Humans are more analogous to an ant colony than to an individual ant, so that’s where you should make the comparison: to a number of ant colonies with ant mass equal to your mass. Within each colony, you should treat each ant as a neuron in a large network, meaning you multiply the ant information not by the number of ants Na, but by Na log Na.
Assume 1000 ants/colony. You weight as much as 167 colonies. Letting N be the number of neurons in an ant (and measuring in Hartleys to make the math easier), each colony has
(N log N) (Na log Na) = (1e4 log 1e4) (1e3 log 1e3)
= 1.2e8 H
Multiplying by the number of colonies (since they don’t act like a mega-colony) gives
1.2e8 H * 167 =2e10 H
This compares with the value for humans:
1e11 log 1e11 1.1e12 H
So that means you have ~55 times as much information per unit body weight, not that far from your estimate of 165.
I don’t know what implications this calculation has for the topic, even assuming it’s correct, but there you go.
Humans are more analogous to an ant colony than to an individual ant, so that’s where you should make the comparison: to a number of ant colonies with ant mass equal to your mass. Within each colony, you should treat each ant as a neuron in a large network, meaning you multiply the ant information not by the number of ants Na, but by Na log Na.
Assume 1000 ants/colony. You weight as much as 167 colonies. Letting N be the number of neurons in an ant (and measuring in Hartleys to make the math easier), each colony has
(N log N) (Na log Na)
= (1e4 log 1e4) (1e3 log 1e3) = 1.2e8 H
Multiplying by the number of colonies (since they don’t act like a mega-colony) gives
1.2e8 H * 167
=2e10 H
This compares with the value for humans:
1e11 log 1e11
1.1e12 H
So that means you have ~55 times as much information per unit body weight, not that far from your estimate of 165.
I don’t know what implications this calculation has for the topic, even assuming it’s correct, but there you go.
Good point!