Clip show: Links to links part 2

Following on from my last post, here are some more links to some interesting online content that is related to the topics I write about here, along with some commentary from me. First of all, have a look once again at the blogroll in the sidebar -- I've added some more blogs, including Whats in a brain? which has a recent post on linguistic relativity and time. Now in today's post I've got some longer lecture-type items, mostly by academics but aimed at a broad non-specialist audience. Wherever possible I'll try to include links to both video and audio versions for you to choose from.

First of all is a talk by James Burke titled "Admiral Shovel and the Toilet Roll" (also available in iTunes). In addition to his usual connections approach, this is an excellent argument for the importance of the interdisciplinary approach. It's also very witty and entertaining, as usual for Burke.

At the end of the last post I linked to some basic introductory linguistics videos, and here is another very good introduction to the basics of linguistics, "Linguistics as a Window to Understanding the Brain" by Steven Pinker. This lecture is part of the Floating University initiative, and in it Pinker does a pretty good job of not only presenting basic linguistic concepts but also introducing and giving a balanced treatment of some controversial issues such as language universals and linguistic relativity, subjects that he has fairly strong views on. Here is the lecture on YouTube:

Steven Pinker - Psychologist, Cognitive Scientist, and Linguist at Harvard University How did humans acquire language? In this lecture, best-selling author Steven Pinker introduces you to linguistics, the evolution of spoken language, and the debate over the existence of an innate universal grammar.

Related to the subject of language universals is Daniel Everett's Long Now lecture "Endangered languages, lost knowledge and the future" (the audio is also available in iTunes and the video can be watched on Fora.tv). Based on his observations of the Pirahã language, Everett argues against the Chomskyan notion of  an innate universal grammar, and instead suggests that language is a cultural tool invented by humans to serve a social function.

Lera Boroditsky gives an excellent introduction to recent research on the subject of linguistic relativity in her Long Now lecture "How Language Shapes Thought" (the audio is also available in iTunes and the video can be watched on Fora.tv). In particular, Boroditsky many of the language and time issues I've written about recently. Here is the lecture on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPGpZp1pfQQ&w=560&h=315

On the subject of time, here is Claudia Hammond's RSA talk "Time Warped" based on her book of the same name (the full audio of the talk is also available in iTunes). Hammond discusses many interesting issues about time perception. Here is a YouTube video of the edited highlights of this talk:

Acclaimed writer and broadcaster Claudia Hammond draws on the latest research to shed light on the mysteries of time perception. Listen to the podcast of the full event including audience Q&A: http://www.thersa.org/events/audio-and-past-events/2012/time-warped Our events are made possible with the support of our Fellowship. Support us by donating or applying to become a Fellow.

Cognitive scientist David Eagleman also works on time perception (as well as a variety of other topics). Here are two lectures of his from The Up Experience. In the first, he gives good summary of his work on how we perceive time and how our sense of time is largely a construction by the brain:

The UP Experience--Unique Perspectives from Unique People--is pleased to welcome back Dr. David Eagleman, neuroscientist, best-selling author, and UP Master of Ceremonies for the fourth year in a row. Eagleman holds joint appointments in the Departments of Neuroscience and Psychiatry at Baylor College of Medicine.

In this second Eagleman talk, he discusses, among other things, the relationship between the present self and the future self, drawing on a story of Odysseus and the sirens from the ancient Greek epic The Odyssey to describe what he calls the Odysseus contract:

The fields of study of prolific and influential neuroscientist David Eagleman have taken him from time perception and synesthesia to the intersection of neuroscience and the legal system. Oh, and in his free time, he writes internationally bestselling fiction. Eagleman so enthralled last year's audience, we've asked him back for his second UP appearance in October.

Economist M. Keith Chen also draws on the idea of future discounting, which Eagleman refers to in that last video, in his highly controversial connection between how languages handle the future tense and future planning (which I've discussed before here and here). Here is his TED talk presenting this theory:

Keith Chen is an Associate Professor of Economics at the Yale School of Management. His research blurs traditional boundaries in both subject and methodology, bringing unorthodox tools to bear on problems at the intersection of Economics, Psychology, and Biology. Professor Chen's most recent work focuses on how people's economic choices and attitudes are influenced by their language.

