Thought today’s smbc comic was too funny not to share. Source

  • lad@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    Difference in if that is required and if ‘understanding’ is a quality that a system can have. For instance I feel that a gravity coin sorter is made with understanding but does not have understanding

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      It’s not really possible to give a concrete answer without a concrete definition of “understanding”. But unless you assume supernatural explanations, either systems must be able to “understand”, or humans are also incapable of “understanding”, since we ourselves are physical systems too.

      For instance I feel that a gravity coin sorter is made with understanding but does not have understanding

      I get the example and agree that such a coin sorter does not meaningfully have an understanding of gravity. But IMO it does have a (minimal) understanding of the different coins you’re sorting, since it contains a mechanism for differentiating between their sizes.

      Imagine we replaced the gravity mechanism with a bunch of actuators controlled by organic neurons, which are connected to something like an eye. The neurons fire and cause the actuators to sort the coins. Now, if say the neurons just react to brightness levels it’d be hard to argue there’s an understanding. But if the neurons are part of a real human brain, they can definitely understand the coins etc. and sort based on their understanding.

      As you take away more parts of said brain, when does it lose the understanding?