From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!aero.org!marcus Thu Jan  9 10:34:13 EST 1992
Article 2567 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!aero.org!marcus
>From: marcus@aero.org (Leo Marcus)
Subject: My Understanding of Understanding
Message-ID: <1992Jan8.212316.7803@aero.org>
Summary: I knew I shouldn't have done this.
Originator: marcus@armadillo.aero.org
Sender: news@aero.org
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1992 21:23:16 GMT


Understanding is not equivalent to any objective, measurable, or rigorously
definable property. There are occasionally *necessary* conditions: not
knowing that 2+2=4 would indicate a lack of understanding of arithmetic.
But there are no necessary and sufficient conditions for understanding.
Ever!  Understanding is a subjective *feeling* of the entity having it,
which may come and go.  Understanding is very similar to "belief", another
non-provable.  Just as people learn to use the word "pain" correctly, they
learn to use the words "belief," "love," and "understanding."  In this
context, the hope of asking an entity indirect questions to determine its
understanding is impossible.  (As mentioned above, non-understanding is
sometimes measurable.)


According to the above falsifiability property, feelings of understanding
can turn out to be false.  It is also my opinion that very few things are
*really* understood by anyone. (There must be some official philosophical
name for this opinion.)



Leo Marcus
(marcus@aero.org)
Computer Systems Division, M1-099
The Aerospace Corporation
Box 92957
Los Angeles, CA 90009



