Octupi uplift: Simpler vs. More

Twink (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Thu, 20 Nov 1997 19:36:26 -0500 (EST)

At 11:53 PM 11/20/97 +0100, Anders Sandberg <asa@nada.kth.se> wrote:
>> Extra lobes or integrating lobes? Why not try both?
>> As for computer interface, I say let's keep it simple at first.
>As you said, keep it simple first. Organizing the uplifting process
>will be a very hard project.

I gather.

>I think adding a neural interface from the start will pay off. That
>way we both get access to the octopus brain for testing, documenting
>and enhancement, and we can add software help as needed (why just
>settle for a 100% organic lifeform? Aesthetics perhaps).

Aesthetics is not a concern or a major one here for me. My reason for
a simple program is based on two more important things: the desire to
suceed and to finish the project in a short time. Adding lots of features
on increases the chances of failure of any one. It also adds to the
amount of time it will take. I bet uplifting itself will be hard, but to
uplift and add a brain-machine interface would be much harder still.

I also think that if we begin and finish the project, we can always add
such interfaces later. I'd rather attack the problems in a piecemeal

>Integrating lobes are probably more useful than extra lobes with no
>clear function.

I'm not sure. I imagine we could try to find out the function of various
lobes, then expand the ones we believe will have the greatest impact
on intelligence.

Daniel Ust