From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!secapl!Cookie!frank Tue Nov 24 10:51:36 EST 1992
Article 7607 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!secapl!Cookie!frank
>From: frank@Cookie.secapl.com (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: grounding and the entity/environment boundary
Message-ID: <1992Nov11.225713.139123@Cookie.secapl.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:57:13 GMT
References: <1992Oct30.183122.7795@spss.com> <1992Nov10.020502.116627@Cookie.secapl.com> <1992Nov10.161749.20605@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: Security APL, Inc.
Lines: 47

In article <1992Nov10.161749.20605@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.020502.116627@Cookie.secapl.com> frank@Cookie.secapl.com (Frank Adams) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct30.183122.7795@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
>>             Our brains make a tradeoff between retention and brain size
>>based in part on things like mobility.  AI's need not be subject to this
>>constraint.
>
>Before you can call it a tradeoff, you must explain why it would be
>beneficial to clutter the brain with huge volumes of worthless trivia.

I never said that an AI *would* retain all memories.  There is still a
tradeoff to be made -- but the cost of retaining extra memories is likely to
be lower.  Perhaps enough lower that no memories need be discarded.

One advantage, of course, is that such an AI would be able to remain
grounded over an extended period time without direct contact with the
environment it is grounded in (to the extent that that environment does not
change).

>>*Was* evolution capable of producing a brain which could faithfully remember
>>every experience presented to it?  Maybe it's still working on it.
>
>Why should evolution even be interested in such a memory?  How would it
>be beneficial to turn yourself into a lifetime receptacle for junk mail
>and advertising jingles?  If such perfect retention is useful, why was
>the waste paper basket invented?

Because physical storage also has its costs, hence its tradeoffs.

>>                                                                    Note
>>that some people have better memories than others, and that having a better
>>memory is in general an advantage.
>
>Just out of interest, I wonder what evidence exists that some people
>have better memories than others?  Certainly some people have better
>memories for history, others have better memories for language, others
>have better memories for hollywood trivia, etc.  But I wonder if it
>doesn't come close to balancing out if you could measure the total
>combination.

I doubt it very much.  Some people have what are called photographic
memories; they may not remember literally everything, but it certainly seems
to be much more than most people remember.

I don't see how you could test this; how do you that there isn't some whole
category of memory you aren't taking into account?  How do you compare
memory for scents with memory for words with memory for pictures?


