Does anyone know of any hypothesis on why humans tend not to consider "cost of time" in their decision making? Thanks.
-
-
1/Time is intuitively perceived as a dimension of physical space and objects in space are experienced as spacially related to each other.
-
2/Obviously the dimensions of physical space exist so long as one is alive, so time is not intuitively understood as a finite resource.
-
3/Therefore in first-order thinking time is not quantifiable as it does not exists as property or object. It simply is -until it is no more
-
4/Time as an object can only be spacially related insofar as previous experience has conditioned such an intuitive expectation.
-
5/E.g. intuitively knowing how long an activity takes is a conditioned response based on previous experience with said activity.
-
6/If the physical attributes change we cannot intuitively predict, anticipate, or quantify time without relying on second order thinking.
-
7/Future projection/anticipation requires the representation of memory, which belongs to second-order thinking (thought about thought).
-
8/Time as an object (quantifiable/measurable) can be related spacially -as an object or property- only in second order thinking...
-
9/... E.g. as a representation of one's own (or other's) experience. FIN
- 12 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
