A little late on the draw here - I am a new member to the list and was checking out the archives. I had an insight into this debate over understanding.
James Ratcliff wrote: ""Understanding" is a dum-dum word, it must be specifically defined as a concept or not used. Understanding art is a Subjective question. Everyone has their own 'interpretations' of what that means, either brush stokes, or style, or color, or period, or content, or inner meaning. But you CANT measure understanding of an object internally like that. There MUST be an external measure of understanding." My insight was this: to ask 'do you understand x?' is too simple for the subjective realm. One must qualify with a phrase such as (in the context of art) 'do you understand x in relation to y' or 'do you understand x as representing y' or 'do you understand x as a possible meaning for y', etc. By externally specifying the y, one can gain an objective 'picture' of the internal subjective state of a person or an AI. Of course this makes things pretty complicated when one must analyze all possible y's, however, this could even become a job for an AI, couldn't it? If one knows the (or a) set of possible interpretations (y's), one can begin to inquire as to the understanding of x within an intelligence. I would appreciate your feedback. Thanks for your time, Kashif Shah ----- 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
