5 ms·

Separately but related: decades ago, research was done into the "Bandwidth of Consciousness", that is: how much information can we consciously process. That res

Separately but related: decades ago, research was done into the "Bandwidth of Consciousness", that is: how much information can we consciously process. That research came up with the startling low number of about 40 bits per second _at_most_. Suggesting that the huge amount of information our senses take in is massively compressed before we become 'conscious' of it. References: W R Garner and Harold W Lake "The Amount of Information in Absolute Judgements" - Psychological Review 58 (1951) - they attempted to measure people's ability to distinguish stimuli (such as light and sound) in bits. Result: 2.2 to 3.2 bits per second. W E Hick "On the Rate of Gain of Information" - Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 4 (1952) - this experiment measured how much information a person could pass on if they acted as a link in a communication channel. That is, faced with a series of flashing lights, subjects had to press the right keys. Result: 5.5 bits per second. Henry Quastler "Studies of Human Channel Capacity" - Information Theory, Proceedings of the Third London Symposium (1956). Measured how many bits of information are expressed by a pianist while pressing keys on a piano. Result: 25 bits per second. J R Pierce "Symbols, Signals and Noise" (Harper 1961) - used experiments involving letters and symbols. Result: 44 bits per second. Mostly they are measuring bandwidth as being 'what can someone take in and then act on' and probably the 'acting on' bit is the bottleneck. I think this is an area of research that could do with being revisited, perhaps someone could devise a way of measuring bandwidth-in to consciousness vs bandwidth-out.

HPsquared 3y ago
Funnily enough, large language models are similar. Gigabytes and gigabytes of numbers being processed, to input/output a few words per second.
thworp 3y ago
I think using terms and concepts from classical Information Science when talking about brains is a non-starter. To speak HN lingo, it's like measuring a computer's performance while it is in the middle of compiling the Linux kernel and training a GPT model. Sure, the throughput for these discrete tasks was low, but the brain is not discrete. It is a heavily optimized complex system that can be taught to predict complex vector interactions in an instant and be correct enough every time. It can spot tiny movements in a sea of leaves while searching for a green herb in a green forest and immediately switch to group preservation mode when it becomes clear the movement is a tiger. > devise a way of measuring bandwidth-in to consciousness vs bandwidth-out. This is a dead end, "consciousness" is just a tiny goal-setting and evaluation layer on top of a a gigantic stack of "unconscious" processes. That stack is so powerful that we even use its mysterious, chaotic power to outsource formerly conscious processes after enough repetition.
- codeulike 3y ago
  "consciousness" is just a tiny goal-setting and evaluation layer on top of a a gigantic stack of "unconscious" processes that was the point of what I wrote, for more details please re-read

HPsquared 3y ago

Funnily enough, large language models are similar. Gigabytes and gigabytes of numbers being processed, to input/output a few words per second.

thworp 3y ago

I think using terms and concepts from classical Information Science when talking about brains is a non-starter. To speak HN lingo, it's like measuring a computer's performance while it is in the middle of compiling the Linux kernel and training a GPT model. Sure, the throughput for these discrete tasks was low, but the brain is not discrete. It is a heavily optimized complex system that can be taught to predict complex vector interactions in an instant and be correct enough every time. It can spot tiny movements in a sea of leaves while searching for a green herb in a green forest and immediately switch to group preservation mode when it becomes clear the movement is a tiger. > devise a way of measuring bandwidth-in to consciousness vs bandwidth-out. This is a dead end, "consciousness" is just a tiny goal-setting and evaluation layer on top of a a gigantic stack of "unconscious" processes. That stack is so powerful that we even use its mysterious, chaotic power to outsource formerly conscious processes after enough repetition.

codeulike 3y ago
"consciousness" is just a tiny goal-setting and evaluation layer on top of a a gigantic stack of "unconscious" processes that was the point of what I wrote, for more details please re-read