Do we have time for cognitive processes in a high-speed society?

As our society progresses and technology creates systems that are ever-increasing in speed, our biological minds are challenged to keep up with making decisions and cognitive input at the speed of modern technology. Subjective time acceleration seems to be attributed to differences in how timing is structured for different individuals in cases of aging (Joubert, 1984) and provides some evidence for this paper’s argument that when time is structured around today’s rapid systems it can alter our subjective perception of it. Due to the requirement of data compression to distribute large amounts of data without comprising its quality due to proliferation of connected devices (Blalock et al, 2018), we are consuming unprecedented content. As consumers we must comprehend that a resilient mind is going to be essential to allow the survival of our original thoughts and creative concepts in a society our biological makeup is not equipped for. We come to consider the counter-argument that this world is a product of our own creation, something that our behaviour encourages and we benefit from described as a ‘consensual hallucination’. This paper will ask that we reconsider this notion as a truth or not by defining consent and analysing if we are truly given the autonomy and information in a world driven by systems many individuals do not understand, to consent. We will also investigate the juxtaposition of ‘consensual’ and ‘hallucination’ as a hallucination at its  very core is an experience of perceiving something that is not present and involves confusion and distortion. The questions this ignites is how can we consent to something that is not present and how may we consent in a state of confusion and distortion. 

I want to let us consider the origins of time throughout our history and how we have established time itself based on our biological needs. Time itself can be attributed to the systems and processes required to be put in place for our survival based on the amount of light humans would receive in a day at the beginnings of civilization. Humans would often tell the time based on the sun’s positioning in the sky allowing them to understand meeting times, how much light they would have in the day and what the activities of other animals would be. The 28-day cycle of the moon and the sun's positioning was the first recorded unit of time; this established the 12-hour cycles in a day (Tippet, 2020). While stars and constellations that occurred every 365 days lead us towards the evidence that establishes what a year is in modern time (Tippet, 2020).  Our circadian rhythms evolved as a way for us to manage the effects of oxygen and light as organisms and provide context for our 24 hormone cycles, and that these rhythms can even be light and temperature independent (Apte, 2012). With scientific consideration, appropriate measurements of timing were introduced, keeping the core idea of biological adherence to the sun such as melanin for sleep. There is also the argument for the connection between humans and the moon cycle particularly the 28-day human hormone cycles. This spiritual connection between the moon and constellations to the human hormone system called astrology can be traced back to the Babylonian era in 2000 BCE (Caruso, 2024). The design of these systems have evolved over time as society progresses and more and more data is produced on a daily basis for others to consume and as a result more data needs to be compressed and therefore the systems become quicker and more synthesised. Due to the streamlining of content and the evolution of technology, more is being produced for us to consume and daily procedures are becoming more efficient. Efficiency can also equal speed, meaning that as the procedures improve they can require information input and provide information at a rate that is unprecedented for humans to interact with. Our brains may become irritated or disconnected with an influx of information and in a society proceeding at a rapid pace, there may not be time for us to feel emotions, comprehend feelings or think creatively. 

To begin this analysis of our current rapidity of systems quite informally, I am going to discuss a Reddit thread that speaks about the perceptions of individuals of our society and how they feel as though “they cannot keep up”. The subreddit was called ‘serious conversation’ and the title of the post labelled “The world today is too fast-paced and I cannot keep up”. The post written by a man in his 20s goes into detail about how much information is constantly being put out and if you are someone that likes to take on multiple hobbies and interests you can feel as though you are constantly behind. He signals out that technology is advancing at too fast of a pace, problems arise when the workload is too much, however new solutions keep popping up to solve this problem and due to the efficiency of technology people expect everything to be fast. That if you receive a message, your reply must be just as fast or that you may be able to respond to problems and issues as quickly as technology comes up with a solution to it. He finalises the post with the sentiment “I constantly feel irritated, annoyed, frustrated and completely powerless and anxious at the same time”. Replies to the post seem to share his sentiment including one stating “So the question is how much information do we really need? It's probably a lot less than we are led to believe we need”. Other posts indicate that we cannot slow down the world by ourselves and it might be better to just accept it and find methods to cope with the pressure and overwhelming feelings such as “It's very hard to do this, I'll be honest, but what I do is... just not care.” The replies total to 57 interactions on quite a niche post indicating that people are having conversations about how the rapid, constant timelines perpetuated by modern technology are impacting our wellbeing and ability to properly think things through. 

