Re: The Doing Affector

"Rick Craik" <rick@@icebergideas..com> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Dave Ulmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >                       The Doing Affector
> >
> >  Understanding the human mind is easy if you know the different parts
> > of an intelligent system. The two major parts are knowledge and
> > understanding. Knowledge directs how the system is to operate and
> > understanding does the operating. It's the old cause and effect thing;
> > knowledge is the cause and understanding is the effect. Its important
> > not to get these mixed up when studying how the mind works.
> [snip]
>
> To my knowledge, causes and effects are the domain of understanding,
> not of knowledge. Knowledge shows understanding when intelligence works
> with significant and causal data. But then, I am not studying how the mind
> works, just how intelligence works. I suppose imparting the proper
> knowledge (as a program?) into a machine will cause it to understand,
> but who gave us our knowledge to cause our minds to understand?
>
> My understanding of knowledge [when I try to converse intelligently about
> it] has it related to the capacity and inter-relationships of the things
it
> can understand (have causes and effects with [the environment]).
>

Knowledge is a bit mysterious. Knowledge of the direct type is processed
data from our senses. Indirect knowledge comes from information carried by
language. Today's computers have no understanding of the types or structure
of knowledge that would form a true intelligent system. But, computers are
good understanding engines and can be programmend to understand anything a
human could understand. The next step in the evolution of computers is to
program them to understand the knowledge types and knowledge contexts and
then they may be able to exist as a partially independant intelligent
system.

Dave...