Psychologist Philip Zimbardo talks about our orientation to time, that is being past, present, or future oriented, and what this means to the way we approach life, also touching large scale cultural differences, in his RSA talk "The Secret Powers of Time". Here are the YouTube videos of both the full lecture and the excellent 10-minute RSA Animate video excerpted from it:

Professor Philip Zimbardo reveals how our individual perspective on time affects our work, health and well-being. Watch the RSA Animate of this talk: http://youtu.be/A3oIiH7BLmg Follow the RSA on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/thersaorg Like the RSA on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/thersaorg

Renowned psychologist Professor Philip Zimbardo explains how our individual perspectives of time affect our work, health and well-being. Watch the full lecture here: http://www.thersa.org/events/video/archive/philip-zimbardo-the-secret-powers-of-time This RSA Animate was taken from a lecture given as part of the RSA's free public events programme.

And finally, since I started this post with James Burke's kind of connections, I'll end with neuroscientist Sebastian Seung's TED talk "I am my connectome", in which he discusses his connectome project of mapping the brain's neuronal connections, and related book Connectome: How the Brain's Wiring Makes Us Who We Are:

http://www.ted.com Sebastian Seung is mapping a massively ambitious new model of the brain that focuses on the connections between each neuron. He calls it our "connectome," and it's as individual as our genome -- and understanding it could open a new way to understand our brains and our minds.

I'll hopefully be able to get back to more substantive blogging later on in August, but for now good watching/listening!

Clip Show: Links to links part 1

To tide things over for a while until I have more time to write more substantive posts, I thought I'd like to put together a post of some curated links to online content relevant to the sorts of topics I've been writing about recently. Think of it as a kind of clip-show approach to keep putting posts up while I'm a little short of time to write. First of all, needless to say, have a browse through the blogroll at the side of the page. It isn't an exhaustive list of the blogs that I read, but it reflects the kinds of subjects I write about here, as well as the interdisciplinary breadth I'm arguing in favour of. Next, in this post I'm including some podcasts and YouTube channels which regularly touch on issues of language, cognitive science, and in particular issues to do with time. I'll save some one-off links to longer lectures for the next post.

First up, there are two excellent language podcasts, Talk the Talk, featuring linguist Daniel Midgely and co-host Ben Ainslie, and Lexicon Valley from Slate magazine, with Mike Vuolo and Bob Garfield. For Talk the Talk I'm going to recommend episode #29 "Time in Amondawa", which looks at the topic of space-time mapping I've written about recently, and for Lexicon Valley I recommend episodes #8 "When Nouns Grew Genitals" and #9 "And May He Be a Masculine Bridge"  which look at the question of linguistic relativity, and features the work of, among others, Lera Boroditsky, whom I've referred to on several occasions.

If you're interested in the cognitive stuff, have a listen to The Brain Science Podcast, in which Dr. Virginia Campbell, MD reviews books and interviews scientists on a variety of neuroscience topics, and All in the Mind, in which host Lynne Malcolm covers a variety of topics about psychology and the mind. In particular, for The Brain Science Podcast  I'll recommend episode #94 "How the Brain Makes Meaning" in which Dr. Campbell interviews linguist Benjamin Bergen about his book Louder Than Words, and for All in the Mind I'll recommend the episode "How language shapes thought", which again touches on Boroditsky's work.

Now for some videos. Brady Haran has a number of educational YouTube channels, mostly on scientific topics, but also including Words of the World, which uses words, their meaning and history, as a jumping off point to examining culture and history through a series of interviews with academics from a variety of disciplines. However, I'm going to recommend three of his videos which deal with the subject of time. First from PsyFile, "Time Perception", which discusses how the brain perceives and keeps track of time:

How does the human brain keep track of time? Interview with Luke Jones from the University of Manchester. More from Luke about time perception coming soon. University of Manchester School of Psychological Sciences: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/ Videos by Brady Haran http://www.bradyharan.com/

Next, from PhilosophyFile, "The Philosophy of Time", which is a good introduction to some basic concepts such as McTaggart's ideas about time and the A series (past, present, future) and B series (earlier, later) of time:

What are the A and B theories of time? Time philosophy expert Jonathan Tallant, from the University of Nottingham, tries to explain.

And finally, from Sixty Symbols, "Arrow of Time", which looks at the question of whether or not physics requires directionality in time:

Sean Carroll on the arrow of time.

On the channel YouTube channel Vsauce, host Michael Stevens, who has a background in neuropsychology, frequently posts educational science videos, including this one titled "How Old Can We Get?", which discusses not only biological time, but also issues about time perception:

Links to learn more: Like us on facebook!

