In principle, yes, but AlphaGo's "knowledge" of Go is not explicit anywhere in that memory dump you mentioned. All the memory dump will show you is a bunch of values of various neural network connection weights and the current data flow through the network. It's a bit like if you could simultaneously measure all the voltages and currents across circuit elements on a silicon chip of some kind. At the end of that measurement process, you'd have a whole lot of numbers, and in principle you could work out what the electrical circuit would do next, given the schematic and the data. But none of that would tell you what the circuit was actually meant for, or what it's purpose or principle of operation is. To understand that, you need higher-level knowledge. My point is that the "higher-level" knowledge about Go strategy and so on, implicitly coded in that data dump from AlphaGo, is not fundamentally accessible to any human being. This is not so different from me asking you what is 2 plus 2. You answer 4, but even you can't tell me exactly what processes you used to arrive at that answer. Those processes are not accessible even to your own conscious mind. This is true even though your brain is nothing more than a complicated neural network. There's no reason to support that this kind of argument is any different whether we're talking about an artificial neural network or a naturally-occurring one.