Jamie (and Ben, of course),
I was afraid of going into Ben's long blog (my healthy
laziness) until I read your comment. That raised my
blood pressure to the level of interactivity, so I
took Ben's text and clicked and clicked and clicked
all the science he quoted in his delicious train of

I have some remarks (questions?)and I want to post
some of them here. 
The very first one is "memory", not the mechanical
repro of hardware-fixed software in AI or other comp,
but our fallible recollection of anything from the
past incompletely and modified (see witness reports).
There are well known theories of protein
conformational notes in the brain (or wherever) and I
condone a close-to- infinite natural code to translate
ANYTHING into the formulational changes in the
molecular groupings. The problem is: if you want to
apply the 'reverse-code' to arrive at a 'recollection
of memory', you have to remember first (to apply the
appropriate code to site)  and the you can 'remember'.
And THEN: you would have the 'unchanged' -
machine-like recall, what we have not.
I asked on several lists "what is our memory - how
does it work" from people devoted their scientific
activity to such topics and teaching such at (name)
universities to the innocent and gullible youth. - No
reasonable reply so far. Responses are vague and
invoking other unanswerable factors to justify some
unexplained ones. 
(Don't forget: I go for common sense. No white

I hate to include my solution, but I think I ought to:
since the (undefined) mind is a-temporal and
a-spatial, we can go back to the event to be
remembered and take a second look. And a 3rd one. What
we see NOW is not entirely identical to what we saw
with the past mindset earlier, so our recollection is
not machine-like.
Silly, but whoever has a better one, gets a

Jamie, you placed your questions into the model we
follow about the world. I try to think 'wider' (not
that I can claim too much success...)

Then there is "intelligence" (Is it really, and where
can I find it?<G>)Well, human intelligence, at least.
I find the etymological word-meaning insufficient, it
is not 'knowledge' to "read within the lines" (inter -
lego) meaning: to understand. It is part of, but the
essence in my opinion is (not the plasticity of the
mind) the ELASTICITY of a well working mind pondering
openly fitting and non fitting aspects. 
This is my version - I don't 'teach' it. 
The difference is between static and dynamic. I think
in process, not state. 

I don't want to go now into Ben's study of the book of
"Handheld" Jeff Hawkins, it is (scientific)
model-based and so is most of Ben's position what
seems to discard his comprehensive knowledge of (Rosen
and more) ways in complexity. I collected a blurb of
excerpts from the URLs and Ben's writing, I believe it
would be too topical for the list. As a matter of
fact, Ben himself only referred to his URL as well

Thanks, Ben, and Jamie, for the chance to mention my
ways of thinking about memory and intelligence.

John Mikes

--- James N Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Ben,  You are on the right track, but you missed a
>       fundamental principle and therefore are
> missing
>       advantageous use of it in mapping the
> question.
>       The issue comes out as an adjunct one: why is
>       standard logic insufficient -and- incomplete,
>       when applying it to observed natural logic
> functions
>       of intelligence, mind, and feedthrough
> (back&forward)
>       information nets?
>       Statistical re-evaluation of probability -is-
> important.
>       But then, the real world gets muddied, with
> such organs
>       as the hypothalmus.  :-)
> Jamie Rose
> >I wrote a sort-of-review of this book some time
> ago...
> > 
> > 
> >-- Ben Goertzel
> >
> >       -----Original Message-----
> >       From: Lennart Nilsson
> >       Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 2:00 PM
> .
> >       Thoughts on the ” Memory-prediction
> framework” in
> >       explaining intelligence anyone?
> >
> >       Book: Jeff Hawkins “On Intelligence”

Reply via email to