And finally for today, Tom Scott has recently been posting a number of short video introductions to linguistics topics, including this one, "All The Colours, Including Grue: How Languages See Colours Differently", which discusses the linguistic relativity question:

http://tomscott.com - @tomscott - Colours are easy, right? They're one of the first things you learn as a kid. But what if "blue" and "green" were the same colour? Or "light blue" and "dark blue" weren't? Well, guess what: there are languages out there that do exactly that.

So have a browse through these links -- they should provide some depth and background to the posts I've been writing lately. And coming soon, some longer lectures that have been influencing me lately.

The Shape of Time: Wibbly Wobbly Timey Wimey

Today I'm going to write a bit about the shape of time, a big topic which I'll need to come back to a number of times to discuss specific examples. Consider this an overview of the topic, which follows on from my last post’s discussion of circular and linear time. In particular, today I'm going to focus on how we use space to think about time, where we locate different times in our mental landscapes. It turns out that this is not as straightforward as it might at first seem, and there is plenty of variation.

The first thing we need to cover is the idea that we need to use metaphor to think and speak about time. Time is an abstract idea. We have no direct way of perceiving time, no sense devoted to it. There are, of course, workarounds to this, and in fact in many cases we're quite good at estimating the kinds of timeframes we tend to have to deal with in day-to-day life. It seems the brain has no one internal clock, though there are regions of the brain that control things like the circadian rhythm (specifically in that case the roughly 20,000 neurons collectively known as the suprachiasmatic nucleus), and it has been suggested that the number of things we experience and the number of memories we create affects our judgement of the duration of time. We are also able to perform motor tasks that require very precise timing, and can judge the minute time difference between sounds coming in one ear and the other in order to have stereo location of sounds. However, our experience of time can also be quite flexible, as Claudia Hammond discusses in her book Time Warped (which I'm working my way through right now). In any case we have difficulty thinking and talking about time without relating it to something else, as suggested by the passage I quoted from St Augustine a couple of posts ago.

It is frequently noted then that we use metaphor to talk and even think about time, metaphor particularly drawn from the concrete domain of space, to think and talk about the very abstract domain of time. Indeed that's generally the way it works, according to George Lakoff and Mark Johnson in their groundbreaking book Metaphors We Live By -- we constantly use metaphors drawn from very concrete, experiential domains in order to think about all the more abstract domains, and we can't get very far without doing this. Language, and indeed thought, is essentially metaphorical once you get past the concrete and the physical. Space is one of the first things we perceive and experience in life. As babies we soon learn spatial relationships, first learning to make sense of visual data, such as the arrangement of features on a face, and then interacting with the spatial domain as we become able to move through it. Thus unsurprisingly we use spatial metaphors to deal with a whole host of more abstract ideas.

It has been suggested, by Lakoff and Johnson as well as by many others, that all people, cultures, and languages draw on space to deal with time, though it has recently been argued that speakers of the Amazonian language Amondawa don’t do this space-time mapping at all (and indeed they may do very little abstract thinking about time at all, the research suggests). In any case, though most languages draw on space to talk about time, not all cultures/languages arrange time in the same metaphorical spatial relations.

In English, we're accustomed to talking about time in what is called a sagittal axis, that is back to front relative to our bodies, with the future in front of us and the past behind. But this isn't the only possible mapping of time onto space. There are some languages that locate the past in front and the future behind, due to the fact that we know what has already happened, but can't "see" the future. This has long been suggested of Ancient Greek, with the following comment on the word ὀπίσω ‘backward’ in the standard 19th century Greek lexicon by Liddel and Scott: “of Time, hereafter, since the future is unseen and was therefore regarded as behind us, whereas the past is known and therefore before our eyes”. A similar claim has been made of the Madagascar language Malagasy (according to Øyvind Dahl), and other languages as well. While there has been some criticism of these claims, Núñez and Sweetser very convincingly demonstrate that this is the case in the South American language Aymara. The nice thing about their research is that they draw not only on linguistic evidence of this metaphor, but gestural evidence as well. I’ll discuss these examples at more length in a later post.

