Re: Uploading

Anders Sandberg (
24 Aug 1998 12:08:30 +0200

Emmanuel Charpentier <> 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.

> Two processes have only a small chance to modify the same things in
> the same day (for a big net, not for a kid), but there might be ways
> to reduce this likelyhood: lock parts of the brain until consolidation?

Probably not a good idea for the prefrontal cortex (shorter term memory), and likely we need some consolidation-like processes elsewhere too for the quick learning that goes on all the time.

> Do you know how the net incorporates new neurons and grow
> synapses, axons, dendrites: is it chemically and topologically driven?

Likely a bit of both. We don't know yet, but there are definitely chemical signals and perhaps others.

> A function like: grow toward that chemical source at a rate
> proportional to its importance?

Sounds like a good first approximation. There has been some theoretical work on how the chemical gradients ought to look to give an optimal growth performance, and they seem to fit reality quite well.

Anders Sandberg                                      Towards Ascension!                  
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y