My biggest concern for this is that the world will continue to progress at a level that is extremely difficult for humans to compete with and leaves individuals void of the ability to comprehend events and think creatively. The book Too Fast To Think by Chris Lewis provides an opinion on this subject noting the "zeitgeist of our exhausted world” (Cork, 2016). Lewis analyses how creativity is the main factor that sets us apart from other animals within the world and while also highlighting the threat of information overload may have on how creative thoughts are. He discusses how creativity perpetuates with the invention and acceleration of technology and we may not be able to overcome technological challenges if we lose it (Lewis, 2016). At the forefront, Lewis believes we “are moving too fast and creating the illusion of speed without the actuality of it” (2016). In this, he shares the sentiment that this research paper is aiming to argue, that the compression of time is not truly benefiting us and his use of the word “illusion” adheres to the argument that we are living in a "consensual hallucination”. Due to social media and internet technologies that connect us further and faster than ever before there are increased cases of ‘fear of missing out’ and time is becoming more important to all of us. If we can pack more and more into the 24 hours in a day that we have, then we will. Due to systems of delegation, more services and business that give us time back into our days (such as delivery, cleaning, click and collect, fast food) and even technology such as online banking, we are more able to do this. However, when we are moving at such a rapid speed, creating the illusion that we have completed so many tasks in one day when really the delivery man and McDonalds worker were completing those task for us, and filling up our brains with constant information to process and unpack, are we limiting ourselves time to truly think? And with more services and technological systems to use comes more rules for life, you must have online banking to purchase something that only sells online or must answer your boss’s call directly to your personal phone. The need to do things in the expected timeframe being a short one imposes tighter rules and limits creative thinking (Lewis, 2016). 

The conversation about whether we have enough time left to think at a creative pace is vital to how we move forward in acceptance of technological advancements that present problem solving contributions to society. We must balance the onset of problem solving systems such as predictive texts and auto-correct, GPS, Siri, Alexa, streaming algorithms and AI with the ability to solve problems ourselves by crafting solutions from the resources we have available, this trains our creative minds. Creativity is important to society because it allows for the invention of these technological aids in the first place, society is at a risk of becoming stagnant and depressing without it. It is so vital because of the significant link between creativity and intelligence that underpins how much of intelligence is problem solving and skills that are practiced with creative thinking (Gomez, 2007). The way in which we think affects our levels of creativity, we need both divergent thinking that is non-linear and open-ended and convergent thinking that is logical and efficient to have a well-rounded creative mindset (Gomez, 2007). When our society is overwhelmed with systematic processes that make our minds move from one concept to the next in a logical sequence at a rapid pace, we lose our need for divergent thinking. Creativity is defined as the production of ideas that are elegant, original and high-quality (Mumford et al, 2012). So by this equation, to produce ideas that further our society we need creativity and for creativity we need divergent thinking and technological systems that take the manual problem solving aspects out of everyday life and run at a rapid speed, harm divergent thinking. 

With the understanding of how important creativity is to the production of ideas and the processes that are harming divergent thinking, we can come to analyse if we are consenting to these processes. The initial words "consensual hallucination” come from William Gibson in his 1984 novel Neuromancer and they underpin how a cyber-world can be so confusing and distorting similar to that of a hallucination. I believe this is such an important describing word to highlight the sort of understanding of our digital world we are working with throughout this research essay that is deeply rooted in dystopian themes and builds upon our video and arcades games are part of a hallucination that are voluntarily (consensually) played (Gibson, 1984). One of the main factors of a consensual hallucination is what influence this technology can have on the construction of self, if people are engulfed in a hallucination and are not fighting back against that it may have major impacts on how the self is crafted (Mantovani, 1995). As people go along with the distortion of reality that comes from advanced technology such as Photoshop, AI, Virtual Reality and high-speed communication, they may become unable to curate their own identities due to an inability to distinguish between real and augmented. Without crafting our own identities, we lose a diversified society and critical thinking skills that allow us to question and reflect on motive and opinions. All individuals will express things similarly and therefore flaws and issues within society become much more difficult to pick up upon. Technologies nurture specific political, ideological and moral beliefs and therefore if it programs identity curation within individuals, it can also dictate these beliefs within society leading to the frightening possibility of losing political intelligence and power (Mantovani, 1995).