English speakers also tend to use a left-to-right arrangement for time as well, with the past to the left and the future to the right. Though we never use left-to-right metaphors in speech -- you don’t for instance say Boxing Day is right of Christmas -- test subjects will tend to arrange temporally ordered pictures in this direction and more quickly recognize temporal orders if consistent with the left-to-right arrangement. This temporal arrangement seems to be influenced by writing direction, with Hebrew speakers showing the opposite right-to-left arrangement consistent with their writing direction. Mandarin speakers tend to more often use an up-down arrangement for time, consistent with their writing direction (at least sometimes and in some places, particularly in Taiwan, but more on that in a later post), and even use up-down metaphors in speech, with above being earlier and below being later. Though I've never seen it suggested in any of the research, I wonder if the mechanism for this kind of directionality is not so much the writing direction itself, but at least in part the arrangement of book mechanics. In English books we read the left page and then the right one, and then turn the page to the left. Even before they can read, children master the mechanics of a book, based on the pictures and the turning of the pages by whoever is reading to them, and thus they are trained into understanding narrative, and thus time, as progressing in that particular direction. Of course the arrangement of a book, left to right or right to left, is at least in part influenced by writing direction, but it seems to me to be worth researching what the effect of book direction is, looking for instance at up-down languages like Mandarin to see if there is a secondary left/right bias based on page turning direction. Furthermore, we can consider narrative conventions -- in film, it seems to me, journeys out are more often depicted as going toward the right and journeys home towards the left. Look for this next time you watch a science fiction tv show or movie like Star Trek, with journeys away from earth more often depicted towards the right. And what are the cinematic conventions in other cultures?

An even more striking example of a different spatio-temporal arrangement can be found in languages that use absolute spatial terms, such as cardinal directions (north, south, east, west), rather than body-relative ones, as in English right and left. The Pormpuraaw languages of Australia, for instance, such as Kuuk Thaayorre, are such languages. Speakers of these languages are always aware of their absolute spatial orientation, since they always have to use these absolute terms to refer to any spatial arrangement. Essentially they would, for instance, have to refer to their north leg rather than their right leg. Furthermore they draw on this spatial reasoning for reasoning about time, always arranging pictures in temporal order east to west regardless of the orientation of their own body, clearly mirroring the course of the sun in the sky. And there are a variety of other shapes and spatial arrangements for time as well, such as concentric, near and far, up and down hill, and so forth. More on these later.

There is one last issue relating to our spatio-temporal arrangements I'd like to mention today: how movement is used to think about the passage of time. One can think of either time moving, as if you are watching a river flow towards you, for instance, as in "the holidays are approaching", or ego-moving, as if you yourself are moving along a path, as in "we're rapidly coming to the end of the year". In English, both of these metaphors are available, though this isn't necessarily true in all languages. And it turns out, you draw on spatial reasoning actively, so that if you are already predisposed to thinking of yourself moving in space, by say going on a journey, you are more likely to think of yourself moving through time. This sort of thing can affect how we interpret ambiguous phrasings such as the sentence "let's move Wednesday's meeting back two days". Does this mean the meeting is now on Monday or Friday? It depends on whether you are thinking from a time-moving perspective or an ego-moving perspective.

So that's a bit of an overview of some of the issues relating to how we use space to think about time. I'll come back to a number of these examples that I've mentioned here and discuss them in more detail in future posts, along with some other interesting cases that I haven't yet mentioned. The upshot of all this is that we think about time in very different ways, depending on language and a variety of other cultural influences. There seems to be great variation in human temporal cognition. Try to pay closer attention to the ways you talk about time and the kinds of metaphors or expressions you use (not necessarily just spatial ones), and don’t assume these are universal and shared by everyone. It's endlessly fascinating.

A select bibliography because making footnotes in WordPress is irritating and I’m getting lazy (and sorry about the messiness and inconsistency here, but again I'm feeling lazy):

Bergen, Benjamin K. “Writing Direction Affects How People Map Space onto Time.” Frontiers in Cultural Psychology 3 (2012): 109. Frontiers. Web.

Boroditsky, L. “Does language shape thought? English and Mandarin speakers' conceptions of time.” Cognitive Psychology 43.1 (2001): 1–22.

Boroditsky, L., Fuhrman, O., & McCormick, K. “Do English and Mandarin speakers think differently about time?” Cognition (2010), doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.010

Boroditsky, L. & Gaby, A. “Remembrances of Times East: Absolute Spatial Representations of Time in an Australian Aboriginal Community.” Psychological Science (2010), doi:10.1177/0956797610386621

Dahl, Øyvind. “When the Future Comes from Behind: Malagasy and Other Time Concepts and Some Consequences for Communication.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 19.2 (1995): 197-209.

Gaby, Alice. “The Thaayorre Think of Time Like They Talk of Space.” Frontiers in Cultural Psychology 3 (2012): 300. Frontiers. Web.

