This is probably more a question to ask a neuro surgeon/neuro scientist tbh, as it is a field of knowledge we don't have.

How does the physical matter of neurons instantiate the non-physical content of future perception?

Sounds an awful lot like epiphenomenalism, doesn’t it? Also sounds an awful lot like a re-write of the “hard problem of consciousness”.

Interesting subject, nonetheless. Doesn’t have any good answers, but still interesting to think about, up to a point anyway.

How does the physical matter of neurons instantiate the non-physical content of future perception? — Mww

I agree the question stated your way is a hard problem that science doesn't have an answer to. There is a simpler question I was thinking about. That would just be, if time perception is (or is not) observable evidence that our brains actually use instantiated non-physicals? I would answer yes and our brains do a lot of it and the neurons of our cerebral cortex are specialized to do exactly that.
I've been looking and haven't found any treatment of the hard problem that looks at instantiated non-physicals by that or any other name. I will look at epiphenomenalism... heard of it but not familiar with it.

if time perception is (or is not) observable evidence that our brains actually use instantiated non-physicals? — Mark Nyquist

If I read that as....does the brain use a kind of instantiated non-physical evidence, such as time....then I would say, yes it does. Thing is, though, we do not perceive time, but only perceive one occurrence in relation to another, and that relation is what we call “time”.

But yes, it does seem as if the brain constructs of its own accord, that which we as functioning rational beings, think we need.

Ok, I've looked epiphenomenalism and I don't like it. It's a form of dualism were the physical brain supports an immaterial mind that has no output capabilities. That's not what I was describing and I don't think it's a viable theory. And I haven't found any time perception explanations associated with it just looking at Wikipedia and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Dualism might have some general solution to time perception in the form of mind but I don't see any specific mechanism. Physicalism fails because you only have the physical present to work with. Presentism fails for the same reason. Eternamism fails if you don't accept past and future matter as existing.

I've looked epiphenomenalism and I don't like it. — Mark Nyquist

You’re a member of a rather large crowd.

It's a form of dualism were the physical brain supports an immaterial mind that has no output capabilities. — Mark Nyquist

There's a metaphysical argument which posits mind as a logical causality.

Dualism might have some general solution to time perception in the form of mind but I don't see any specific mechanism. — Mark Nyquist

Yeah.....unfortunate that speculative pure reason has declined in philosophical standing, despite the fact people still think. I at least, hold that reason is sufficient “specific mechanism” for “time perception”, as you call it.

It seems time is a psychological movement having it's base in memory.

I could back track on saying physicalism fails, but I would need to look deeper into what reason, information, memory, mental process, perception mean in physicalist philosophy. And the list given all fall into the category of what I call instantiated non-physicals.
Something to consider is the things being instantiated cannot/could not exist without neurons to contains them and in you model of philosophy is that something to give up. To me it just seems more rigorous to acknowledge or at least explore this possibility.
In general, if you think your brain has mental content, you need a philosophy that accounts for this and it needs to recognize content has both input and output capabilities.

I'd sketched the following (in quotes) after reading the OP and before the first reply, but didn't post because I've been caught up with a few other threads since then.

subjective time = cyclical changes in homeostasis:

• subjective "past" (baseline) = long-term / autobiographical memory

• subjective "present" (distress) = short-term narrative / working memory

• subjective "future" (prospects for baseline vs distress) = segments of autobiographical memory selected by working memory for improvising alternative narratives (i.e. hypotheticals, forecasts)

What I'd meant to say is this:

Organisms have their own biological-homeostatic rhythms, or cycles, somewhat synchronized as 'muscle (endochrine) memories' by local, recurring environmental cycles like diurnal, lunar-tidal, seasonal & annual regularities which, in effect, schedule opportunities for nutrition, shelter, reproduction, migration, etc. I suspect human perception, no matter how metacognitive it has evolved to be, is structured – modulated – by (limbic) homeostatic states: 'time' perception tell us how we are changing and not only (or precisely) how our natural environment changes.

NB: This speculation is influenced by neuroscientists / philosophers like Eric Kandel, Antonia Damasio, Patricia Churchland, Owen Flanagan, Daniel Dennett, George Lakoff, Derek Parfit, Daniel Kahneman, Thomas Metzinger, et al.

