When will the capacity of computers surpass characteristic biological information?
I cannot decipher this question.
Loren, what biological information are you referring to?
"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.
In terms of information density, computers exceeded biological systems a long time ago.
Biological information is continuous, while computer data is discrete, so we cannot compare them!
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?
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.
200 GB is 1024^3*200 bits...
That's funny, it doesn't appear to be written in cipher :tongue2:
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".
I doubt that assertion. The DNA alone packs all the genetic information of a human being in a cell nucleus.
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.
Artificial Intelligence is trying to do that and is achieving amazing results.
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 any one 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)
Separate names with a comma.