[comp.ai] Cross-talk, memory limitations

markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) (01/23/91)

   What would happen if the brain began to run out of memory?  I tried
imagining that a while ago.  Basically what I saw was this.

   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.

   It happened to me a couple times recently, though not necessarily because my
brain's running out of space, nor because of any memory deficit (I have very
strong associative memory capibility).  But the experience is real interesting.

   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".

   What struck me the second time this happened was the similarity of the
two words (precocious and precedent) which I had momentary difficulty
recalling...

   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.

rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) (01/23/91)

In article <9093@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:
>
>   What would happen if the brain began to run out of memory?  I tried
>imagining that a while ago.  Basically what I saw was this.
>
 We would grow old and die.

>   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.

>   It happened to me a couple times recently, though not necessarily because my
>brain's running out of space, nor because of any memory deficit (I have very
>strong associative memory capibility).  But the experience is real interesting.
>
>   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

>   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.


-- 
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
  Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science               <rickert@cs.niu.edu>
  Northern Illinois Univ.
  DeKalb, IL 60115                                   +1-815-753-6940

doug@mdbs.uucp (Doug Waterfield) (01/25/91)

In article <8357@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In article <9093@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:
>>
>>   What would happen if the brain began to run out of memory?  I tried
>>imagining that a while ago.  Basically what I saw was this.
>>
> We would grow old and die.

Why?

>
>>   We use a sparse coding to represent concepts.  If that coding becomes too
>>  .
>>  .
> You are making many assumptions about how information is represented.  I
>doubt that there is any justification for them.
>

Why?

>>   It happened to me a couple times recently, though not necessarily
>>  .
>>  .
>>  .
>>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
>
And again, why?  You refute Hopkins' arguments repeatedly, and the only proof
you offer is a model which you *don't* explain!  How are we to accept your
statments without even an attempt at proof?

>>   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.
>

How convenient--the similarity fits the model which you do not describe.

>>   What was interesting about both situations was that they happened long
>
> 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.
>

So, when may we be enlightened by your "correct" model?

==============================================================================
Doug Waterfield		| Of course, the opinions expressed above are mine 
doug@mdbs.UUCP		| and not those of my employer.
mdbs, Inc.		|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"How many times do your hear it? It goes on all day long.
 Everyone knows everything, no one's ever wrong."
				-Rush, "Show Don't Tell"
==============================================================================

ingres@ingres.com (INGRES SysAdmin) (01/25/91)

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

cho@sol4.cs.psu.edu (Sehyeong Cho) (01/27/91)

In article <1991Jan24.215249.6737@mdbs.uucp> doug@mdbs.UUCP (Doug Waterfield) writes:
>In article <8357@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>>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
>>>  .
>> You are making many assumptions about how information is represented.  I
>>doubt that there is any justification for them.
>
>Why?
Do you, then, KNOW what kind of coding scheme  the brain uses?
I'd be delighted to learn that.  :-)                                                      
--
========================================================================
                      |  Yesterday I was a student.
     Sehyeong Cho     |  Today I am a student.
     cho@cs.psu.edu   |  Tomorrow I'll probably still be a student.

mikero@microsoft.UUCP (Michael ROBIN) (01/31/91)

In article <1991Jan23.050328.8357@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
In article <9093@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:

> 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
[.....]
>
>That similarity fits well with my model.
[.....]

Ok, so what the !@#$ is your model??