On 7/9/21, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Note that I avoided the word "understand" in my post, and, instead, used > the word "comprehend". Others have brought in the notion of "value" to the > notion of "understanding"; they bring up "relevance" to one's "goals" etc. > I suppose, therefore, one might say that one achieves "understanding" when > one "comprehends" the relationship between an object (say, pi) and one's > decisions (say, I'm considering building a geodesic dome for my family). > Knowledge? Epistemology doesn't place any _rigorous_ demands on us > regarding comprehension (in the Chaitin sense), does it? (Please excuse > the prior misspelling of Chaitin.) >
I see. From what I've read of Thorisson's work on understanding, he includes a situation's relevance to goals. > On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 5:06 PM Mike Archbold <jazzbo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks James and Immortal. My plan is for the group to discuss the >> highlights of pretty much each definition of understanding I >> accumulate (details forthcoming)... >> >> On 7/9/21, immortal.discover...@gmail.com >> <immortal.discover...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I.e. not so much is it about what you understand, but rather what you >> > already know (memories to match). ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tf91e2eafa2515120-M5a872f4224e2e0c396b5ce9c Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
