can't be that rapid. Athletes trained to make their gap as small as possible, but their biology imposes fundamental limits. The brain has to register the sound and then send the signals to the motor cortex and down the spinal cord to the muscles of the body. Now, in a sport where thousandths of a second can be the difference between winning and losing, that response seems surprisingly slow. So could the delay be shortened if we used, say, a flash instead of a pistol to start the racers. After all, light travels faster than sounds, so wouldn't that allow them to get off the blocks faster? For my television show The Brain, I went to the track and I invited some fellow sprinters so we could all put this to the test. So, in one condition, our sprint was triggered by the gun. In a second condition, we were triggered by a flash of light. And we filmed this in super slow motion so we could compare what happened in the two conditions. When we were triggered by the bang of a gun, we got off the blocks at about one hundred and sixty milliseconds, but when we were triggered by the light, we got off the blocks more slowly, with a longer delay, about one hundred and ninety milliseconds. Now that seems to make no sense given what we just talked about, with light moving a million times faster than sound. So what gives here To understand what's happening? We need to look at the speed of information processing on the inside. Visual data goes through more complex processing than auditory data, so it takes longer for signals carrying the flash to wind their way through the visual system then for bang signals to snake their way through the auditory system, so light takes longer to trigger a motor response, and that's why a pistol is used to start sprinters. Now, scientists can prove this by putting electrodes in the auditory cortex, which responds to the bang, or the visual cortex, which responds to the flash, and you can see that the speed of the brain response is faster for the bang. But here comes the big mystery. Clap your hands in front of you. It looks synchronized. Well, that makes no sense because we just saw with the sprinters that your auditory system processes information more quickly than your visuals. So why aren't you seeing the sound and the sight out of sync. The answer, as we'll see in a moment, is that even though part of your brain gets the information before another part, your consciousness goes through a lot of trouble to sync things up. Your perception of the outside world is the end result of fancy editing tricks. The brain hides the difference in arrival times, and I'll explain to you how it does this, but first I'll give you a couple more examples. So let's step back seventy years to the early days of television broadcasting. The engineers realized they could be a stream of sound information and they could be a stream of visual information. But they were worried about how they could broadcast both the sound and the visuals and keep them synchronized with one another. And what they realized, quite accidentally, was that they don't actually need to keep them perfectly synchronized. As long as the sound and the visuals arrive to the viewer within about eighty milliseconds of each other. That's about a tenth of a second. Your brain does all the work of synking these up. And if you've ever seen a movie that seems out of sync, it means that the audio and the video were more than eighty milliseconds away from each other, because your brain can't tell the difference. As long as they're within eighty milliseconds of one another, it seems perfectly synchronized to you. And this allows us to understand what's happening. When you're watching the kid dribbling the basketball. It seems that as the ball is hitting the ground, everything is synced all the way until you back up to one hundred and ten feet and then it's not synchronized anymore. Why well, one hundred and ten feet is where the speed of light and the speed of sound are reaching you at over eighty milliseconds apart. So when they reach you at that timing apart from one another, your brain can't sync it up anymore. But as long as they're within that window, your brain has no problem saying, oh, okay, those belong together, I'm gonna synchronize that. So this is the question I turned to some years ago. If the brain is getting all this information at different speeds, how does it know how to synchronize things in consciousness? And I just want to make clear how challenging this is if you're living in the dark inside the skull, because these timing difficulties aren't even restricted to hearing and seeing. Every type of sensory information takes a different amount of time to process and to complicate things even more, even within a sense, there are time differences. For example, a bright flash moves through your retina and gets to your brain a full eighty milliseconds before a dim flash, or as another example, it takes longer for signals to reach your brain from your big toe than it does from your knows So how does your brain solve all of this temporal smearing of information. The only possible answer is wacky and somewhat mind blowing. Your brain has to collect up all the information from all the senses before it decides on a story of what happened. And that means your conscious perception is actually a delayed version of what's happening in the world. So when you clap your hands, your brain gathers the auditory information and the visual information and the sensory information of your hands touching, and all these stream in at different times, and then