From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rutgers!att!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Tue Jul 28 09:41:53 EDT 1992
Article 6502 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rutgers!att!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining Intelligence
Message-ID: <1992Jul24.023513.25326@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: 24 Jul 92 02:35:13 GMT
References: <14n85cINN9vc@conquest.ksu.ksu.edu> <1992Jul23.223809.11316@mp.cs.niu.edu> <14nj5oINN9e2@sam.ksu.ksu.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Lines: 54

In article <14nj5oINN9e2@sam.ksu.ksu.edu> khise@sam.ksu.ksu.edu (Martin Andrew Shobe) writes:
>
>In article <1992Jul23.223809.11316@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

>>  If there is no store operation, and no retrieve operation, then it is
>>not a storage/retrieval memory.

>I'll agree that there is no conscious store/retrieve.  But, that does not 
>mean that there is no store/retrieve on another level.
>
>For example.
>  Many large computer systems today have virtual memory.  At some point, the
>code for the process may not be in main memory.  When the process gets to this
>point, the operating system retrieves the code from storage and places it in 
>main memory.  The process itself never issued a retrieve command.  

  Let me start by saying that I am not arguing for the sake of arguing.
We clearly disagree on this, and we will have to agree to disagree.
But you are reading things into my answer that are not there.  Or, to
put it differently, I am not quibbling about words, but I really am
saying something that you probably view as radical and contrary to the
conventional wisdom.

  To be sure there is no confusion, let me clarify my position.  The
virtual memory example you cite IS a store/retrieve operation, even if
done indirectly by the operating system, rather than directly by the
program.  To pretend that it is not a store/retrieve system would be
quibbling about words.

  When I said that human memory was not a store/retrieve memory, I
intended to claim that there is no such thing a storage operation and
no such thing as a retrievel operation at any level, or with any degree
of indirectness.  I am claiming that the storage/retrieval model of
memory is just a very misleading way of looking at the workings of the
mind.  What we perceive as storage, retrieval, memory search, is really
something else.  We are allowing ourselves to be confused by looking
for memory which is similar to the storage retrieval memories we have
built in computers, tape recorders, etc.

  Could I be wrong in this claim?  Of course.  I never claimed omniscience.
But let me put it this way - I have been around on this planet for quite
a few years.  I have not yet seen any evidence that would convince me
that our cognitive memories are store/retrieve memories.  I have seen
much that would persuade me otherwise.

  Again, let me clarify further.  I am not disputing that we are capable
of learning.  I certainly agree that some kind of physical changes take
place during learning.  It is very reasonably to refer to this as some
kind of memory system.  So I am not denying the existence of memory.
I am only claiming that our memory is not the type of system we like to
believe it is.  That the way in which we learn is such that it would be
very difficult to characterize it as a storage system, and the way that
we remember is such that it would be very difficult to characterize it
as a retrieval system.


