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.)
On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 5:06 PM Mike Archbold <[email protected]> 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, [email protected] > <[email protected]> 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-M9e5ccf265f1e822c7cd2593c Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