Guen, Olivier Le, and Lorena Ildefonsa Pool Balam. “No Metaphorical Timeline in Gesture and Cognition Among Yucatec Mayas.” Frontiers in Cultural Psychology 3 (2012): 271. Frontiers. Web.

Hammond, Claudia. Time Warped: Unlocking the Mysteries of Time Perception. Canongate Books, 2012. Print.

Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1980.

Núñez, Rafael E. & Sweetser, Eve. “With the Future Behind Them: Convergent Evidence From Aymara Language and Gesture in the Crosslinguistic Comparison of Spatial Construals of Time.” Cognitive Science 30 (2006): 401-450.

Sinha, Chris et al. “When Time Is Not Space: The Social and Linguistic Construction of Time Intervals and Temporal Event Relations in an Amazonian Culture.” Language and Cognition 3.1 (2011): 137–169. Print.

Linear and Cyclical Time: Time's Arrow or Boomerang?

Cultures can vary widely in terms of their conceptualisation of time. Simply put, there are many different ways of thinking about time. We can picture time in different ways, drawing on different sets of imagery, or using different metaphors. We can understand time in relation to ourselves or in relation to some external frame of reference. We can divide time up in different ways, and have different beliefs about how time affects us. And how we think about time can be intimately related to a host of broader cultural values or beliefs. In modern western cultures, for instance, we tend to think of time in terms of a three-part structure of past, present, and future, with time moving in one direction without repetition. Though events can repeat themselves, tomorrow is fundamentally different and separate from yesterday.These conceptualisations are not universal across all cultures, and can also change over time. It should also be said that any given culture may have more than one way of looking at time too.

Anthropologists have often described cultures as having either cyclical or linear notions of time. Though this simple binary may be something of an oversimplification, it’s still a useful model to consider. Cyclical time, naturally enough, emphasises repetition and is very much influenced by the cycles apparent in the natural world. The day/night cycle regulates our lives, telling us when to sleep and when it is productive (and safe) to go about the business of agriculture or hunting/gathering. Cyclical patterns are suggested by seasonal cycles and their relation to agriculture. Shorter cyclical patterns, such as the day/night cycle or the phases of the moon, can be used to track these larger cycles, with growing seasons or human gestation lasting so many months or days. In many cultures, these kinds of cyclical patterns are infinitely repeatable and part of a recurring overall cycle of time. Traditionally, anthropologists have identified this notion with early or prehistoric, and I suppose significantly pre-literate, cultures. Without a system of writing, it's hard to envisage a future that is fundamentally different from the past. These types cyclical patterns, of course, haven't gone away from modern western culture, but many argue that they have become subsumed by the larger framework of linear time. Thomas Cahill, for instance, in his book The Gifts of the Jews: How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels, argues that Judaic culture fundamentally changed Western culture by contributing this sense of linear time, which of course was adopted by Christianity and thus spread throughout Europe and the western world. Here’s an excerpt from the blurb on the website for Cahill’s book:

The Gifts of the Jews reveals the critical change that made western civilization possible. Within the matrix of ancient religions and philosophies, life was seen as part of an endless cycle of birth and death; time was like a wheel, spinning ceaselessly. Yet somehow, the ancient Jews began to see time differently. For them, time had a beginning and an end; it was a narrative, whose triumphant conclusion would come in the future. From this insight came a new conception of men and women as individuals with unique destinies--a conception that would inform the Declaration of Independence--and our hopeful belief in progress and the sense that tomorrow can be better than today. As Thomas Cahill narrates this momentous shift, he also explains the real significance of such Biblical figures as Abraham and Sarah, Moses and the Pharaoh, Joshua, Isaiah, and Jeremiah.

Have a look also at this reading guide to accompany Cahill’s book -- it also gives a useful overview of his argument.

Judeo-Christian thinking implies a one-way, linear time in which the future is fundamentally different from what has gone before, with bibilical time progressing from creation to judgement day. Each successive moment is qualitatively different from the one before, and there is no repetition. According to Cahill this fundamental aspect of modern Western culture comes to us thanks to the Jews, who he argues thought about time in a way that was radically different from all the contemporary cultures in the Mesopotamian world from which they came. And it is not hard to see that our modern sense of progress, of forward momentum, of change, stems from this way of looking at time. Indeed, as Cahill argues, cyclical time is kind of the norm in most cultures around the world, and the Jewish notion of linear time was an unusual innovation when it came along. Having spread, through Christianity, becoming the predominant mindset for modern western culture, it’s influence is global, but we would do well to remember it isn’t universal, and I would argue the same could be said for the handling of time in language.

