Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MayorOfNoobTown t1_j9tycmn wrote

> And i don't think memory is considered to be a sign of any high intellogence

Really? Every model of intelligence I'm familiar with includes memory as a significant component. Without some form of memory, one is unable to make predictions.

Without predictions, one is restricted to a completely static reactionary model. Iteration is impossible without memory.

11

jqbr t1_j9vk5uu wrote

> Every model of intelligence I'm familiar with includes memory as a significant component

Fallacy of affirmation of the consequent. Intelligence is a sign that there is memory, not v.v.

P.S. No, I did not commit a fallacy of denying the antecedent (which is the contrapositive of and thus logical equivalent of affirmation of the consequent), and it's not a game. And you just committed the same fallacy again ... yes models of intelligence include memory -- that's what I said. But memory does not entail intelligence -- again, that inversion is your fallacy.

2

MayorOfNoobTown t1_j9vx6qc wrote

Well, if we're playing the fallacy game, you've just committed the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

It's true that intelligence doesn't necessarily guarantee the presence of memory, you'll be hard pressed to find a serious model that omits memory as an essential component of the ability to learn from experience and apply that knowledge in new situations.

3