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.
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.