Ok, neuro philosophy and evolutionary psychology checking in. I'll check through the names to learn more...might take awhile.

Thing is, though, we do not perceive time, but only perceive one occurrence in relation to another, and that relation is what we call “time”. — Mww

In a stimulus-free situation we still experience time. This may be explained by internal changes in the brain, such as a sort of time-keeping piece pulsating. After all, we only have a sense of rhythm, each person, because we have an internal metronome.

It, the Metronome, that is, the internal metronome, probably occupies a delineatable area or volume in the brain, if anyone ever wants to try to mine for it.

The internal metronome must depend on some changes, too, and this may lead to an infinite regress, which at this point can only be explained by supernatural or quantum physics theories, neither of which hold water in the macro-physical world of causative processes, so time remains elusive for the time being.

Humans: Homo temporus, the being of time. (Time being.)

Nuff! Stop the puns.

Unless we can find some physics stuff that equivocally ties time to some not purely theoretical, but real phenomenon, we are at liberty to say also that time does not exist, it is an illusion, and changes in the world feed this illusionary process we experience as time.

In a stimulus-free situation we still experience time. This may be explained by internal changes in the brain...... — god must be atheist

Then it may be more proper to say it is those changes that is the experience, not time itself.

What is rhythm but an event in succession to a similar event in a uniform series of such events?

Unless we can find some physics stuff that equivocally ties time to some not purely theoretical, but real phenomenon, we are at liberty to say also that time does not exist, — god must be atheist

Gonna be a long time coming, I’m thinkin’. Finding that physical stuff.

In general, if you think your brain has mental content, you need a philosophy that accounts for this and it needs to recognize content has both input and output capabilities. — Mark Nyquist

Yep. Sounds about right.

Or you could walk around with one of those new-dangled machines strapped to your head, with a platoon of geeky lab-coated pencil-pushers in tow, taking turns telling you what’s reallyreallyreally going on between your ears.

(See? Right there! Apple tastes good = 2.5uv in zone 5 of area 2 of region 3; 14 phosphate ions over 10nm cleft!!! TaaaaDaaaaaa!!!!)

You got me thinking about something.
In my OP, I used the notation [neurons, (an instantiated non-physical)].
Would changing the words to [neurons, (mental content)] be more understandable?
And give an example of how this notation could give insight into mental process:
-[your neurons, (mental content)] could be expanded to the specific [your neurons, (a platoon of geeky lab-coated pencil-pushers)]
-Through physical process you type (you are doing physical encoding) and send a physical signal.
-I receive the physical signal and decode it.
-[my neurons, (mental content)] becomes specifically [my neurons,(a platoon of geeky lab-coated pencil-pushers)].
Of course his is common place, your idea becomes my idea sort of thing. It's just normally we wouldn't note the neurons being present, but to do rigorous philosophy, we should.
I think it also identifies an area that neuro philosophy is not addressing.

Also, based on observation, our mental process does have full input/output capabilities and this model accounts for those capabilities.

I don't know what the OP is on about but if I may offer my two cents, it's this:

The brain/mind can be subdivided into 3 parts:

1. Memory [the past]
2. Executive functions [the present]
3. Imagination [the future]

Sadly, there's not much neuroscience done on imagination but, if it's any consolation, it seems to overlap with executive functions, specifically planning [for the future I suppose].

The brain/mind can be subdivided into 3 parts:

1. Memory [the past]
2. Executive functions [the present]
3. Imagination [the future] — TheMadFool

Does memory involve neurons? Does memory involve mental content?
If yes and yes then memory is in the form [neurons, (mental content)].
Does executive function involve neurons? Does executive function involve mental content?
If yes and yes then executive function is in the form [neurons, (mental content)].
Does imagination involve neurons? Does imagination involve mental content?
If yes and yes then imagination is in the form [neurons, (mental content)].

Ok, I know I go on and on. It's habit. For my benefit maybe. Or just because something interesting might come up. Can I point out there might be something more universal here with mental capabilities than all the things we give names to.

