So, according to this estimate, if we could freeze-frame a single moment of our working memory and then explain all of the contents in natural language, it would take about a minute to accomplish.
This seems like a potentially misleading description of the situation. It seems to say that the contents of working memory could always be described in one minute of natural language, but this is not implied (as I’m sure you know based on your reasoning in this post). A 630-digit number cannot be described in one minute of natural language. 2016 bits of memory and about 2016 bits of natural language per minute really means that if our working memory was perfectly optimized for storing natural language and only natural language, it could store about one minute of it.
(And on that note, how much natural language can the best memory athletes store in their working memory? One minute seems low to me. If they can actually store more, it would show that your bit estimate is too low.)
2016 bits of memory and about 2016 bits of natural language per minute really means that if our working memory was perfectly optimized for storing natural language and only natural language, it could store about one minute of it.
I have in mind the related claim that if natural language were perfectly optimized for transmitting the sort of stuff we keep in our working memory, then describing the contents of our working memory would take about a minute.
I like this version of the claim, because it’s somewhat plausible that natural language is well-optimized to communicate the sort of stuff we normally think about.
However, there are some plausible exceptions, like ideas that are easy to visualize and draw but difficult to communicate in full detail in natural language (EG a fairly specific curved line).
Plausibly, working memory contains some detail that’s not normally put to fruitful use in sequence-memorization tasks, such as the voice with which the inner narrator pronounces the numerals, or the font if numerals are being imagined visually.
However, the method in the post was only ever supposed to establish a lower bound, anyway. It could take us a lot longer than a minute to explain all the sensory detail of our working memory.
This seems like a potentially misleading description of the situation. It seems to say that the contents of working memory could always be described in one minute of natural language, but this is not implied (as I’m sure you know based on your reasoning in this post). A 630-digit number cannot be described in one minute of natural language. 2016 bits of memory and about 2016 bits of natural language per minute really means that if our working memory was perfectly optimized for storing natural language and only natural language, it could store about one minute of it.
(And on that note, how much natural language can the best memory athletes store in their working memory? One minute seems low to me. If they can actually store more, it would show that your bit estimate is too low.)
I have in mind the related claim that if natural language were perfectly optimized for transmitting the sort of stuff we keep in our working memory, then describing the contents of our working memory would take about a minute.
I like this version of the claim, because it’s somewhat plausible that natural language is well-optimized to communicate the sort of stuff we normally think about.
However, there are some plausible exceptions, like ideas that are easy to visualize and draw but difficult to communicate in full detail in natural language (EG a fairly specific curved line).
Plausibly, working memory contains some detail that’s not normally put to fruitful use in sequence-memorization tasks, such as the voice with which the inner narrator pronounces the numerals, or the font if numerals are being imagined visually.
However, the method in the post was only ever supposed to establish a lower bound, anyway. It could take us a lot longer than a minute to explain all the sensory detail of our working memory.