From: Emmanuel Charpentier (emmanuel_charpentier@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Aug 25 1998 - 03:00:54 MDT
---Anders Sandberg <asa@nada.kth.se> wrote:
>
> Emmanuel Charpentier <emmanuel_charpentier@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > Some solution might be to simply have each process modify the net
> > right as it does now. There is then no dilemna between short and
long
> > term. Of course, it leads to something else, each process might
modify
> > the same structure at once... I know we are pretty used to wild
> > things, and we are pretty much making up most of our memories from
> > bits of recalls here and then, and yet, it certainly is dangerous.
>
> Modifying the same synapse at the same time is likely a problem, but
> not as problematic as having two processes writing to the cortex at
> the same time - their memories would become linked, so you would have
> chaotic mixed memories where you (say) simultaneously eat an icecream
> and engage in a flamewar on the net, with some elements completely
> impossible to separate. Sounds rather disruptive.
This is what actually happens in the present world: if I hear a new
CD while working on a project, the two memories get heavily linked,
sometimes up to the point that when I think about the project I start
humming the songs (or the opposite:).
Duplicating the processing while keeping only one neural net should
resolve that, only neurones triggered in the first process can link
together, they don't link with the second process (the eventual
chemicals are also duplicated). And if experience tells us that a part
of the brain is necessary for short term memory, I am not sure it
really acts as a hard disk or RAM drive, cound't it be some kind of
cerebellum? And if it acts as a memory drive, why not (again)
duplicate it?
In fact, the topology of the neural net should act as a belief, or
meme, or semantic net. Only the neuronal associations hold any meaning
from a functional point of view.
Having different bodies but one memory could be a great and funny
thing. I could learn different things at the same time, be at
different places, get into different activities, hold group meetings
with only me into it (would that be very enriching?), but still be
only one person. Is that a step to omnipotence? :D
Another upgrade to ourselves would be adding a sense of self
inspection: looking inside our own brain and eventually changing it!
Of course, a neural net doesn't mean much in itself, but I'm confident
we could map it to a semantic net (at least for language parts) or we
could pin the important places through internal simulation. That new
sense would of course allow us to connect or disconnect us from our
bodies or any other interface to the rest of the world. We could
design or redesign our own self!!!
The funny thing is that this sense would be part of the net, and
should then be able to look upon itself and redesign itself, I wonder
if there should be any blind sight corners in its capacities?
Manu.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:30 MST