Now THAT’S a CITE!
I am not I: The fastest biochemical event and the speed of light, or, The Bathroom Mirror phenomenon
tl;dr!!!
It’s funny, I had already gone to one of these cites because my brain was anticipating this exact post 
Truly that was a cite of legend.
An interesting, recent SciAm blog entry on time perception. Look for the phrase “particularly sneaky experiment” down the page.
Best response to a demand for a cite. Ever.
Yes, interesting, although, as so often with science journalism, the headline directly contradicts the content of the article.
Which also would mean that the image in the mirror we perceive is not the image that the light is sending to our eyes, but a construct of the mind of what we expect to see. It would seem as new information is brought in it is added (and noticed), or sometimes discarded.
He saw the demand coming!
Yes, that is, sort of, what I have been trying to say, although I think there are potential pitfalls in putting it that way too. It would be a mistake to infer from that sort of formulation (as some people sometimes do) that we do not experience the real world, or that we live in some sort of imaginary construct only tenuously connected to reality. The new information that you mention, is, after all, coming in in great quantities all the time, and not very much of it is outright discarded.
A recent show on National Geo channel called Braingames seems to stand in contrast to your claim that not very much is discarded, according to what they show most information seems to be discarded and we experience a very small subset of reality, or even predicted reality. It also challenges your statement of the pitfall, as this show seems to support that is exactly what is happening - at least as I viewed it.
In this show then mentioned one of the reason that drivers often don’t see motorcycles (and have accidents with them), is because their brain is not expecting them so the person doesn’t see them. To demonstrate this point they have dancers on the stage and have you count the number of times the dancers enter the circle on the stage, after the dance is over they ask you if you saw the 6 ft penguin walk across the stage, 50% of the people didn’t see the 6 ft penguin (neither did I), upon rewinding the DVR there was the penguin.
They also when into when senses conflict such as sight and sound, how sensory input that does not agree is sometimes discarded.
Well yes, perhaps I spoke carelessly in saying that not much is discarded. My point, however, is that the predictions are under constant check, so we do not (under normal circumstances) just see what we imagine ought to be there. That is rather different from the fact that we sometimes (more often than we may realize, indeed) miss things that really are there, because we did not expect and anticipate them.
My point though, was that we are not living in a made-up world, because if we make up something and it isn’t there we normally very quickly discover that. However, just because the world we experience is the real one, it does not follow that we always know everything about it, not even all the things that we could, potentially, discover through our unaided senses.
Let me try that again. The point that I have been, rather ineptly, trying to make in my last couple of posts is that it is a mistake to think that the facts about the predictive aspects of perception, and indeed the facts about perceptual mistakes and illusions, imply that what one “really” experiences is some sort of (sometimes inadequate or distorted) representation of the real world that has its existence inside the head. That is the Cartesian error, which is also the fundamental misconception behind the OP: the notion that the ‘real me’ is something living inside my head, experiencing only the show that is put on for it inside my brain. On the contrary, we are entire organisms, and we experience the real world that is around us. The brain’s job, in perception, is to direct the gathering of information (in accordance with our needs, and with what we have learned to expect to find), not to assemble and present a digest of that information (accurate or otherwise) to some ‘self’ that lives inside. That is not inconsistent with the fact that we sometimes fail to notice certain things about the world around us, or even with the fact that we sometimes misinterpret what we do see.
The mind is a sensory processing organ, and there is a time lag of some sort and there is some compensating methods to deal with this lag. Does the mind back fill information? (which I think it does), when it processes something that it ‘decided’ you should notice, it not only will bring it into your subset of reality, but place the memory that it was always there and you saw it right away, even though you didn’t.
The Last Thursdayism of the mind.
Yes, I believe it does, and this has been established by tricky bait and switch experiments where something changes, but the mind of the experimental subject attributes the new value to one of the old stimuli, or something like that. I don’t have a citation though.
Dudes, I wasn’t particularly interested in the cognitive situations; there are, I understand, optimized sensory/brain channels for human face recognition (hence agnosia). I presume that is discussed in the mega-cite above.
My question is on what biological, cellular, or atomic events will have occurred in the transit times. Njtt has given me what it is not in the visual apparatus. (I still wouldn’t mind knowing the cellular transaction times.)
What I really wanted, I guess, in the “I am not I,” is the velocity of th fastest transaction in the human body during that light transit time.
From what I can tell online, the folding/unfolding of certain peptides (built of amino acids, which then go on to form various proteins) takes ~30 ns. How much of this is going on in all of your trillions of cells at any given 30 ns interval is beyond me!
So would that be light lite?
Which would logically require Slow Glass.
Which is no reflection upon the user.