Matt Mahoney wrote:
Richard, what is your definition of "understanding"? How would you test
whether a person understands art?
Turing offered a behavioral test for intelligence. My understanding of
"understanding" is that it is something that requires intelligence. The
connection between intelligence and compression is not obvious. I have summarized the
arguments here.
http://cs.fit.edu/~mmahoney/compression/rationale.html
1) There will probably never be a compact definition of "understanding".
Nevertheless, it is possible for us (being understanding systems) to
know some of its features. I could produce a shopping list of typical
features of understanding, but that would not be the same as a
definition, so I will not. See my paper in the forthcoming proceedings
of the 2006 AGIRI workshop, for arguments. (I will make a version of
this available this week, after final revisions).
3) One tiny, almost-too-obvious-to-be-worth-stating fact about
understanding is that it compresses information in order to do its job.
4) To mistake this tiny little facet of understanding for the whole is
to say that a hurricane IS rotation, rather than that rotation is a
facet of what a hurricane is.
5) I have looked at your paper and my feelings are exactly the same as
Mark's .... theorems developed on erroneous assumptions are worthless.
Richard Loosemore
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
