From: ljones@andrew.ATL.GE.COM (LeRoy E Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Memory and store/retrieve. (was: Defining Intelligence)
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:49:53 GMT
Organization: GE Aerospace, Advanced Technology Labs

Neil writes:
[...]
>	HUMAN MEMORY AS NON STORE/RETRIEVE
>
> Back to human memory:
>
> With human memory there is much to suggest that there is a steady
>accretion of information, rather than atomic storage events.  To be
>sure, the rate of accretion is much faster than with the tree.  But even
>simple factual knowledge, which we supposedly either know or don't know
>seems to require steady accretion.  In learning we go through stages
>where we can remember the supposedly learned information only after
>suitable prompting and hints.  If there were a store operation, learning
>should not work this way.

Even if we use the word accretion, there still is a store operation to hold
the new information. I agree that the store operation is not atomic in the
sense that it is in a computer, but it can be atomic in the sense that a
person can hold information for later recall. I think the word "encode"
is better than store, but the net effect is a store because I can say a
number to you, and if I ask you that number soon afterwards, you can probably
tell me. Memory deteriorates (even in a computer which uses store/retieve),
so you may not be able to tell me if I wait too long, but for a while, you
store that number. You may choose to elaborate on the number in your mind
to help you to remember it, and then you may need clues to recall it after
a while, but it is still stored, even though the retrieval process is more
complicated to traverse your extended network (elaboration) to get to the 
number.

>
> Likewise, with retrieval, there is much about the way we remember to
>suggest that we are really inferring the information rather than using
>an atomic retrieval event.  We talk about searching our memory, but the
>search time is really the time we use to make the inference.  It is well
>known that several witnesses to an event will remember it quite
>differently, just as you would expect if their memories were really the
>result of an inference rather than a retrieval operation.  Similarly
>one individual may remember something differently today from the way he
>remembered it yesterday, exactly as we would expect if the memory were
>really an inference from inconclusive information.

These examples simply suggest that people build individual semantic networks
to encode information. People relate new information to different things, so
they rememebr things in different ways. It is largely accepted that meaning
is what is encoded by the mind, and in that sense I agree that the retrieval
of a particular fact is often an inference based on the meaning assigned to
it since the time of initial encoding. This brings up an issue of granularity.
I assert that human memory stores information which it operates on, although
the representation of that info in the mind is not predictable, and that it
is capable to retrieve information, although the retrieval process varies in
complexity based on the representation of the information.

>
>	MEMORY AS A RECOGNITION SYSTEM
>
> If you try to use human memory as a store/retrieve system, you quickly
>discover it has great inadequacies.  The inventions of writing,
>phonographs, motion picture films, magnetic tape recorders, and computer
>memories, are all compensations for the fact that human memory does not
>serve the store/retrieve function at all well.  

I think communication of ideas, sounds, song, etc. Had something to with
these inventions. I can't expect Webster to come and personally define a
word for me every time I need it (smile). Besides, it is impractical for
a person to try to store all the information s/he comes across over a 
lifetime. Just because human memory isn't great at the store/retrieve process
(which is arguable, but I won't right now), doesn't mean it is incapable of
it.

>But the human memory is
>a marvel when it comes to recognition.  You can pick out one face in a
>crowd.  You can learn all kinds of new patterns, and learn to recognize
>them.  This is a remarkable and important ability, and may be one of
>the most important aspects of our intelligence.

Yeah, but recognition requires storing of information and patterns somehow.
You can't derive, infer, recognize from no information.

I can find fault with the rest of your article, but that is largely based
on the fact that I'm not an evolutionist, and those types of fundamental
differences in opinion would make fruitful discussion almost impossible
(or at least not appropriate for this news group).

In summary, I think this all started with trying to define intelligence, and
the only practical intelligence is an evident intelligence. Intelligence
that exists but has no impact on the world, is useless. If we agree that 
the intelligence we are interested in defining is evident intelligence, then
we can say that there needs to be a store/retrieve function associated with
it, even if it is only a net result, and not indicative of internal
implementation.


LeRoy Jones, AKA Lee

Internet: ljones@fergie.dnet.ge.com