How Many Bytes in Species Memory? Thursday, Feb 22 2007
brain 6:29 pm

Using experiments in which people were asked to read text, look at pictures, and hear words, short passages of music, sentences, and nonsense syllables, then asked between minutes or days later what they remembered, (using binary yes-or-no answers, some of which could be answered merely based on vague recollections) then comparing those answers to that of a control group, Bell Labs scientist Thomas K. Landauer (pictured above) determined in 1984 that human beings can retain about 2 bits of memory per second. This holds under all experimental conditions whether the information is visual, verbal, musical, etc. You can read more on this at “How Many Bytes in Human Memory?” by Ralph Merkle.
Over the course of a species-averaged 30-year lifespan, with 15 waking hours per day, this rounds to about 150MB of memory per lifetime. That means that a 30-year old human would be able to make approximately 1,200,000,000 binary distinctions based on memories until their ability to make distinctions based on memory reaches breaking point. Consider that a typical courtroom hearing probably extracts no more than a few thousand bits (perhaps a KB at most) from witnesses based on testimony. Using that as a reference, this number seems reasonable, if not a bit high. The estimate also assumes that people are exposed to novel information content every second of their waking lives.
Of course, some prodigies, such as Daniel Tammet, probably are capable of retaining significantly more information than 2 bits per second, but this is a unusual case.
Given that approximately 107 billion people have ever lived on this planet (”people” meaning members of the species Homo sapiens since 50,000 BC), we can derive a rough estimate of the total information content of our species’ entire memory, present and past:
1.07 x 1011 x 1.5 x 108 bytes = 1.6 x 1019 bytes.
This works out to approximately 107 terabytes, around 20 times the information generated by the entire Internet in 2002. Another way of putting it is approximately 16 exabytes. According to Roy Williams of Caltech, all the words ever spoken by human beings sum to about 5 exabytes. So the adage that we pay attention and remember less than half of what other people say apparently holds true.
According to The Social Life of Information, and the prior linked source, the world generated 2-3 exabytes of unique information in 1999, and the number is increasing. Given that the memory capacity of present-day humanity is about 31 petabytes, (31 thousandths of an exabyte), we certainly rely on artificial storage media to record whatever information we want to archive.
The beauty of electronic storage is that we can generate as much information as we want, certain that we can always build new hard drives to store it as long as it is digitized. Without electronic storage, we’d only be able to remember about a hundreth of all novel information generated in a given modern year.

February 23rd, 2007 at 5:31 am
I don’t think we can compare the memory in our brains in any meaningful way to bits.
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Well, they do have some precise entropy. Technically that is the number of bits that they contain. However, when we speak of memories, the question becomes much less clear.
10^11 neurons x ~10^3 synapses/neuron x possibly 10 bits of weight at each synapse suggests 10^15 bits as an upper limit.
Estimates based on number of verbally recallable facts are trivially silly. Daniel Tammet and Kim Peak aren’t another species from the rest of us. The fact that their brains can verbally recall gigabytes of information very strongly suggests that the rest of us store comparable amounts of data. Evolution wouldn’t build powerful capabilities and not use them.
Kim Peek claims 8000 words/minute with 98% retention after 30 years. That implies total storage closer to 100GB than 150 MB. Still, all such measures are lower bounds.
How many bits of information do you think a good artist could put into a painting of someone that they spent a minute staring at yesterday.
February 25th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
“How many bits of information do you think a good artist could put into a painting of someone that they spent a minute staring at yesterday.”
Not as many as you would think from the raw size of the scanned BMP. Even before you do any analysis, images are so compressible that you can probably get rid of 80% of the pixels straight away without anyone being able to tell the difference. And then you have to subtract out all the decisions that the artist made because he knows he’s painting a face. For example, if the artist’s mental image of the nose is fuzzy, he could fill in the missing bits from the generic model of a face we all have stashed in our heads from the get-go, and still have a pretty good model because faces are so alike. And then we have to subtract the log of the number of pictures of him that we would consider of equal or better quality (I don’t have any clue how large this would turn out to be in practice), to account for the size of the target in search space he’s trying to hit. And you’re only asking the artist to do this once; you can’t just assume you’ll show him a million pictures over the course of a lifetime and then multiply the number by a million, because the quality will degrade in rough proportion to the amount of information the artist has to sort through.
“very strongly suggests that the rest of us store comparable amounts of data.”
I think the problem here is not that we don’t have the data, but that our brains can’t sort through it all in a neat, orderly sequence. I had this problem for years; someone would ask a vague question like “what did you do over the weekend?” and my brain would barf on the large quantities of data in two days’ worth of memories.
February 25th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
3: Well, the information needed to sort the data itself is information. So we spend less overhead on indexing the data in a way that we could retrieve it Kim Peek-like, but instead index our data in different ways.
OTOH, I don’t find it implausible that Peek is actually able to store 10-50X more information than the average person. But that still puts a pretty high lower bound on the average person’s ability.
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:28 pm
The storage doesn’t equal logic.
Human brains are not just a simple look-up table.
The ‘logic’ part of the brain (in number of bits) should be the product of the input bits times the output bits.
Let’s assume that the output bit count is not larger than the input, otherwise you would have redundant output bits.
The max input would be equal the output.
For example, if you had a 4 bit input and a 4 bit output you would need 16 bits (4 x 4) for the logic array (uncompressed).
How may bits would it take to define a unique human input experience, for example watching a movie?
How many bits would it take to define a unique result (output) from watching this movie?
The logic capacity of the human brain bit count would be at least the number of input bits times the output bits. A compression method would of course reduce this logic size.
Humans may not have the best memory but they still (potentially) have the best logic capability on earth.
A better question might be how many bits would it take for a computer to CREATE the article you just wrote?
March 4th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
“A better question might be how many bits would it take for a computer to CREATE the article you just wrote?”
A few billion, which is the information content of the human genome. Plus a heck of a lot of computing power.
March 5th, 2007 at 5:17 am
[…] ce billet récent d’Accelerating Future, nous indique qu’en 1984, on avait estimé qu’un être humain pouvait […]
March 8th, 2007 at 9:16 am
As cyber_rigger pointed out, it’s meaningless to talk about storage without compression. Our memories are encoded by multiple systems, each specialized for different inputs like sound, smell
or even images of human faces.
January 20th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Too awesome to comprehend all in one go without giving your full and undivided attention with no interuptions. Thanks NEIL.