Augustinian Time: some things never change

For my first post on time, I'm going to start with something which may seem like an odd place to start, the ideas expressed about time by Augustine of Hippo in his Confessions. This is not the most basic or fundamental way of thinking about time, but it does in many ways seem to lie behind a lot of our modern western conventional notions of time, and thus reflect many of our preconceptions about time.

The Confessions is essentially an autobiography, in which Augustine describes his misspent youth as what we would now see as a troubled teen from a good family who acts out in a variety of antisocial behaviours, the whole wine, women, and song routine. Some things never change, I suppose. In his Confessions he famously encapsulates his feelings at that time with the line “Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet”. Eventually he cleans up his act and converts to Christianity, becoming one of the Four Fathers of the Western Church who basically established much of the groundwork for the Western Church as we know it today. What is perhaps surprising about this autobiography is that it ends up with some reflections and commentary at the end which we might now recognise as an early attempt at cognitive science. In book 10 he expounds on a theory of memory, and in book 11 he turns his attention to time.

He starts off with the oft-quoted statement about the difficulty of discussing the subject, musing "What is time then? If nobody asks me, I know: but if I were desirous to explain it to one that should ask me, plainly I know not" (Conf. XI.xiv.239). Well, I know I often feel that way, so again some things never change. He then goes on to discuss the very familiar and conventional three-part way of looking at time, with a future that in the instant that is the present is converted into the past. As we'll see in future posts, this three-part, moving time way of looking at things isn't the only way -- indeed there is a great deal of variety. But for Augustine writing in a Roman, Christian context, this is pretty standard. The Latin verb system has three tenses, past, present, and future, and the Christian sense of history moves inexorably from Creation to Judgement Day.

But the particularly clever bit is what he does next. He collapses all three times to cognitive operations in the present moment:

"Clear now it is and plain, that neither things to come, nor things past, are. Nor do we properly say, there be three times, past, present, and to come; but perchance it might be properly said, there be three times: a present time of past things; a present time of present things; and a present time of future things. For indeed three such as these in our souls there be; and otherwhere do I not see them. The present time of past things is our memory; the present time of present things is our sight; the present time of future things our expectation." (Conf XI.xx.252)

Cognitive scientists still express this idea in pretty similar ways, as for instance does Bruno G. Bara in Cognitive Science: A Developmental Approach to the Simulation of the Mind when he states that "In general terms, time is a feature of certain functions: the past is a function of memory, the present of consciousness, the future of planning" (Bara 270). Sounds a lot like Augustine, doesn't it? Once again, some things never change. Bara expands on and further explains this notion:

"Considering men and women as living systems, we immediately discover that the sole dimension that is real for such systems is the present. Within this present inhabited by the system, other times are constructed. All mental activity in the system is carried on in the present – from perception to reflection to problem solving. If by chance the system requires data that are not immediately available, it can call upon memory stores, from sensory buffers to long term memory. These are structured in such a way as to permit the system to utilise a piece of information even when it is not immediately at hand. But whatever mental process the system is engaged in, from the attempt to recover notions stored decades earlier to planning an action to be carried out the following day, the time in which these functions are executed is always the present. It is the present that creates all the tenses of thought. We saw earlier that memory is properly speaking a construction of (past) memories occurring in the system’s present — I reconstruct my past in my present. The same is true of planning the future — I construct now what will happen tomorrow. The future is built by projecting the present. Finally, if a system becomes conscious of its present state it can create its own present. By activating memory processes, we can gain the sensation of returning to the past. By concentrating on our current state, we become conscious of the present. By utilising projection procedures, we can travel into the future. Nevertheless, everything always comes about thanks to the present functioning, here and now, of our cognitive processes — past, present and future are all constructed in the present." (Bara 270–271)

Time, at least as we conventionally understand it, is a function of our minds, and how we talk and think about time have an important connection. (And I won't, for the moment anyway, get into a broader discussion of our scientific understanding, or lack of understanding as it turns out, of the reality of time, and instead stick with time perception, cognition, and communication, that is how we experience time, how we think about time, and how we talk about time.) Anyway, I'll leave it that for now before I lose your attention, as I've no doubt gone on long enough about what is essentially a fairly straightforward point. In the end, some things never change.