- #1
Loren Booda
- 3,115
- 4
When will the capacity of computers surpass characteristic biological information?
When will e-bits overtake bio-bits?
- Thread starter Loren Booda
- Start date
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion centers on the comparison between electronic bits (e-bits) and biological bits (bio-bits) regarding their information capacity. Participants explore the implications of this comparison in terms of density, processing, and the nature of information in biological systems versus computers.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Technical explanation
- Conceptual clarification
Main Points Raised
- Some participants question the clarity of the initial question regarding the comparison of e-bits and bio-bits.
- One participant defines e-bits as encompassing various forms of artificial signals and memories, while bio-bits include DNA coding and neural signals, suggesting a comparison of their capacities.
- Another participant asserts that in terms of information density, computers have already surpassed biological systems.
- Some argue that biological information is continuous and thus cannot be directly compared to discrete computer data.
- A participant proposes calculating a rough comparison of the overall magnitude of biological genetic code versus electronic bits.
- There is a discussion about the equivalence of nucleotides to bits, with a participant suggesting that DNA's four nucleotides could be seen as equivalent to two bits each.
- One participant expresses skepticism about the assertion that computers have exceeded human capabilities, particularly in creativity and consciousness.
- Another participant notes that while computers may exceed humans in information density, they have not yet achieved the level of consciousness or flexibility in high-level strategies that humans possess.
- Concerns are raised about the memory required for simulating human visual processing, indicating that storage and processing are not directly comparable.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express differing views on the comparison of e-bits and bio-bits, with some agreeing that computers have surpassed biological systems in information density, while others challenge this notion and emphasize the unique aspects of biological information. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views present.
Contextual Notes
Participants highlight limitations in comparing continuous biological information with discrete computer data, and there are unresolved mathematical considerations regarding the capacity of biological systems versus electronic storage.
- #2
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 10,270
- 45
I cannot decipher this question.
- Warren
- Warren
- #3
The_Professional
- 430
- 2
Loren, what biological information are you referring to?
- #4
Loren Booda
- 3,115
- 4
"Electronic" bits (e-bits) constitute the information capacity of artificial analog, binary and generic-quantum signals, memories and processors. Biological bits (bio-bits) constitute life's comprehensive DNA coding, neural signals, natural intercommunication, memories (including existing physical adaptation to environment?) and processor (e. g., brain) information capacity. I am trying to estimate when, if not already, the former will exceed the latter.
- #5
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 10,270
- 45
In terms of information density, computers exceeded biological systems a long time ago.
- Warren
- Warren
- #6
ramollari
- 433
- 1
Biological information is continuous, while computer data is discrete, so we cannot compare them!
- #7
Loren Booda
- 3,115
- 4
Considering the overall magnitude (not necessarily density) of discrete, "binary" information (biological genetic code vs electronic bits), could someone calculate a rough comparison between the two?
- #8
ramollari
- 433
- 1
Because there are four nucleotides, each of them is the equivalent of 2 bits! Computers nowadays store information in hard disks. If you want to take high-end PCs as reference, take about 200 GB for the hard disk (200 billion bits). Then consider the question of whether there are more or less nucleotides in the nucleus DNA than the magnitude of 100 billion.
- #9
echoSwe
- 38
- 0
200 GB is 1024^3*200 bits...
- #10
Asphyxi8
- 13
- 0
chroot said:
That's funny, it doesn't appear to be written in cipher
This question involves a lot of controversy and opinion. Chroot was right in saying that computers exceeded humanity in terms of information density, and now they are even beginning to exceed humanity in terms of strategy. Still, there are people (like me) who like to believe that human creativity is something that cannot be replicated accurately in a machine or "artificial life form".
- #11
ramollari
- 433
- 1
Asphyxi8 said:
I doubt that assertion. The DNA alone packs all the genetic information of a human being in a cell nucleus.
Asphyxi8 said:
It depends what you call 'strategy'. Humans are usually more flexible in adapting high level strategies.
And what's important, computers have not reached the level of consciousness yet.
Asphyxi8 said:
Artificial Intelligence is trying to do that and is achieving amazing results.
- #12
lyapunov
- 21
- 0
chroot said:
Depends. The amount of memory it would take to accurately do a 1-on-1 simulation of 1 (one) human's visual processing would still be too much for anyone given super-computer... storage is not identical to direct processing.
Saw the math done somewhere, and can remember being somewhat taken aback by the amazingly 'small' amounts of memory even modern systems can address.
(for clarification: that's mostly due to the operating systems, of course)
Last edited:
Similar threads
- · Replies 27 ·
- · Replies 37 ·
- · Replies 10 ·
- · Replies 9 ·
- · Replies 3 ·
- · Replies 6 ·
- · Replies 21 ·