🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <12760@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> kpfleger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Karl Robert Pfleger) writes:
>"he would know that he is still not doing 3." WHAT?!?!
>
>How in the world does he know what 3 is?! If he knows what 3 (human
>thinking) is, then why doesn't he publish a book and we can give all the
>psychologists in the world something else to do!
	An excellent point -- I would say he BELIEVES he is not doing 3,
but there is a large gap between opinion, and knowledge.
	As to the question about defining understanding, I think the point
of this debate is two-fold: 1) people ARE implicitly arguing about
what understanding is (when Turing proposed his test, he was trying to figure
out some criterion for intelligence -- and in reply to a previous posting
thereon, I think it was intended as a SUFFICIENT condition, although it
was well-pointed out that it may NOT BE), and 2) after establishing some
criteria for that, they THEN argue about whatis feasible in AI.  And to a
large extent, you're right that much of that is trivial, given certain
notions about what understanding is.
		Ron