---Anders Sandberg <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Emmanuel Charpentier <email@example.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
> > term. Of course, it leads to something else, each process might
> > 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?