it puts together its story of what just happened, and it puts together what should go with what. And I'll explain in a second how it does this. But the key thing I want to make clear right now is that in order to synchronize everything, you have to wait for all of the information to arrive. And the strange consequence of all this is that you live in the past. By the time you think the moment occurs, it's already long gone. When you perceive the clap, it's already over. Your perceptual world always lags behind the real world. So think of it this way. Your perception of the world is like a live television show. Think of something like Saturday Night Live, which is not actually live. Instead, those shows are aired with a delay of a few seconds in case someone cusses or falls down or has a clothing mishap. And so it goes with your conscious life. It collects a lot of information before it goes live, so there's an unbridgable gap between an event occurring in the world and your conscious experience of it. So that's why your brain can sync the television audio at the video or the basketball thump with the visual of it hitting the ground or whatever. I need to emphasize that what we're talking about here is conscious awareness. You can see from pre conscious reactions that your motor system doesn't have to wait before its decisions. For example, you can duck out of the way of a swinging tree branch before you become consciously aware of it, or you can start jumping when there's a loud sound before you're consciously aware that there was a sound. Your body always tries to act as quickly as possible, even before the participation of awareness, but your conscious perception takes its time. Now that raises a question, what is the use of perception, especially since it lags behind reality and it's retrospectively attributed, and it's generally outstripped by these automatic, unconscious systems. The most likely answer is that your perceptions are like objects that your cognitive systems can work with later. So it's important for the brain to take sufficient time to settle on its best interpretation of what just happened, rather than stick with its initial rapid interpretation. Its carefully refined picture of what just happened is all that it's going to have to work with later, so it invests the time. So this brief waiting period before consciousness, this is what allows your sensory systems to discount the various delays imposed, But it has the disadvantage of pushing your perception into the past. Now, there's a distinct survival advantage to operating as close to the present as possible. An animal doesn't want to live too far in the past. Therefore, it may be that a tenth of a second window is the smallest delay that allows higher areas of the brain to account for the delays create in the first stage of the system while still operating near the border of the present. Among other things, this strategy of waiting for the slowest information to arrive has the advantage of allowing object recognition to be independent of lighting conditions. So I mentioned a minute ago about bright and dim flashes moving through the system at different speeds. So imagine a striped tiger coming toward you under the forest canopy, and he's passing through successive patches of sunlight. Imagine how difficult recognition would be if the bright and the dim parts of the tiger caused incoming signals to be perceived at different times. You'd perceive the tiger breaking into different space time fragments just before you became the tiger's lunch. Somehow, the visual system has evolved to reconcile these different speeds of incoming information. After all, it is advantageous to recognize tigers regardless of the lighting conditions. Now, this hypothesis that the system waits to collect information over the window of time that it's all streaming in this supplies not only to vision, but more generally, to all the senses. So, for example, my lab measured that in vision you wait at least a tenth of a second, But the size of this window might be different for hearing or touch. If I touch your toe and your nose at the same time, you will feel those touches as simultaneous. And that's really surprising, because the signal from your nose reaches your brain well before the signal from your toe. Why didn't you feel the nose touch when it first arrived. Did your brain wait to see what else might be coming up the pipeline of the spinal cord until it was sure that it had waited long enough for the slower signals from the toe. Strange as that sounds, that might be correct, and it may be that for a unified sensory perception of the world, you have to wait for the slowest overall information to get there, and given conduction times along whims, this leads to my strange but testable hypothesis that I mentioned in episode thirteen, which is that tall people may live further in the past than short people because they have to wait for the signals all the way from their toes before they put together their unified perception. Okay, but how does your brain know how to put all these signals together? So to think about this, let's turn to the Mongol emperor Kublai Khan, who ranged from twelve sixty to twelve ninety four, and founded the Yuan dynasty. Now he had conquered the largest kingdom the world had ever known. His kingdom reached from the Pacific to the Black Sea, and from Siberia to modern day Afghanis. His territory covered a fifth of the world's inhabited areas, so it was absolutely enormous. He situated himself in what is modern day Beijing. And the thing