From: Anders Sandberg (nv91-asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Wed Aug 14 1996 - 08:58:52 MDT
On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, Eugene Leitl wrote:
> Sorry, system power has rencently started to show signs of saturation.
> We'll need to go maspar, soon. The advent of SMP (which is an extremely
> poor parallelism) in high-end PCs is a portent for the future.
The big question is how to use maspar in an useful way. How do we run a
word processor or matlab in a maspar network?
This seems to be similar to the problems with process migration and
distributed computing, although in this case one can (probably) assume
identical processors at least.
I think it is mainly a programming problem - we are not very good at
creating parallel algorithms, and most obvious ways to do things for us
are serial when they should be parallel.
> > unless we can hook up signals to the normal I/O systems (sight, hearing,
> > touch) to run our brittle packages (I *want* matlab in my head - I'm
>
> I think it will need heavy training, preferably in a very young age to
> make sense of all the extra data. Though to some it may appear horrible,
> I think babies should be equipped with implants soon after birth. Only
> they can become the true power users.
I think this would be ethical (if it could be done safely), since I
approve of all changes that increase the freedom of acting of a being
(after all, the child doesn't have to use it if it doesn't want it, and
is given new abilities). But I guess others disagree.
> > There are some speculation that the attractors replicate as a part of
> > mental functioning. In this case adding more "cortex" would give us a
> > larger mental space. Let's hope its true! :-)
>
> Yes, but I wish this has happend at the genome level. (Toying with the
> size of the cortex is easy: the genome is quite modular). On the other
> hand, I remember reading that brain metabolism is even now a bottleneck
> at some (early) developmental stage...
Sounds quite possible, the brain gobbles up a surprisingly large fraction
of our metabolism (was it 25%?). I think we would have to change the
development of the brain so that it grows further after birth (another
bottleneck [and a sick pun]). Perhaps development should be slowed
somewhat so that the brain can grow further, but I doubt parents could
stand a longer neonatal period! (Unless we engineer their hormones
too! :-)
> > I think most of the brain is rather static in circuitry, but its meaning
> > can be very quickly redefined (remember the experiments with glasses
> > turning everything upside down - after a while vision worked as normal).
> > My guess is that parts of the cortex are undefined from the beginning,
> > and later used in various systems that emerge.
>
> Yes, but even then their malleability is limited. Typically, the
> topographically nearer the region, the more likely is it to take over the
> function of the affected area.
This is what happens when the brain is injured. But I think the ass.
cortices contain a lot of independent connections that doesn't correspond
to any clear-cut regions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
nv91-asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~nv91-asa/main.html
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:43 MST