[net.ai] can computers understand?

colonel@gloria.UUCP (George Sicherman) (07/25/84)

[Eat at Joe's]

As long as the problem of "understanding" has come up again, here's
a provoking quotation:

	In this argument [deleted] commits two blunders.  He interprets
	understanding as the limit of an evolutionary process of
	baconian observation, and he treats understanding, like
	intelligence, as a fixed property independent of its
	possessor.

	To understand is to assimilate a process foreign to oneself.  A
	machine does not "understand" how to make screw eyes, because
	that is part of its function. ... When we examine [deleted]'s
	argument closely, it reduces to two familiar ideas:  the
	logical idea that all understanding rests on knowledge of the
	principles of physics, and the psychological idea that
	understanding is necessary for the sake of controlling.
	... The ideal of [deleted]'s theory would be a computer that
	"understands" natural language well enough to be able to make
	people do its bidding.
					--Maia I. Aimless (1979)

-- 
Col. G. L. Sicherman
...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel