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...
  • 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.

                • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  21·
                  2 days ago

                  If the conclusion is moronic, there’s a pretty good chance the thinking behind it is too.
                  They did get the thing about thinking about one thing at a time right though. But that doesn’t change the error of the conclusion.

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

                    Again, I would say using the “100%” in science when evaluating something is not a very good term to use. I think you know that.