Thanks to @[email protected] for the links!
Here’s a link to Caltech’s press release: https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/thinking-slowly-the-paradoxical-slowness-of-human-behavior
Here’s a link to the actual paper (paywall): https://www.cell.com/neuron/abstract/S0896-6273(24)00808-0
Here’s a link to a preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.10234
The headline is completely incompatible with multiple large bodies of scientific evidence. It’s the equivalent of claiming gravity doesn’t exist. Dismissing obvious nonsense is a necessary part of filtering the huge amount of information available.
But I did read the abstract and it makes the headline look reasonable by comparison.
I don’t suppose it would be worth asking if your professional field was neurology…
Argument to authority doesn’t strengthen your argument.
A piece of paper is not a prerequisite to the extremely basic level of understanding it takes to laugh at this.
So essentially what you are saying is that you have no expertise in neurology and have not read the paper or evaluated any of the data or the methodology and yet, despite all of that, you know for certain that it is wrong.
Please explain your certainty. And if you appeal to “common sense,” please note that common sense is why people thought the sun orbited the Earth for thousands of years.
No, I am saying that I do have a meaningful working knowledge of how the brain works, and information theory, beyond the literal surface level it would take to understand that the headline is bullshit.
You don’t need to be a Nobel prize winning physicist to laugh at a paper claiming gravity is impossible. This headline is that level. Literally just processing a word per second completely invalidates it, because an average vocabulary of 20k means that every word, by itself, is ~14 bits of information.
You are already not using ‘bit’ the way it is defined in the paper. Again, not a good look.
The paper is not entitled to redefine a scientific term to be completely incorrect.
A bit is a bit.
From a cursory glance it seems at least quite close to the definition of a bit in relation to entropy, also known as a shannon.
If it’s not re-defining the term then I’m using it like the paper is defining it.
Because just understanding words to respond to them, ignoring all the sub-processes that are also part of “thought” and directly impact both your internal narration and your actual behavior, takes more than 10 bits of information to manage. (And yeah I do understand that each word isn’t actually equally likely as I used to provide a number in my rough version, but they also require your brain to handle far more additional context than just the information theory “information” of the word itself.)
And now it’s “it’s the paper’s fault it’s wrong because it defined a term the way I didn’t want it defined.”
Yes.
Science is built on a shared, standardized base of knowledge. Laying claim to a standard term to mean something entirely incompatible with the actual definition makes your paper objectively incorrect and without merit.