The Speed of Thought - Discussion
The Speed of Thought
Chris M, modified 1 Month ago at 12/30/24 2:43 PM
Created 1 Month ago at 12/30/24 2:43 PM
The Speed of Thought
Posts: 5604 Join Date: 1/26/13 Recent Posts
This isn't a revelation to dedicated meditators, but it does validate what we already know, from the science angle:
Neuroscience News article: https://neurosciencenews.com/brain-thinking-sensory-speed-28292/
Source: CalTech
Caltech researchers have quantified the speed of human thought: a rate of 10 bits per second. However, our bodies’ sensory systems gather data about our environments at a rate of a billion bits per second, which is 100 million times faster than our thought processes. This new study raises major new avenues of exploration for neuroscientists, in particular: Why can we only think one thing at a time while our sensory systems process thousands of inputs at once?
...
The new quantification of the rate of human thought may quash some science-fiction futuristic scenarios. Within the last decade, tech moguls have suggested creating a direct interface between human brains and computers in order for humans to communicate faster than the normal pace of conversation or typing.The new study, however, suggests that our brains would communicate through a neural interface at the same speed of 10 bits per second.
Caltech researchers have quantified the speed of human thought: a rate of 10 bits per second. However, our bodies’ sensory systems gather data about our environments at a rate of a billion bits per second, which is 100 million times faster than our thought processes. This new study raises major new avenues of exploration for neuroscientists, in particular: Why can we only think one thing at a time while our sensory systems process thousands of inputs at once?
...
The new quantification of the rate of human thought may quash some science-fiction futuristic scenarios. Within the last decade, tech moguls have suggested creating a direct interface between human brains and computers in order for humans to communicate faster than the normal pace of conversation or typing.The new study, however, suggests that our brains would communicate through a neural interface at the same speed of 10 bits per second.
Neuroscience News article: https://neurosciencenews.com/brain-thinking-sensory-speed-28292/
Chris M, modified 1 Month ago at 12/30/24 2:48 PM
Created 1 Month ago at 12/30/24 2:48 PM
RE: The Speed of Thought
Posts: 5604 Join Date: 1/26/13 Recent Posts
This helps explain why we imagine being in control when we actually aren't. Things are happening way too fast for the executive function of the mind to keep up. By the time we realize thing X at 10 bits per second, we're way past that in terms of incoming sensory data.
Papa Che Dusko, modified 1 Month ago at 12/30/24 2:52 PM
Created 1 Month ago at 12/30/24 2:52 PM
RE: The Speed of Thought
Posts: 3342 Join Date: 3/1/20 Recent Posts
Thanks for sharing Chris!
If I remember correctly I realised this post SE. Likely as part of the 2nd Path journey. But my memory is a bit glitchy
If I remember correctly I realised this post SE. Likely as part of the 2nd Path journey. But my memory is a bit glitchy

Bahiya Baby, modified 1 Month ago at 12/30/24 3:15 PM
Created 1 Month ago at 12/30/24 3:15 PM
RE: The Speed of Thought
Posts: 953 Join Date: 5/26/23 Recent PostsPapa Che Dusko, modified 1 Month ago at 12/30/24 6:53 PM
Created 1 Month ago at 12/30/24 6:53 PM
RE: The Speed of Thought
Posts: 3342 Join Date: 3/1/20 Recent Posts
"By the time we realize thing X at 10 bits per second, we're way past that in terms of incoming sensory data."
God help us!!!
God help us!!!

Percy Plays, modified 1 Month ago at 12/30/24 8:46 PM
Created 1 Month ago at 12/30/24 8:46 PM
RE: The Speed of Thought
Posts: 33 Join Date: 12/23/24 Recent Posts
I remember reading once that it takes somewhere between 1/4 to 1/3 of a second for a motor response when executing a practiced motion like throwing a ball. No source, sorry, but that metric as a general rule of thumb was always useful for checking myself in a number of ways.
Geoffrey Gatekeeper of the Gateless Gate, modified 1 Month ago at 12/30/24 9:04 PM
Created 1 Month ago at 12/30/24 9:04 PM
RE: The Speed of Thought
Posts: 738 Join Date: 10/30/23 Recent Posts
I've heard from a Sayadaw that the Buddha could see 1 billion frames per second, but when I've seen the frame rates of reality it seems much slower.
Papa Che Dusko, modified 1 Month ago at 12/31/24 8:07 AM
Created 1 Month ago at 12/31/24 8:07 AM
RE: The Speed of Thought
Posts: 3342 Join Date: 3/1/20 Recent PostsChris M, modified 1 Month ago at 12/31/24 8:25 AM
Created 1 Month ago at 12/31/24 8:25 AM
RE: The Speed of Thought
Posts: 5604 Join Date: 1/26/13 Recent Posts
The implications of this are fascinating and far-reaching. How does the mind decide what to pay attention to and what not to pay attention to? How does it sort through billions of inputs arriving simultaneously? How is meaning generated from all the noise?
