Researchers at the California Institute of Technology have unveiled a startling revelation about the human mind: our thoughts move at a mere 10 bits per second, a...
    • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      2 days ago

      That doesn’t really matter, because 1 bit is merely distinguishing between 1 and zero, or some other 2 component value.
      Just reading a single word, you understand the word between about 30000 words you know. That’s about 15 bits of information comprehended.
      Don’t tell me you take more than 1.5 second to read and comprehend one word.

      Without having it as text, free thought is CLEARLY much faster, and the complexity of abstract thinking would move the number way up.
      1 thought is not 1 bit. But can be thousands of bits.

      BTW the mind has insane levels of compression, for instance if you think bicycle, it’s a concept that covers many parts. You don’t have to think about every part, you know it has a handlebar, frame, pedals and wheels. You also know the purpose of it, the size, weight range of speed and many other more or less relevant details. Just thinking bicycle is easily way more than 10 bits worth of information. But they are “compressed” to only the relevant parts to the context.

      Reading and understanding 1 word, is not just understanding a word, but also understanding a concept and putting it into context. I’m not sure how to quantize that, but to quantize it as 1 bit is so horrendously wrong I find it hard to understand how this can in any way be considered scientific.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        21·
        2 days ago

        You are confusing input with throughput. They agree that the input is much greater. It’s the throughput that is so slow. Here’s the abstract:

        This article is about the neural conundrum behind the slowness of human behavior. The information throughput of a human being is about 10 bits/s. In comparison, our sensory systems gather data at ∼1⁢09 bits/s. The stark contrast between these numbers remains unexplained and touches on fundamental aspects of brain function: what neural substrate sets this speed limit on the pace of our existence? Why does the brain need billions of neurons to process 10 bits/s? Why can we only think about one thing at a time? The brain seems to operate in two distinct modes: the “outer” brain handles fast high-dimensional sensory and motor signals, whereas the “inner” brain processes the reduced few bits needed to control behavior. Plausible explanations exist for the large neuron numbers in the outer brain, but not for the inner brain, and we propose new research directions to remedy this.

        • dosaki@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          2 days ago

          Why can we only think about one thing at a time?

          Someone tell that to the random tab in my brain who keeps playing music

        • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
          21·
          2 days ago

          You are confusing input with throughput.

          No I’m not, I read that part. Input is for instance hearing a sound wave, which the brain can process at amazing speed, separating a multitude of simultaneous sounds, and translate into meaningful information. Be it music, speech, or a noise that shouldn’t be there. It’s true that this part is easier to measure, as we can do something similar, although not nearly as well on computers. As we can determine not only content of sounds, but also extrapolate from it in real time. The sound may only be about 2x22k bit, but the processing required is way higher. And that’s even more obviously way way way above 10 bit per second.

          This is a very complex function that require loads of processing. And can distinguish with microsecond precision it reaches each ear to determine direction.
          The same is the case with vision, which although not at all the resolution we think it is, requires massive processing too to interpret into something meaningful.

          Now the weird thing is, why in the world do they think consciousness which is even MORE complex, should operate at lower speed? That idea is outright moronic!!!

          Edit:

          Changed nanosecond to microsecond.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
            31·
            2 days ago

            As I suggested to someone else, without any of us actually reading the paper, and I know I do not have the requisite knowledge to understand it if I did, dismissing it with words like “moronic” is not warranted. And as I also suggested, I don’t think such a word can generally be applied to Caltech studies. They have a pretty solid reputation as far as I know.

            • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
              22·
              2 days ago

              I’m not fucking reading a paper with such ridiculous claims, I gave it a chance, but it simply isn’t worth it. And I understand their claims and argumentation perfectly. They simply don’t have a clue about the things they make claims about.
              I’ve been investigating and researching these issues for 40 years with an approach from scientific evidence, so please piss off with your claims of me not understanding it.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
                31·
                2 days ago

                Without evaluating the data or methodology, I would say that the chance you gave it was not a fair one. Especially since you decided to label it “moronic.” That’s quite a claim.

                • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  21·
                  2 days ago

                  It’s 100% moronic, they use terminology that clearly isn’t fit for the task.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
                    31·
                    2 days ago

                    “100% moronic” is an even bolder claim for someone who has not evaluated any of the claims in the paper.

                    One might even say that calling scientific claims “100%” false is a not especially scientific approach.