3 ms·
> But they do not realize that what makes the intelligent is that they can memorize lots of things without effort. I play board games with my friends. We all k
by cgriswald 5y ago
> But they do not realize that what makes the intelligent is that they can memorize lots of things without effort.
I play board games with my friends. We all know all the rules of the game, although we took varying amount of times to memorize these rules. Yet some of us come to dominate the game play. To the degree that there is correlation between the speed with which someone learns the rules and the percentage of time they win the game, I do not believe there is causation. How could there be? One would have to believe that once everyone has all the knowledge in the system, those who memorized that knowledge faster still have an edge because they memorized the knowledge faster. That's difficult to believe.
- dougabug 5y agoIt’s not just memorization of the rules, in a game like Go that would only be a tiny fraction of the memory utilized. Remembering large numbers of examples assists in recognizing patterns and developing strategies.
- cgriswald 5y agoThat doesn’t really resolve the underlying problem. Given the same set of examples, the guy who memorized them faster isn’t necessarily the guy who wins. There is more going on than just “effortless memory.”
- dougabug 5y agoPresumably, human memory involves a significant associative aspect. If you couldn’t recall a relevant fact within a useful time frame, this might impact comprehension or the ability to make connections. Imagine trying to read a book, while only have a vocabulary of a few hundred words, or lacking the ability to remember more than the last few sentences. There are also fidelity issues. Suppose half of the facts or ideas you recalled were corrupted, or most of your retrieved memories were misassociated or irrelevant?
- cgriswald 5y agoSure, but I’m not disputing the necessity of a useful memory. I’m disputing its sufficiency.