Percy Plays, modified 1 Month ago at 12/31/24 10:37 AM
Created 1 Month ago at 12/31/24 10:37 AM
RE: The Speed of Thought
Posts: 33 Join Date: 12/23/24 Recent Posts
I have a pet theory but it uses the word fractal too much and nobody ends up knowing what I'm talking about. If you're familiar with the design concept of negative space, that's probably close enough for jazz.
Geoffrey Gatekeeper of the Gateless Gate, modified 1 Month ago at 12/31/24 12:20 PM
Created 1 Month ago at 12/31/24 12:19 PM
RE: The Speed of Thought
Posts: 738 Join Date: 10/30/23 Recent PostsChris M, modified 1 Month ago at 12/31/24 5:49 PM
Created 1 Month ago at 12/31/24 5:49 PM
RE: The Speed of Thought
Posts: 5604 Join Date: 1/26/13 Recent PostsPercy Plays, modified 1 Month ago at 12/31/24 7:45 PM
Created 1 Month ago at 12/31/24 7:45 PM
RE: The Speed of Thought
Posts: 33 Join Date: 12/23/24 Recent PostsPapa Che Dusko, modified 1 Month ago at 12/31/24 8:12 PM
Created 1 Month ago at 12/31/24 8:12 PM
RE: The Speed of Thought
Posts: 3342 Join Date: 3/1/20 Recent Posts
The process of "assumptions", picking up stuff from the "known" (memory) and assuming quickly if its the worst or the best. Then adjusting as the sensate input generates more information. Pain and lack thereof is the basic main agenda.
Chris M, modified 1 Month ago at 1/1/25 9:19 AM
Created 1 Month ago at 1/1/25 9:19 AM
RE: The Speed of Thought
Posts: 5604 Join Date: 1/26/13 Recent PostsI have a pet theory but it uses the word fractal too much and nobody ends up knowing what I'm talking about. If you're familiar with the design concept of negative space, that's probably close enough for jazz.
Would the word "relevance" have anything to do with this?
Percy Plays, modified 1 Month ago at 1/1/25 12:49 PM
Created 1 Month ago at 1/1/25 12:49 PM
RE: The Speed of Thought
Posts: 33 Join Date: 12/23/24 Recent Posts
I tend to think of it in terms of momentum and frames, but relevance could maybe be interchangeable with momentum as regards perceptual frames, especially when considering the frames in terms of dynamic scale. I like momentum due to a sense that people have a bias for thinking of scale in terms of worldly space. But it seems to me that time can be more useful and maybe even encompassing when considering that any action, including a conception or receptive experience, takes some bit of time to process. Inversely, if you can take a 200 year perspective to worldly events, many things lose their sense of surprise and novelty. If I ever talk about stretching or suspending moments, its much in reference to this.
A thing I tried to write about that once upon a time:
Like when you're standing with bare feet in the sand, and the waves roll up around the pads of your feet before flowing back into the sea, leaving just a faint trace of the ocean's flow.
If you hold your ground as the waves continue their ebb and flow, the eroded space between feet and sand will spread out and expand a bit of negative space that reflects the moment's inertia.
In exercising stability by suspending moment-to-moment actions like this, patterns etched into sand can resemble the mental objects we use to interpret and navigate shared space. You can watch them take form, spread out, then wash away. Over and over again...
There are some levels of perceptual experience that can seem to be highly parallel, like all the little color spots of visual noise that seem to appear simultaneously in their own little moments, but in order to do anything with them, things tend to narrow down to a singular frame of reference.
I read something once about an experiment that projected a different image into each eye of participants, where one image or the other would end up projected back as the image the other eye had experienced. But highly accomplished meditators could at least somewhat endure the duplicitous input. I thought this was from Finding Out About Filling In but couldn't find the passage, so maybe that was from something else by Evan Thompson that I've since mixed up. Does that mean perception is more parallel than singular in its framing, or that attention & focus can be more or less opaque?
Also, if just for fun, powers of ten (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fKBhvDjuy0).
A thing I tried to write about that once upon a time:
Like when you're standing with bare feet in the sand, and the waves roll up around the pads of your feet before flowing back into the sea, leaving just a faint trace of the ocean's flow.
If you hold your ground as the waves continue their ebb and flow, the eroded space between feet and sand will spread out and expand a bit of negative space that reflects the moment's inertia.
In exercising stability by suspending moment-to-moment actions like this, patterns etched into sand can resemble the mental objects we use to interpret and navigate shared space. You can watch them take form, spread out, then wash away. Over and over again...
There are some levels of perceptual experience that can seem to be highly parallel, like all the little color spots of visual noise that seem to appear simultaneously in their own little moments, but in order to do anything with them, things tend to narrow down to a singular frame of reference.
I read something once about an experiment that projected a different image into each eye of participants, where one image or the other would end up projected back as the image the other eye had experienced. But highly accomplished meditators could at least somewhat endure the duplicitous input. I thought this was from Finding Out About Filling In but couldn't find the passage, so maybe that was from something else by Evan Thompson that I've since mixed up. Does that mean perception is more parallel than singular in its framing, or that attention & focus can be more or less opaque?
Also, if just for fun, powers of ten (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fKBhvDjuy0).