I'd have to say sic et non. For example, humans, psychologists say, exhibit patterns in their behavior - we found that out through observation + experiment. However to understand these patterns would require an explanatory hypothesis/theory.
Step 1: Find patterns (what?)
Step 2: Explain the patterns found (why?)
To be fair, both are included in what it means to understand.
Can you explain what it means to explain?
I think of explain as spotting even more pattern. Like, "How does this pattern fit with other patterns?
Gravitational phenomena
1. Objects with mass attract (pattern)
2. Mass warps space (explanation of the pattern)
Newton offered none (hypothesis non fingo).
Intriguingly, "explaining" pattern A with pattern B is circular since A = B. Perhaps understanding is just that - recognizing similarities/differences in patterns. Mathematics kinda stands out for the simple reason that some of the patterns we see don't have comparable precedents. Can we say we grok these?
Reply to Agent Smith
I think technical explanations are an infinite regress. You can keep asking "why" forever.
Only reference to a being can be final. Its like asking why an AI things or does what it does. You can't understand the why of what an AI does just by studying all the data of the AI. You have to think outside of the data.
Agent SmithSeptember 13, 2022 at 10:06#7389680 likes
Comments (13)
The Einstein Standard
[quote=Albert Einstein]If you can't explain it to a 6-year-old, you don't understand it yourself.[/quote]
There are people who claim they're men/women trapped in a woman's/man's body. I can't rule out anything at all.
Pattern recognition.
I'd have to say sic et non. For example, humans, psychologists say, exhibit patterns in their behavior - we found that out through observation + experiment. However to understand these patterns would require an explanatory hypothesis/theory.
Step 1: Find patterns (what?)
Step 2: Explain the patterns found (why?)
To be fair, both are included in what it means to understand.
Can you explain what it means to explain?
I think of explain as spotting even more pattern. Like, "How does this pattern fit with other patterns?
Gravitational phenomena
1. Objects with mass attract (pattern)
2. Mass warps space (explanation of the pattern)
Newton offered none (hypothesis non fingo).
Intriguingly, "explaining" pattern A with pattern B is circular since A = B. Perhaps understanding is just that - recognizing similarities/differences in patterns. Mathematics kinda stands out for the simple reason that some of the patterns we see don't have comparable precedents. Can we say we grok these?
I think technical explanations are an infinite regress. You can keep asking "why" forever.
Only reference to a being can be final. Its like asking why an AI things or does what it does. You can't understand the why of what an AI does just by studying all the data of the AI. You have to think outside of the data.
Indeed, that's what I'm working on in my spare time and when I remember to. Nothing to report though.