[From Shannon Williams (960206.00:30 Calgary time)]
Bill Powers (960203.0500 MST)--
Before I try to model the process of learning, I want to
be sure we understand what it is that is learned -- the
end-point of the process.
You assume that there is a dynamic process ("the process of learning")
and a static result ("the result of learning"). But I think that
this assumption is based in your imagination. I do not believe that
this separation is real.
You could convince me that "the results of learning" exist
independently of the process that created them if you:
1) Show me a person that can apply the results of his previous
"learning" in an environment where no object or concept is
familiar to him.
or
2) Show me a person whose skill in some task does not vary. Any
time he does a task, whether daily or once a year, his skill
gets neither better nor worse. It stays the same for the rest
of his life.
What could I show you which would convince you that "the results of
learning" are not independent of the process that created them?
I think it's premature to try to model learning now.
I think that any model of learned behavior, must model learning. In
fact, any legitimate model of learned behavior must:
1) allow you to visualize the learning process in an individual,
2) allow you to visualize how the learning process evolved in
animals.
···
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Powers (960128.1800 MST)--
If (A) = Hinsdale then (B) = '1'
If (A) = '1' then (B) = '9'
If (A) = '9' then (B) = '2'
if (A) = '2' then (B) = '7'But where does the "Hinsdale" come from? If I already have one input
that goes "Hinsdale 1927," then why do I need the second delayed input?
What second delayed input? (What first delayed input? - The delay is
used to create the association. It is not needed to replay the
association.)
I already have the number I want to remember.
If you already have the number that you want, then you have the number
that you want. What more do you want?
I think you may be talking strictly about sequence memory here.
What you perceive as a sequence, someone else may not. The adjective
"sequence" is irrelevant here.
In other words, everything is associated. Memories do not exist by
themselves, they are triggered by some association. For example,
if you wanted to remember your multiplication tables, you could
remember each aspect of the table by associating it with something
that you find familiar, ie. you could pretend you were walking
through a garden and and associate different parts of the garden
with whatever you wanted to remember.Have you read my discussion of memory in B:CP, starting on page 205? See
specifically p. 215-216 where the Method of Loci is mentioned.
Where do you think I got the example?
That is an old model of memory, but I don't think the numbers are right
to suppose it exists in the nervous system in neural form.
Martin answered you on this count. I did not receive your reply.
Molecular storage and retrieval would have far higher capacity,
although a plausible mechanism for accomplishing this escapes me.
Do you see the mechanism in associative memory?
And of course there are also cases where detailed memories prove to be
wholly manufactured.
Do you see how easy this is with associative memory?
we
have to remember analog relationships, rates of change, configurations,
rules, principles, and so forth.
What makes you think that this memory is not associative? Many people
learn to associate rules, pictures, graphs, formulas, etc. with key
words. I never learned that way, but I do visualize things. I change
my visualizations as I apply different rules or scenarios to my
current visualization. Perhaps you would not call this "associative
memory", but the same memory module that you recognize as generating
"sequence memory", could be used to generate this other kind of
memory.
Look at it this way, associative memory allows you to associate
different aspects of your current perceptions with similar aspects
of other perceptions. In other words, it creates/causes metaphors
and analogies.
The kind of memory that isn't explained by your diagram is experiential
memory -- simply calling a scene to mind.
Give me a break! "Experiential memory" is EXACTLY what is explained
by the neural network diagram. The whole operation of the network
dependes upon generating new perceptions from current perceptions. In
other words, the whole operation of the network dependes upon generating
new experiences from current experiences.
You could explain what might evoke this scene, but not how we can
effectively view it again, even noticing details we did not
consciously register during the original experience.
There are many ways to do this. You can associate your behavior
with causes for your behavior, you can hear the story re-told, you
can manufacture new details, etc.
It seems to me that you're talking about the conditions
under which memories can be linked to other memories, but not about what
is, in fact, remembered.
I do not believe that you can separate "what is remembered" from "the
process of remembering".
-Shannon Williams