From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Tue Jul 28 09:41:57 EDT 1992
Article 6509 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Defining Intelligence
Message-ID: <1992Jul24.235031.9826@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References: <14nj5oINN9e2@sam.ksu.ksu.edu> <1992Jul24.023513.25326@mp.cs.niu.edu> <14pnq7INNdjv@conquest.ksu.ksu.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 23:50:31 GMT
Lines: 42

In article <14pnq7INNdjv@conquest.ksu.ksu.edu> khise@conquest.ksu.ksu.edu (Martin Andrew Shobe) writes:
>
>In article <1992Jul24.023513.25326@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>>  Let me start by saying that I am not arguing for the sake of arguing.

>Actually, we might be quibbling over words.
>Are store/retrieve memories limited to storing and retrieving data by location?

  Of course not.  For example a database organized as a hash table, or
a B-tree, or designed for binary search, or some other such method is
still store/retrieve memory.

>The point of the example was that you could have a store/retrieve memory
>without a *conscious* store or retrieve command.  You showed that there 
>was no conscious store or retrieve command, and then said that it meant there
>was no storage/retrieval memory.

  Well "showed" is rather a strong term.  I would have used the "claimed"
instead.  The word "show" implies some kind of proof.  We would need to
know much more about the workings of the brain before that could become
possible.

  I take it as self evident that there is no conscious store operation.
My other comments were meant to present a small part of the evidence
which persuades me that there is also no unconscious store and no
unconscious retrieve operation.

>                                  I used that example to show that the latter
>does not follow from the former.

  We are obviously talking at cross purposes.  I said nothing about
consciousness except in reply to you.  I frankly don't put much weight
on consciousness.  I am assuming that the unconscious components of
intelligence are far more important than they are usually given credit
for, so the separation into conscious and unconscious is usually
quite misleading.

>                                  I do not believe that it is an accurate
>model of human memory.

  As I said earlier, we will have to agree to disagree.