to note is that this was back in the day before iPhones and telegraphs and trains or email or anything like that. And so the question is, how in the world could Kubla Khan know his own empire. There's no way he could travel even a tiny fraction of a territory that large in his entire lifetime. So how could the Great Khan know what his empire contained? The answer is he hired emissaries like the Venetian traveler Marco Polo, and these people would travel out to the distant reaches of his empire and they would convey news back to him about what was going on in the empire. And he hired many emissaries that would go out in different directions and bring news back to him about what was going on. Now, I've never heard a historian talk about this. But I imagine the Great Con must have faced a tough problem what events in his empire occurred in which order. Because of wars and weather and other issues, people might travel at different paces, so the different emissaries would come back to him at different times. One emissary comes back and reports that a war has just ended, and another emissary comes back and reports that a war has just begun, and they're talking about the same war. But they got back to the capitol at different times. And so the question is how did the Great con synchronize all these signals. The thing I want to make clear is that the timing problem Kubla Khan had is the same problem the brain has, which is to say, it's getting all these different streams of information that come in at different paces. And because your brain is locked up in the dark tower of the skull, its only contact with the outside world is via the electrical signals exiting and entering along the highways of nerve bundles. So you've got touch information streaming up the body, You've got auditory coming in, you've got visual information coming into the brain. But the issue is that all of these things get processed by the brain at different speeds and at different places in the brain. So your brain faces this enormous challenge how to stitch together the incoming signals in the best way to make a story about what just happened in the outside world. For example, as we just saw, when I clap my hands, the auditory signals get processed first, then the visual signals, and yet they seem synced up. What this tells us is that the brain is somehow pulling off major video editing tricks, and we're going to find out how. Now, my lab has studied this for years, and the first thing to appreciate is that your brain doesn't figure this out pass. It does this by involving your own actions. Your own actions are the secret to understanding how everything gets synchronized. And what I've proposed is that your brain goes through so much trouble to get all this timing right because of one issue causality. Because one of the most fundamental things that any animal does is figure out whether it was the one that caused something or not. And fundamentally judging what caused what requires looking at the order of events. So imagine you're walking in the forest and you make a step and you hear a twig crack, you can assume that was me because of you. But if you hear the twig crack just before you land your step, then you'd better be worried about a mountain lion. So causality requires a temporal order judgment, which is to say, did I put out the action and then I got sensory feedback, in which case I'm going to take credit for having done that, Versus I got sensory feedback and then I did some action, in which case I'm not taking credit for that. I had nothing to do with that. And what we're often talking about is tens of milliseconds one way or the other as the only difference between these scenarios. But animals are very sensitive to this, and at bottom, this is the challenge that animals have to figure out. And as we've seen, the reason this is really difficult is because the speed of sensory signals differs and also they can change. So, for example, when you go from a bright outdoors into a dimly lit room, the speed at which your eyes are talking to your brain slows down by quite a bit. And what that means is that now your vision and your motor actions are out of sink a little bit. So if right when you walked into the dim room, I threw you a ball, you'd probably miss it. I don't know if you've ever played volleyball right when the sun's going down, but everyone's having good time, and then right as the sun's going down, everyone starts getting hit in the face with the ball and so on. Because what's happening is your time is getting out of sync. Now, now that's an example of a short term fast change, but on a longer time scale, as you grow from a baby to an adult, it takes a longer time to send signals out to your hand and get signals back. And so all of this led me to think a while ago, somehow the brain is having to figure out what its expectations are. It's having to modulate on the fly how long it expects for signals to come back. And so I hypothesize that the brain is always doing this on the fly. It's always recalibrating, it's readjusting the expected time that it takes for signals to come in. But how does it do that? And the answer is by interacting with the world. Because whenever you touch things, or you kick things, or you do anything like that. Your brain is saying, okay, everybody, synchronize your watches. I'm putting out an action, and what I expect is that I'm going to see it and hear it and feel it all at the same time. That's the prior expectation that it comes to the table with. And if I hit the table and it goes hit knock like