Understanding is mapping — Hermeticus

Thank you!

If you just want to talk about what understanding in general is, I'm totally with TheMadFool here. Understanding is mapping. Complex chains of association between sensations and representations. — Hermeticus

But computers don't have sensations, they don't make associations, they don't use representations.

I've argued that it's absolutely possible for an AI to have the same experiences we have with our senses — Hermeticus

In science fiction?

In science fiction? — Daemon

I'm not gonna repeat myself forever.

But computers don't have sensations, they don't make associations, they don't use representations. — Daemon

If we're not talking about hypotheticals then the answer is obviously no, AI can not understand like humans do. — Hermeticus

If we were to talk in hypotheticals:

Sensation

The physical principles behind these sensors and the senses of our body are literally the same. — Hermeticus

We already have this.

Association

The difference is in the signal that is sent thereafteand how the signal is processed. — Hermeticus

We don't have this yet, hence I raised the point of artificial brain.

And as for representations - computers are literally built on it. They're a representational system. Everything you see on your browser is a representation of a programming language. The programming language is a representation of another programming language (machine code). Machine code is a representation of bit manipulation. Bits are a representation of electric current.

If we were to talk in hypotheticals: — Hermeticus

I'm not interested in discussing hypotheticals. The Cambridge Dictionary says hypothetical means "imagined or suggested, but perhaps not true or really happening".

Sensation

The physical principles behind these sensors and the senses of our body are literally the same. — Hermeticus

We already have this. — Hermeticus

We do not. Sensors do not have sensations.

And as for representations - computers are literally built on it. They're a representational system. Everything you see on your browser is a representation of a programming language. The programming language is a representation of another programming language (machine code). Machine code is a representation of bit manipulation. Bits are a representation of electric current. — Hermeticus

But the representation is to us, not to the computer. All there is in the computer is electric current. No bits, no languages. We say that the electric current represents something, in the same way that the beads on an abacus represent numbers.

Naturally, to understand what is one must first be intimately acquainted with what isn't. The first step is understanding whatever is can become what isn't. The second is understanding you know very little, if anything at all. Observations of current circumstance are not knowledge but simple consciousness, which as we know, is volatile and its state subject to change.

Understanding is mapping — Hermeticus


Thank you! — TheMadFool

Mapping is not understanding, as illustrated by my examples.

Interesting discussion. From a previous thread:

Understanding denotes conceptual reflection (i.e. metacognition) by which knowing is distinguished from, and contextualized by, not knowing. — 180 Proof

I.e. performative competences developed by lived-experience (of failure and adaptation).

A. The councilors refused to allow the protestors to demonstrate, because they advocated violence.
B. The councilors refused to allow the protestors to demonstrate, because they feared violence. — Daemon

This some example, and more to it than meets the eye. I am pretty sure A contains a grammatical error, namely the comma. While in B, "because they feared violence," is parenthetical.

If I'm correct, maybe someone can do a better job than I explaining why.

Mapping is not understanding, as illustrated by my examples. — Daemon

Ok so, what's your definition of understanding?

Please don't repeat yourself by saying, "...as illustrated by my examples...".

If I'm correct, maybe someone can do a better job than I explaining why. — tim wood

No, I think you're not correct Tim. You can take the comma out of both sentences or add parentheses to both if you wish, without affecting the meaning (or the grammaticality).

Ok so, what's your definition of understanding?

Please don't repeat yourself by saying, "...as illustrated by my examples...". — TheMadFool

But why not? As Wittgenstein famously observed "meaning is use". You can tell what I mean by "understanding" by the way I use it in my examples. I'm using it in the standard way. I could of course provide you with dictionary definitions of "understand", but it hardly seems necessary as you already know how the word is normally used. If you didn't already understand the word, you wouldn't understand the definition.

But why not? As Wittgenstein famously observed "meaning is use". You can tell what I mean by "understanding" by the way I use it in my examples. I'm using it in the standard way. I could of course provide you with dictionary definitions of "understand", but it hardly seems necessary as you already know how the word is normally used. If you didn't already understand the word, you wouldn't understand the definition. — Daemon

Red Herring :yawn:

If you want a dictionary definition, Google it. I'm using the word in the standard way.

