In another reply I quoted research that shows that only ~10 kbits/sec make it even into layer 4 of v1 from the optic nerve.
If you have anything talking about spinal processing I'd love to read it.
I think the main confusion here was over the definition of 'absorb'. Your version is much narrower than I'd use. The sensory molecular pathways and accompanying structure of nerves themselves produce significant processing right at the outset which your definition would entirely discount. There is no reason to discount what would otherwise become 'pre-processing' in your model.
"the amount that actually makes it into our brain is far less, probably on the order of a hundreds of bits/sec max"
ABCLAW:
"Even the spinal nerve bundle processes orders of magnitude more information just in keeping you balanced on your feet or chair."
Does that information actually make it to the brain? I thought sending a signal to the brain to process it there and then send back balancing signals would take too much time to keep you on your feet (at around 100m/s, a nerve signal would take about 1/50 of a second to move from legs to brain and back)
There also is evidence that your spine can do quite a bit of the muscle control needed for balancing on its own. See knee reflex and spinal cat (completely cut the spinal cord of a cat in the neck; notice that cat is paralyzed. Hang cat in harness, with feet on a treadmill. Turn on treadmill; cat walks (possibly only after some training; I don't know the details). Known since the 1950's. See https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/spinal-cats-walk/ (paywalled)).
Perhaps you meant we only commit a few hundred bits of information to long term memory per second under uninteresting conditions?
*Sorry for piling on! I didn't see the other two replies and went to get coffee before finishing my reply.