Hi Robert, I felt like weighing in with my perspective.
In my experience, the belief that any frame of experience has any duration at all is something that should be seen through. (I mean "frame" as in "framerate"; Daniel would call a frame of experience a "formation.") Within a single frame, there is no experiential evidence for the passage of time, and no cognition is possible besides the cognition already baked into the frame. So, if we're only going off our experience, we can't say that frames of experience have a duration, even though they are perceived.
Imagine a camera recording a flashing light. If the light's flash rate is perfectly synced to the camera's framerate, then someone watching the video will think the light was continuously on. I think the same goes for consciousness. Life is a series of discrete moments that appear continuous because of how our perception samples reality. Because the rate of our sampler is perfectly synced with the rate of our synthesizer, we don't experience the gaps between frames, nor do we experience a frame for more than a frame. Or, rather, the sampler and the synthesizer are one and the same.
Realizing this leads to a fuller experience of impermanence. It drives home a sense of discontinuity between moments.
Sometimes you'll hear dharma teachers talk as if our perception gets assembled in a chronological fashion, with lower-level processes being followed in time by higher-level processes.
Roger Thisdell does this. But I reckon they don't mean it literally; they just mean that, as you progress, unneeded post-processing on experience falls away.
When Chris says that "our conscious awareness of what we experience arises a bit later than the automatic processing of, and reaction to, stimuli that occurs below the level of awareness," I read him as saying that, in experiential terms, there is no delay and no duration in perception. But the body does take in sensory data, process it, and then make it into an experience. So the automatic processing precedes experience, rather than elapsing within experience.
Edit: There's another level to this, where the notion that experience has frames at all is a conceptual affordance, a mere way of looking rather than the definitive experiential truth. But still, I think the frame perspective has its uses, and when we're operating within this perspective, there's some conclusions we can draw, as I did above. Other perspectives include that experience is continuous throughout your life ("the normie perspective"), or that experience is continuous for as long as the current approximate mind-shape persists (which is only a few seconds). Emptiness.
Perspectivism. The idea that there is ultimate truth, or that non-dual thinking is akin to ultimate truth, can be obsfucatory.
