Hi Richard

The ability to take new information in is greatest for babies - their brains are not connected, but rather are a hige netowrk of potential connections. The taking in of information form the world they inhabit and generation of a system of meaning-response then hardwires the brain for that meaning-response world. All of that information is (of course) sensory, but the main sense they use initially is the kinaesthetic range of senses. The kinaesthetic senses are far more varied than the visual/auditory channels, and consist of both external senses (heat, texture, pressure etc), motor senses (proprioception etc) and internal senses (heat, and various chemical physiological states, some of which we translate as "emotions"). It has been argued by some modern psychologists that the entire function of the nervous system is to provide an appropriate motor response system for the body. So the interpretation of information and the derivation of meaning, leading to a series of possible physical responses is primary, and the information is secondary. We also have all kinds of internal filters to reduce the "display" of incoming information avalable to the conscious mind, so that we only focus on what we need to. This includes a filter of normal background - which disappears so that we can focus on important changes. I call this filter system "the internal PA" because it only places in the in-tray what you have told it to place there. The body still classifies survival as top priority and is still geared for a natural environment - so it does not expect to see trees or rocks disapper, and is far more interested in small peripheral movements that might be associated with prey or predators. This survival-based filtering priority (and its association with meaning-response) is very different from the definition of information that you are using, and I think your premise is rather too tied to a machine's understanding of information (as opposed to that of a biological organism)

However, I'll keep browsing through your website - looks interesting

Many thanks

Thanks, I can now see one of your comments.
First, I can quite believe that the learning capacity for basic sensory information could be higher than my bottleneck, because there is an evolutionary survival value in parallel crude sensing. I imagine that shark may have a high sensory information rate as it uses taste smell, electric field, vibration etc all simultaeously, and fast too. However I believe that the "bottleneck" appears when more sophisticated information must be integrated into an internal model of the external world, from which predictions of complex scenarios can be made. So the bottleneck applies to those aspects of learning that distinguish us from other species.

Secondly, I started the blog in attempt to flush out experimental evidence that my premise is wrong (so saving me having to spend time on the book!). I have been disturbed by this for more than 2 decades now, and used to regularly wake up expecting to find evidence for the contrary that day. Every time I come actross a bit of quantifiable evidence I excitedly do the calculation.
So I say to all, show me quantifiable evidence to the contrary, (or propose a practical quantifiable experiment). Ultimately I believe in occams razor. Where there is no evidence for additional complexity (higher information rate), the simpler description is likely to be true (untill contrary evidence can be found).

Thanks very much for your comments, and if you can find me some evidence either way, let me know.

Richard

"I think your premise is rather too tied to a machine's understanding of information (as opposed to that of a biological organism)"
Quite possibly, but I dont have a precise enough "Biological organism" model to do anything with. Unfortunately there is a huge volume of heresay about the powers of the human mind which is based on little evidence. It does however make us feel more comfortable. The idea that almost all our experience of the present is a unique narrative based on our own personal life history is a lonely scary idea, though probably true.
Richard