Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!ames!amdahl!rtech!ingres!ingres
From: ingres@ingres.com (INGRES SysAdmin)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Cross-talk, memory limitations
Message-ID: <1991Jan24.235433.23589@ingres.Ingres.COM>
Date: 24 Jan 91 23:54:33 GMT
References: <9093@uwm.edu> <1991Jan23.050328.8357@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Reply-To: ingres@snoopy.Ingres.COM (INGRES SysAdmin)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Lines: 66

In article <1991Jan23.050328.8357@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

OK, ignite torch:

>In article <9093@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:
>>   We use a sparse coding to represent concepts.  If that coding becomes too
>>crowded, then you'll progressively see more and more interference between
>>related concepts any time you tried to "recall" any specific concept.  In a
>>word: cross-talk.
>
> You are making many assumptions about how information is represented.  I
>doubt that there is any justification for them.

yep I agree with you this far.

>
>>   The first time I was trying to bring up a word describing a child who was
>>well ahead of development typical of his or her age ... and with a slightly
>>sexual connotation.  The word is "precocious", but I kept coming up with
>>"prodigious".
>>
>>   The second time, more recently, I was trying to come up with a word
>>describing an event that defines future history, or an event which enables
>>similar future events to happen.  The word here is "precedent", but I kept
>>coming up with "prerequisite".
>
> This type of behavior is often seen.  It probably occurs even more often in
>young people with presumably plenty of spare memory.  It is completely
>consistent with my (unpublished) model of the mind, but apparently
>inconsistent with yours

Its totally inconsistent with my 102 volume definitive guide to creation.
come-on, you cann't be serios. The guy never mentioned anything about having
a 'model of the mind'. woopy for you that it matches yours. Either publish
or keep ya mouth shut, unless you can be constructive!!!!!!!

>
>>   What struck me the second time this happened was the similarity of the
>>two words (precocious and precedent) which I had momentary difficulty
>>recalling...
>
> That similarity fits well with my model.
>
>>   What was interesting about both situations was that they happened long
>>enough that I could actually sit back any analyse the situation in progress.
>>What kept happending was that the wqord in question would actively block
>>out the other word and sometimes even the underlying concept itself.
>
> Actually you mis-analyzed the situation because you based your analysis on
>an incorrect model.  But instead of recognizing it as a failure of your
>model you have added additional complexity such as assumptions about
>memory overflow.

since he didn't mention having a 'model of the mind' in the first place it
would be pretty difficult for it to be mis-analyzed, smarty pants. Anyway,
(oh how I love that word) since the arguement at this stage is totally
subjective (doning his flame proof undies) and since it is quite feasible
that the brain runs out of memory (I like to call this 'the morning after the
night before' - all system go on battery backup), he is as likely to be correct 
as you.

TTFN

Stephen Bull

sbull@eros.ingres.com