- #36
moving finger
- 1,689
- 1
An acceptable definition of “understanding” is one which allows us to apply the term to a non-human agent and to objectively determine whether or not that agent possesses understanding according to the accepted definition.TheStatutoryApe said:It may be a different "flavor" of the same process (such as that of a sentient alien race) or perhaps different in a matter of complexity (such as a chimp) but if we agree that this process shares a significant enough number of defining characteristics we can catagorize it under "understanding".
For those reading this thread who insist that no machine can ever possesses understanding, I would ask “what about an alien species?”. Can we define “understanding” in terms which are non-anthropocentric enough to enable us to apply the term to an alien species and then determine whether or not that species possesses understanding?
Thank you! We agree.TheStatutoryApe said:I don't think "consciousness" is necessary to "understanding"
This is a good starting point. Importantly, it attempts to define understanding in objective (non-anthropocentric) terms.TheStatutoryApe said:Understanding: The ability to process information, learn from it, and produce coherant output regarding it.
This may be true of existing computers. But the point is that there is no reason in principle why a computer could not be constructed which CAN do these things. Indeed, the hypothetical Chinese Room CAN do these things.quantumcarl said:The computer cannot "parce" the components of the question/problem because it does not have the necessary data or is unable to "decode" the information that is available and that it would use to compute in its function of possibly solving the problem.
Once again – no. You are deliberately defining “understanding” anthropocentrically.quantumcarl said:Understanding is a word that has been used to describe a function that has developed in humans that has to do with experiencial information being stored chemically and that is readily retreavable via the advent of internal or external stimulus.
Agreed – which is exactly why we need a definition which is not snowed under with anthropocentric terms.quantumcarl said:There are difficulties when we get lazy or poetic with our language. Its ok in prose or poetry but in a scientific examination of a premise or problem, terms and terminology must be precise and describe what they are assigned to with great accuracy.
I can claim the CR possesses understanding because I can ask it questions to test it’s understanding. On what basis do you claim the rock possesses understanding? What is your “test” of understanding against which you can claim “yes, this rock passes the test”?quantumcarl said:For instance I could wax on about how a rock is the only thing that can understand what its like to be a rock so we might as well forget trying to understand what its like to be a rock.
With respect
MF