that, my brain will adjust the timing. In other words, your brain doesn't know in advance how long your limbs are, or what the lighting level is, or how fast sound travels and so on. It just figures out what it needs by reaching out and interacting with the world. It just needs to embed the single assumption that if it sends out an action such as a knock on the table or a clap of the hands, all the feedback should be assumed to be simultaneous, and any delays between the senses should be adjusted until simultaneity is perceived. In other words, the best way to predict the expected timing of the signals is to interact with the world. Is to go out and touch and kick and push and knock on the world, and your brain makes the assumption that all the feedback is simultaneous. The best way to predict the future is to create it. You cause something and all the consequences should be synchronized. That's how you keep yourself calibrated. So, just to be clear, what this suggests is that if the feedback signal arrives with a delay, the brain's going to adjust things to make it seem like it happened close in time. So I took this hypothesis and in my lab we created a very simple experiment. You come into the lab and you're seated in front of a button, and whenever you hit the button that causes a flash of light. You press the button, the light flashes, But then we sneakily inject a small delay in there, let's say one hundred milliseconds. So you hit the button and then the flash of light appears. What happens very quickly is that your brain adjusts to the delay. Because you're the one causing it, the button and the light are interpreted as simultaneous, or at least close to simultaneous. So after just a couple of hits, it doesn't feel like one hundred millisecond delay. It feels like the button pressed and the flash are happening at the same time. Why it's because your brain is the one putting out the action, so it knows what to expect. And then we pull the big trick on you after your brain is used to this delay and thinks this is simultaneity. Now you press the button, and we make the flash happen immediately, no delay. And what is your perception? You think that the flash happened before you hit the button, So you hit the button, the flash occurs immediately, and you say, WHOA, I didn't do that. It flashed just before I hit it. Now, this is amazing to witness because this is an illusory reversal of action and effect. You hit the button, but you believe the consequence happened before your action. Your brain gives you the wrong answer because it has adjusted it expects a certain delay, and now we've tricked it. Now, this is a very simple experiment that you can reproduce at home with a little bit of programming, but it's a really big deal because it demonstrates that the timing you perceive in the world is not what it's truly happening out there, but an easily manipulated story put together by your brain now. I presented this research at a university recently, and a professor there came up to me afterwards and asked me about something. He said, they just got a new telephone system installed and he types at his desk all day and sometimes he turns to the phone and dials the number, and his impression was that the line starts ringing just before he hits the final number. Well, I immediately understood what was happening here, although he wasn't aware of it. His computer keyboard has a delay between hitting the key and a letter appearing on the screen. Typically for computers that's about one hundred milliseconds, but we never notice it because we calibrate to the delay. Anyway, he now turns to the phone, and this new system has a much smaller delay. So when he hits the final number on the phone, the ringing starts, but it feels like it happens just before he hit the final number key. He's experiencing this illusory reversal of action and effect, and it's because the delay of the two machines is different. He's calibrated to one, and suddenly the delay is different on the other. And by the way, you can turn this into a game of sorts. My graduate student John Jacobson was inspired by this discovery to program an unbeatable game of rocks, as or paper. So here's how that goes. There's a countdown and then you hit a key to register whether you're throwing a rock or as or a paper, And just like in the game, the computer presents its choice at the same time, or so you think it's actually waiting one hundred and fifty milliseconds and seeing what you did, But it feels simultaneous to you because your brain adjusts to you pressing the button and you're seeing the result on the screen. And then every once in a while the delay gets dropped, so it feels like the computer answered before you, even though it was again just registering your press and reacting immediately. You have the feeling that you reacted after it and that you answered exactly the wrong thing. And by the way, I'll just mention that my students and I ran a bunch of experiments in which we showed that this temporal recalibration can last through time, which, as you may remember from episode twenty four, is exactly what happens with the motion after effect. When you say, watch a downward waterfall for a while, and then you see everything moving upward. It turns out if you watch the waterfall and close your eyes and then open your eyes later, the illusion still happens. And without going into details, this indicates the mechanism by which the active recalibration happens under the hood in the neural circuitry. Anyway, my lab published some years ago a model in which