They were a $3500 dev-kit to enable some base level of preparation when the costs come down. They were never going to be mainstream.
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.)
Information is information. Everything can be described in binary terms.
Binary digit is how actual brain scientists understand bit, because that's what it means.
But "brains aren't binary" is also flawed. At any given point, a neuron is either firing or not firing. That's based on a buildup of potentials based on the input of other neurons, but it ultimately either fires or it doesn't, and that "fire/don't fire" dichotomy is critical to a bunch of processes. Information may be encoded other ways, eg fire rate, but if you dive down to the core levels, the threshold of whether a neuron hits the action potential is what defines the activity of the brain.
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.
Binary digit, or the minimum additional information needed to distinguish between two different equally likely states/messages/etc.
It's same usage as information theory, because information theory applies to, and is directly used by, virtually every relevant field of science that touches information in any way.
Actual neuroscientists do not create false definitions for well defined terms. And they absolutely do not need to define basic, unambiguous terminology to be able to use it.
The paper is not entitled to redefine a scientific term to be completely incorrect.
A bit is a bit.
Because actual neuroscientists understand and use information theory.
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.
There is no other definition of bit that is valid in a scientific context. Bit literally means "binary digit".
Information theory, using bits, is applied to the workings of the brain all the time.
The fact that the vast majority of quality mobile apps in existence are iOS only, because development and distribution on Android are complete and utter dogshit.