Can I point out there might be something more universal here with mental capabilities than all the things we give names to. — Mark Nyquist

You have a suspicion that "...there might be something more universal here with mental capabilities than all the things we give names to" but what are your reasons for it?

I don't think you guys are still talking about how we perceive time.

Then again, why should we? We either find our trains of thought run into a conceptual cul-de-sac or else run along into infinity in an infinite regress.

So the upshot is that nobody knows how we perceive time, and we instead let our talk migrate over to discussing the hunting and nesting practices of the North American Chiphawk missiles.

Can I point out there might be something more universal here with mental capabilities than all the things we give names to — Mark Nyquist

Yes, definitely. We can name all 214 unnamed concepts humanity is currently struggling with, and the 34419 ones we are going to challenge ourselves with, before the extinction of the human race.

Sadly, there's not much neuroscience done on imagination — TheMadFool

Really? "Not much" in the way of studies on REM sleep, visualization (readiness activation), post traumatic stress disorder, suicidal / sexual / religious ideating, schizophrenic / psychoactive hallucinating, vision processing, affective expectation / prediction, etc? :chin:

I bemoan the lack of sexual imagery on that list, 180. That's where it REALLY counts, but this is PG13, I think, or else you are pure like a freshly fallen rose petal in the autumn breezes.

suicidal / sexual / religious ideating — 180 Proof

Maybe you're too "pure like a freshly frozen rose petal", @god must be atheist, to see me slap your blushing face with it.

Is ideating the same as creating images in the mind? I may be pure, but I sure don't know what ideating means. I thought ideating means conceptual imagining... not pictures or images, but "how nice would it be to have peace in the middle east" or "I am the world's second best lover"; but imagining Pamela Lee-Anderson in indescribable activities is not ideation.

Am I wrong? I am not sure.

Yeah. That's what ideating means in my book.

I don't think you guys are still talking about how we perceive time. — god must be atheist

Looks like a work in progress. I hope we get done with the preliminaries ASAP so that we can finally get down to the brass tacks of time perception.

@Mark Nyquist framed his question in a past-present-future context and I did the best I could manage. It wasn't enough to get the topic off the ground...too bad.

Really? "Not much" in the way of studies on REM sleep, visualization (readiness activation), post traumatic stress disorder, suicidal / sexual / religious ideating, schizophrenic / psychoactive hallucinating, vision processing, affective expectation / prediction, etc? :chin: — 180 Proof

You know more than me so, I plead no contest. For what it's worth though the Wikipedia page doesn't seem to contain any mentions of serious research into imagination. I must've missed them as I only gave the page a cursory reading.

I'm not clear what you mean by "a non-physical" (that seems like an adjective missing a noun to go with), but if what you're talking about is the brain in any given present moment containing a model not only of that present but also remembered pasts and projected futures, then I think that's right.

I like to use the metaphor of a skyscraper where every floor contains a small model of the whole skyscraper with a little "you are here" marker on the equivalent floor of the model. Each floor is a moment in time, and the tiny model skyscraper on each floor is a model of the whole time-line contained entirely within that moment of time. (And of course, the tiny models might not be, and probably aren't, perfectly accurate models of the actual entire building).

Would changing the words to [neurons, (mental content)] be more understandable? — Mark Nyquist

Not in my case; I understand mental content as instantiated non-physical. And neurons are just neurons in any case.

It's just normally we wouldn't note the neurons being present, but to do rigorous philosophy, we should. — Mark Nyquist

True, we don’t normally consider neurons in rigorous philosophy; that’s the purview and professional domain of empirical scientists. There’s a reason for that, I think, insofar as humans do not...and perhaps do not even possess the ability...to think in terms of the very natural laws by which the brain operates. And if that’s the case, how does the explanatory gap ever close, between the physical operation of the brain and the appearance of us as apparent manifestations of the non-physical operation of the brain?

our mental process does have full input/output capabilities and this model accounts for those capabilities. — Mark Nyquist

That was never in doubt; the problem is in translation of one input type to a completely different output type. The type of input as energy, that translates to a type of output as motion, is quite comprehensible, but the type of input as energy that translates to a type of output as “fascination”, “anxiety”, “freedom”.......well, that just doesn’t work so well, does it.

Fun stuff.....