recalibrations of motion are exactly the same mechanism as the recalibrations in the time domain. In other words, words, this suggests the possibility that the brain uses exactly the same circuitry for time and space. I'll skip the details here, but for interested parties, I've linked to the paper at eagleman dot com slash podcast. Okay, so we can show that the brain constantly recalibrates its timing. But remember this isn't just a party trick of the brain. It's critical to solving the problem of causality. The only way this problem can be accurately solved in a brain with lots of senses where timing is always changing is by keeping the expected time of signals actively calibrated so that you can determine before and after, even with these different sensory pathways, so your brain's always making this adjustment. But here's something really important. Let's return to what we saw with this recalibration. A person hits the button, but if we've just removed the delay, they say, WHOA, that wasn't me. The light flashed before I did anything. And that got me thinking about something because I realized I had seen that kind of reaction before. So when I saw participants saying that wasn't me, I thought that looks really familiar. Specifically, this is called credit misattribution, and this is where you cause something but you deny that you were the one who did it. And this is one of the striking symptoms that we see in schizophrenia. A person suffering from schizophrenia will often do something and not take credit for it. They believe that it was not them who caused the thing to happen, and then it's perfectly rational for them to cook up a different sort of explanation for it and say someone else is doing it, or this was caused by a signal from a radio tower or whatever, but it's not me that did it. Whatever's going on, And so some years ago, I started to hypothesize that schizophrenia may actually be a problem with time recalibration. What if you're not properly adjusting the timing of your inputs to your outputs, you would have a very difficult time judging causality. But that's just the beginning. I immediately started thinking about another symptom of schizophrenia, which is auditory hallucinations. So here's the thing. Under normal circumstances, you're always talking to yourself. You have an internally generated voice, and you listen to that. And by the way, if you're thinking, what internal voice, that's the internal voice. But what happens if you get the timing wrong, even by a few milliseconds, such that you thought you were hearing the voice just before feeling like you generated it, you would have to conclude that it was somebody else's voice, not your own. And it's all simply because the timing is off between generating the voice and listening to it. And if thinking led me and my students to run experiments at a county mental health facility with people who had schizophrenia, and indeed, we found that people with schizophrenia do not recalibrate their timing as well as healthy controls do. So when we give them a test like hit the button and did the flash of light occur before or after, and we measure their recalibration, it's much less or it's absent. Now, like all science, this is going to require many more studies, but if this is the right way to think about schizophrenia, it completely changes our approach to it. It means that instead of throwing pharmacological solutions at it, which have limited success, just imagine if you could give somebody a video game that they play for a few minutes and then their auditory hallucinations go away because we've recalibrated their timing. So this is work I'm pursuing now, and it all began with these very simple experiments. So to wrap up today's episode, it's an ongoing passion of mind to figure out how the brain constructs reality. And there are very few things weirder than time. What we saw today is that to synchronize the incoming information from the senses, our conscious awareness has to lag behind the physical world. But none of that is obvious to your perception. And even weirder, the order of sensory events in the world is dynamically recalibrated, so you can hit a button that causes a flash, but under different circumstances, you'll believe that happened before or after, and we can easily change that around. And this is because your brain can't automatically know what the timing should be, especially as sensory timing changes all the time. So your brain, living in darkness, constantly interacts with the world to recalibrate its timing. It says, I'm going to knock on something now. Everyone synchronize your watches. And this matters to the brains so much to get all this timing right, because this is the basis of judging causality, and when that recalibration isn't working well, it makes it difficult to interpret the world as we see in schizophrenia. And this episode points us back to a fundamental lesson that we've seen a lot in earlier episodes, with visual illusions and auditory illusions. Reality is not passively received by our brains, but is actively constructed. Go to Eagleman dot com slash podcast for more information and to find further reading, and send me an email at podcast at eagleman dot com with questions or discussion, and I'll be making more episodes in which I address those. Until next time, I'm David Eagleman, and this is Inner Cosmos.

Inner Cosmos with David Eagleman

Neuroscientist and author David Eagleman discusses how our brain interprets the world and what that  
Social links
Follow podcast
Recent clips
Browse 98 clip(s)