▲ 1308 ▼ Progress! (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world [M] to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world 215 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] nifty@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Can you elaborate? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211233934.htm Even though participants remembered their own falls as having taken one-third longer than those of the other study participants, they were not able to see more events in time. Instead, the longer duration was a trick of their memory, not an actual slow-motion experience. Your memory is imperfect. But your actual capacity to perceive time is still limited by the facilities you use for that prescription. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) One experimental result does not define the entire domain of consciousness. You are essentially making a statement of the form “X does not and cannot exist”, which is always a logical fallacy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago You are essentially making a statement of the form “X does not and cannot exist” Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is a Family Guy meme. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211233934.htm Even though participants remembered their own falls as having taken one-third longer than those of the other study participants, they were not able to see more events in time. Instead, the longer duration was a trick of their memory, not an actual slow-motion experience. Your memory is imperfect. But your actual capacity to perceive time is still limited by the facilities you use for that prescription. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) One experimental result does not define the entire domain of consciousness. You are essentially making a statement of the form “X does not and cannot exist”, which is always a logical fallacy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago You are essentially making a statement of the form “X does not and cannot exist” Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is a Family Guy meme. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) One experimental result does not define the entire domain of consciousness. You are essentially making a statement of the form “X does not and cannot exist”, which is always a logical fallacy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago You are essentially making a statement of the form “X does not and cannot exist” Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is a Family Guy meme. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago You are essentially making a statement of the form “X does not and cannot exist” Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is a Family Guy meme. permalink fedilink source parent
