>>12373949It isn't exactly this simple. For example you can have a virtually infinite amount of photons in the same, tiny volume of space at the same time. Theoretically using something like a Bose-Einstein condensate could even slow the light to such a crawl that you could have it in an inanimate object, and then incrementally read that same data out, and write it back in again. Obviously this has nothing to do with our brains but the point is, volume isn't an indication of the limits of storage capacity in any sense.
>>12374282This.
>>12374288>>12374295Just because the idea of binary information is easy and intuitive to understand does not mean it's the only type there is. Comparing an analog electro-chemical and biological organ to a computer HDD is impossible as is.
>>12374430>yes, but all information can be represented as bitsYes but as long as you don't understand how it's stored in the brain, you have no way of guessing how many "bits" it could be. The human brain seems to be a masterwork of conceptual and compressed, analog memory, where the same information can be stored in multiple different forms depending on the context, and at the same time fragments of information can be reused and combined in a near infinite number of ways, making it more efficient at complex data storage than any modern computer. It's fair to say that the brain is both highly ineffective, and yet hyper advanced at storing, accessing and manipulating information all at the same time. As such, any raw number of bits you would apply to the brain's storage or processing speed would at the same time be a million times too small, or as much too large, depending on a hundred thousand different variables we don't even understand yet.
Then for performance there's the brain's energy economics. The brain only needs about 10 watts of power, like a tiny light bulb. So really, you'd need to compare like 15-20 human brains to a shitty PC. In that respect, it's not even a contest.