If you want a dictionary definition, Google it. I'm using the word in the standard way. — Daemon

I kept my end of the bargain, you should keep yours.

I've done it for you:

Understand: perceive the intended meaning of (words, a language, or a speaker).

Understand: perceive the intended meaning of (words, a language, or a speaker). — Daemon

That's mapping words to referents.

A. The councillors refused to allow the protestors to demonstrate, because they advocated violence.

B. The councillors refused to allow the protestors to demonstrate, because they feared violence. — Daemon

These are different meanings. In A the councillors advocate violence and B they fear violence (which has two meanings in and of itself).

If something is poorly written then it is harder to translate. Don't blame the computer for someone's lack of clarity in their writing.

You have misunderstood the sentences!

No, I have followed the meaning via the 'subject' - which in both cases is 'councillors'.

I believe the rule is if it isn't clear who is giving the reason we go with the subject not the object. In day-to-day speech there is no need as the sentence is usually understood within the given context. They are both open to a degree of interpretation that would be cleared up with sentences that precede or follow it.

As stand alone sentences I would assume the 'councillors' are the ones 'fearing violence' or 'advocating violence'.

I don't know where you got your "rule" from but that isn't how language works.

The point of the example, which it seems is rather wasted on you, is that we already understand the context without needing to see preceding and succeeding sentences. We know how councillors and protestors behave.

Here’s a better example: “The chicken is ready to eat”

The point is that it is on the writer to avoid ambiguity in sentences when needed. About the ‘rule’ I mentioned I’m not sure if it an actual prescriptive grammatical rule or not

Just to add. People living in a society where the councillors have been pro violence for generations would certainly have a different interpretation. Computer translation is very limited because it generally doesn't deal with things like a double entendre or the context any given sentence is written in.

A program would certainly have to be programmed to better adjust to what is a living and changing language not one that is set in stone. The event of the internet has already dramatically changed the evolution of human languages.

Here’s a better example: “The chicken is ready to eat” — I like sushi

It's not a better example, it's just a slightly less interesting example.

The point is that it is on the writer to avoid ambiguity in sentences when needed. — I like sushi

No, that completely misses the point of my example! The point was to show how our immersion in a world of experience allows us to understand things which a computer can't understand.

The CAT tool suggests translations based on what I have already translated. — Daemon

"The store has bananas" might be translated by the CAT tool from another language; perhaps it's translating to French, and it would map "banana" to "banane". That's a mapping of symbols to symbols.

But the referents for bananas aren't in English or French dictionaries... they are in store shelves, inside pies, and so on. What TMF is talking about is a mapping from "banana" to the stuff on the store shelf, the stuff infused within banana bread, the stuff in banana cream pies.

I think TMF is just having problems expressing this... on a forum, we generally use words. But the referents here are not words.

Computers don’t understand context. Or anything. Humans often confuse context.

Your example has different interpretations and are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ how you’ve framed them. If you cannot see that it’s a problem.

I guess you wrote these sentences because you seem to be offended because myself, and another above, have pointed out they are poorly written.

Computer translators are not programmed to understand slang, idioms or metaphors right? I imagine they may have some in their database yet they don’t ‘know’ when and when not to apply the rule - unless the writer has put the saying in special parenthesis?

I guess you wrote these sentences because you seem to be offended because myself, and another above, have pointed out they are poorly written. — I like sushi

I did not write those sentences, I am not offended, they are not poorly written, and you are still completely missing the point.

I guess a question would be: how do you know your experiences are similar enough to allow understanding?

What TMF is talking about is a mapping from "banana" to the stuff on the store shelf, the stuff infused within banana bread, the stuff in banana cream pies. — InPitzotl

Well, in my translation memory, in my computer, I would have a Dutch word, "banaan", and an English translation, "banana". Can you tell me how I could get all that stuff about the store shelf and banana bread into my translation memory? Or the stuff about councillors and protestors?