User Controls

Umderstanding

  1. #1
    Common De-mominator African Astronaut
    To me the most magical part of the experience of consciousness, is the very act of "understanding".

    When a concept clicks and suddenly you just "get" it.

    But really, do we get how we get it?

    To me it seems that understanding is a matter of fitting our intuitions in a perfectly consistent way.
    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
  2. #2
    Common De-mominator African Astronaut


    Penrose has an interesting point about non-computability with the chess example. A human with an understanding of the rules will immediately recognize the hindrance to progression but a computer provably cannot due to Godel's incompleteness theorem.
  3. #3
    Common De-mominator African Astronaut
  4. #4
    aldra JIDF Controlled Opposition
    Originally posted by Common De-mominator To me the most magical part of the experience of consciousness, is the very act of "understanding".

    When a concept clicks and suddenly you just "get" it.

    But really, do we get how we get it?

    To me it seems that understanding is a matter of fitting our intuitions in a perfectly consistent way.

    it seems more about accumulating enough data to build a model

    then hating the model and smashing it on the floor
    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
  5. #5
    Common De-mominator African Astronaut
    Originally posted by aldra it seems more about accumulating enough data to build a model

    then hating the model and smashing it on the floor

    The problem is that you can make a working model of something you have absolutely no real understanding of. For example you can teach a horse to count, but it certainly doesn't understand what's going on. In fact you could say the same of any digital system: it is competent without comprehension.
  6. #6
    Originally posted by Common De-mominator The problem is that you can make a working model of something you have absolutely no real understanding of. For example you can teach a horse to count, but it certainly doesn't understand what's going on. In fact you could say the same of any digital system: it is competent without comprehension.

    this is correct.

    obviously you have no understanding of analogies and how their made but that didnt prevent you from coming up with a shitty one.
  7. #7
    also just because you understood it doesnt mean thats how it works.

    speculative models are chocking the field of quantum mechanics and gravities to the brim.
  8. #8
    Common De-mominator African Astronaut
    Originally posted by vindicktive vinny also just because you understood it doesnt mean thats how it works.

    speculative models are chocking the field of quantum mechanics and gravities to the brim.

    Understanding the model and understanding how something actually works can be two different things. You can build and understand any number of models that don't reflect reality.
  9. #9
    Lanny creature of the mesothelioma era
    deleted several posts, this thread is in a topical forum, please keep it on topic.
  10. #10
    Common De-mominator African Astronaut
    Originally posted by vindicktive vinny this is correct.

    obviously you have no understanding of analogies and how their made but that didnt prevent you from coming up with a shitty one.

    There was no analogy you illiterate chunk. They were actual examples.
  11. #11
    Common De-mominator African Astronaut
    Originally posted by vindicktive vinny also just because you understood it doesnt mean thats how it works.

    speculative models are chocking the field of quantum mechanics and gravities to the brim.

    I literally said that retard.
  12. #12
    Originally posted by Common De-mominator I literally said that retard.

    so in other words understanding is just fantasies.

    its no more different than faith in god and the idea that some dance, when performed causes clouds to coalesce into rains.
  13. #13
    Common De-mominator African Astronaut
    Originally posted by vindicktive vinny so in other words understanding is just fantasies.

    its no more different than faith in god and the idea that some dance, when performed causes clouds to coalesce into rains.

    Not really. There's clearly a difference between understanding and not, as argued by Penrose.
  14. #14
    Originally posted by Common De-mominator Not really. There's clearly a difference between understanding and not, as argued by Penrose.

    i dont know who penrose is but you already admited that understanding doesnt equal reality.

    yiu can understand rain as a nautral phenomena or acts of god but they both are equally .... an understanding.
  15. #15
    Common De-mominator African Astronaut
    Ok. What's your point?
  16. #16
    gadzooks Dark Matter [keratinize my mild-tasting blossoming]
    One theory of conceptual understanding is analogies all the way down.

    We all have an intuitive understanding of certain things we encounter every day, and then use analogies to these things to construct conceptual schema for more complex topics.

    A common way to teach the science of electrical circuitry is to compare current to water flow. We have a more intuitive understanding of how liquids flow because we interact with taps and toilets and various plumbing phenomena on a daily basis.
  17. #17
    Common De-mominator African Astronaut
    What I'm really interested in is where the runner hits the road: what information structure comprises "understanding" a physical level? What is the heuristic?
  18. #18
    gadzooks Dark Matter [keratinize my mild-tasting blossoming]
    Originally posted by Common De-mominator What I'm really interested in is where the runner hits the road: what information structure comprises "understanding" a physical level? What is the heuristic?

    Well, we're pretty much right back at the Hard Problem of Consciousness thread.

    We can talk about knowledge in theoretical cognitive terms or we can try to reduce it into neurological representations.

    Ultimately, the running theory, at least last time I was learning about it, is that we create associational networks, both physically (in terms of interconnected neurons) as well as cognitively (in terms of interconnected concepts... In a taxinomical structure like animal ==> feline ==> cat ==> "some specific cat we once knew", etc).
  19. #19
    gadzooks Dark Matter [keratinize my mild-tasting blossoming]
    But it's still all gonna be speculation and theory.
  20. #20
    Originally posted by Common De-mominator Ok. What's your point?

    understandings are nothing more than make believes.
Jump to Top