Now that we have established the concerns that the word “hallucination” embodies, we can argue how the harmful impacts of the word "consensual" can be heard. One of the original examples of the argument that the hallucination is consensual is the voluntary use of video games and arcade machines that alter reality (Mantovani, 1995). When people utilize these machines, they know that they are entering into another world and choose to do so. In that space, you can agree that TV shows, movies, books and anything that presents something that isn’t there can be classified as a consensual hallucination. Even social media could possibly fall into the category that involves consensual hallucinations as it is an active choice to tune into social media and to go onto those programs "entering another world”. You can choose not to engage if you truly want to. However, some recent and more advanced technologies provide some more context into how modern technologies can create a hallucination that there is no moral method to consent to. Technologies such as AI and virtual reality create modifications of our own real world rather than creating a new world entirely, distinguishing themselves from movies, books, TV and technologies such as social media. This changes the meaning of the word consensual because the individual is no longer entering into a new world as their ‘hallucination’ but becoming subject to a modified real-life where they may not be able to distinguish the difference between this and reality. When the participant becomes confused and distorted, how can true consent ever be authentically given? While this consensual hallucination may provide a host for the cybertech community to thrive and progress (Gibson, 1984), I believe we should be agile and reflective in allowing this same positivity for modern technologies that mimic our current world and distort it. It seems as though consent and hallucination are mutually exclusive terms that underpin the hypocrisy of modern technology allowing us more time into our days while simultaneously making our lives happen faster. 

As technologies increase with coming years and advancement of communication systems, our lives ever-increase with speed and efficiency leaving a lack of space for divergent thinking that leads to creative problem solving. Without creative problem-solving, my fear is that we will become stagnant as a society. I also emphasise that we become weary of the notion of the term “consensual hallucination” as technology that alters our real-world becomes popular.

References

Apte, C. V. (2012). Biological clocks: The coming of age. International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research, 2(1), 1-2.

Blalock, D., Madden, S., & Guttag, J. (2018). Sprintz: Time series compression for the internet of things. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 2(3), 1-23.

Caruso, C. (2024, July 3). What are the ancient origins of your zodiac sign? National Geographic. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/history-of-horoscopes National Geographic

Galor, O., & Özak, Ö. (2016). The agricultural origins of time preference. American economic review, 106(10), 3064-3103.

Gomez, J. G. (2007). What Do We Know about Creativity?. Journal of Effective Teaching, 7(1), 31-43.

Gourgey, H., & Smith, E. B. (1996). “Consensual hallucination”: Cyberspace and the creation of an interpretive community. Text and Performance Quarterly, 16(3), 233-247.

Holdaway, S., & Wandsnider, L. (Eds.). (2008). Time in archaeology: time perspectivism revisited. University of Utah Press.

Joubert, C. E. (1984). Structured time and subjective acceleration of time. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 59(1), 335-336.

Lewis, C. (2016). Too fast to think: How to reclaim your creativity in a hyper-connected work culture. Kogan Page Publishers.

Mantovani, G. (1995). Virtual reality as a communication environment: Consensual hallucination, fiction, and possible selves. Human relations, 48(6), 669-683.

Mumford, M. D., Hester, K. S., & Robledo, I. C. (2012). Creativity in organizations: Importance and approaches. In Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 3-16). Academic Press.

Tippet, G. (2020, January 2). A very, very brief history of time. Pursuit, University of Melbourne. https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/a-very-very-brief-history-of-time

u/SeriousConversation. (2019). The world of today is too fast-paced and I cannot cope [Online forum post]. Reddit.