From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!mercury.unt.edu!mips.mitek.com!spssig.spss.com!markrose Tue Mar 24 09:57:02 EST 1992
Article 4573 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!cs.utexas.edu!mercury.unt.edu!mips.mitek.com!spssig.spss.com!markrose
>From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Mar18.191408.32446@spss.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 19:14:08 GMT
References: <1992Mar11.185921.10347@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Mar16.233438.45463@spss.com> <1992Mar17.213405.18352@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
Nntp-Posting-Host: spssrs7.spss.com
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Lines: 26

In article <1992Mar17.213405.18352@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> santas@inf.ethz.ch 
(Philip Santas) writes (quoting me):
>>I am afraid that some AI types confuse the names of symbols with
>>semantics.  The two expressions you write are strictly equivalent to the
>>computer (indeed, many compilers would generate identical object code from
>>them).  The first expression is intelligible to a human observer; this
>>must not be confused with understanding on the part of the computer.
>
>But the type Distance already includes information in the form
>of instance variables, methods, relationship with other types etc.

You type Distance is a renaming of the type float.  The kind of type 
checking C++ does is basically a method of keeping the programmer's thinking
clear.  That is, defining a type named Distance is a convenience to the
programmer, not to the machine; indeed, the type disappears when the
program is compiled.

It's possible to give a bit more solidity to a defined data type.  For 
instance, a graphics program might be able to do quite a bit with the
type Circle.  That doesn't mean it has a human understanding of circles.

>It is very possible that this information alone is not enough
>but this is the idea of making AI research.

"Not enough"?  It falls ludicrously far short of the mountain of information
a human being has about the concept of distance.  


