On 24/06/07, Bo Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, William Pearson wrote: ) I think the brains programs have the ability to protect their own ) storage from interference from other programs. The architecture will ) only allow programs that have proven themselves better* to be able to ) override this protection on other programs if they request it. ) ) If you look at the brain it is fundamentally distributed and messy. To ) stop errors propagating as they do in stored program architectures you ) need something more decentralised than the current attempted ) dictatorial kernel control. This is only partially true, and mainly only for the neocortex, right? For example, removing small parts of the brainstem result in coma.
I'm talking about control in memory access, and by memory access I am referring to synaptic In a coma, the other bits of the brain may still be doing things. Not inputting or outputting, but possibly other useful things (equivalents of defragmentation, who knows). Sleep is important for learning, and a coma is an equivalent state to deep sleep. Just one that cannot be
) The value becomes in the architecture a fungible, distributable, but ) conserved, resource. Analogous to money, although when used to ) overwrite something it is removed dependent upon hoe useful the ) program overwritten was. The outputting programs pass it back to the ) programs that have given them they information they needed to output, ) whether that information is from long term memory or processed from ) the environment. These second tier programs pass it further back. ) However the method of determining who gets the credit doesn't have to ) always be a simplistic function, they can have heuristics on how to ) distribute the utility based on the information they get from each of ) its partners. As these heuristics are just part of each program they ) can change as well. Are there elaborations (or a general name that I could look up) on this theory--sounds good? For example, you're referring to multiple tiers of organization, which sound like larger scale organizations that maybe have been further discussed elsewhere?
Sorry. It is pretty much all just me at the moment, and the higher tiers of organisation are just fragments that I know will need to be implemented or planned for, but have no concrete ideas for at the moment. I haven't written up everything at the low level either, because I am not working on this full time. I hope to start a PhD on it soon, although I don't know where. It will mainly working on the trying to get a theory of how to design the systems properly, so that the system will only reward those programs that do well and won't encourage defectors to spoil what other programs are doing, based on game theory and economic theory. That is the level I am mainly concentrating on right now.
It sounds like there are intricate dependency networks that must be maintained, for starters. A lot of supervision and support code that does this--or is that evolved in the system also?
My rule of thumb is to try to put as much as possible into the changeable/evolving section, but code it by hand to start with if is needed for the system to start to do some work. The only reason to keep it on the outside is if the system would be unstable with it on the inside, e.g. the functions that give out reward. Will Pearson ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e
