Human information storing and processing

A brief recapitalisation of how the human body stores and processes information, which might cause you to fall in awe of what takes place inside the depth of your tissue (depending on the nature of the information of course).

In one gram of DNA 215 petabytes of information can be stored (this at least is what Dr. Landau of the NY Genome Centre managed to cram into that tiny amount of tissue). One petabyte is one million gigabyte, to give you some sort of reference, which approximately equals 250,000 DVD's.

If 1.5 hour of movie would be stored on each DVD, it would require 15,625 days or 42 years of uninterrupted watching to observe all the stored data. If only 8 hours per day would be spent watching it would require 128+ years to watch all movies.

A person weighing 70 kilos would theoretically be able to store over 15,050,000,000,000 (15 quadrillion) GB which is over 3.3 trillion DVD's, in all this person's body tissue, assuming that storing 215 petabyes is a correct estimate. Probably it will be possible to store a significantly greater amount of data in DNA tissue in the future.

It's rather embarrasing what little we do with such a huge measure of storage capacity, while not even discerning the nature of our thoughts and acts. Apart from this storage capabilty, we also process the data (well..., sort of), which probably is where it all goes wrong, where all the bugs in our bio-computer mess up things, causing us to be utter under achieving dorks in view of our potential.

Of course a fair amount of the data and processing power is needed to sustain bodily functions, but even taking that into consideration, we aren't really doing a brilliant job. So how does this storing and processing work?

1. Data is stored in DNA
2. Input is done by RNA
3. Processing is carried out by ribosomes
4. Output is synthesized proteins

95% of human DNA does not generate proteins (the data carrier that tells cells what function to perform), which has lead some members of the scientific community to lable that 'junk DNA'. The junk property of their own tissue most likely caused them to qualify that particular type of DNA as such. However, it does not mean it is a correct assessment, even if science is not yet able to prove it works in an entirely different way. Characterizing it in such a derogatory way sort of affirms the ignorance that symbolises the mentality of some in that community.

The fact that mankind is capable of both hideous and brilliant acts that only few are able to associate with the potential of human conduct, may indicate that our DNA has the abilty to communicate with external sources that are advanced beyond human ambit. If this actually is the case it would place information processing in which humans are merely involved rather than being the root, in a more panoptic and intricate perspective.

Relatively new finds in the scientific realm, such as bilocation or multilocation and entanglement may at one point urge the supporters of current hypothesis to amend their views. Quite drastically that is, because they have the ability to impel previously prized theories into the trashbin where many forerunners found involuntary permanent residence.