What Is the Difference Between Knowledge and Understanding? Michael Strevens

Notebook per

What Is the Difference Between Knowledge and Understanding?

Michael Strevens

Citation (APA): Strevens, M. (2014). What Is the Difference Between Knowledge and Understanding? [Kindle Android version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com

---

Parte introduttiva

Nota - Posizione 2

il pc che gioca a jeopatdy il cervello: lista e associa simbolicamente il pc: compie associazioni statistiche le associazioni statistiche non consentono di costruire il concetto di realtà... quindi di comprendere la realtà di un fatto o di un xsonaggio il pc non sa cosa rende corretta la sua risposta i fisici sanno cosa sia una superposizione ma difficilmente comprendono il concetto la comprensione è sempre un fenomeno interiore al limite segnalato da confidenza ed esperienza x il pc l associazione statistica è fonte del vero x noi è un prodotto collatrrale che segnala il vero alcuni fiosofi ritengono che anche la comprensione abbia base statistica solo che tutto avviene a livello neuronale

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 2

What Is the Difference Between Knowledge and Understanding? By Michael Strevens

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 6

When Watson, a computer, appeared on Jeopardy, its answers illustrated the difference between knowledge and understanding.

Nota - Posizione 7

PC E MENTE

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 8

Everyone knows something. Some people know a lot. But no human being knows as much, apparently, as Watson

Nota - Posizione 9

WATSON CONOSCE

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 15

Surely it knows that James Cagney was an actor, not a “real-life” gangster?

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 18

Whereas we summon up a list of gangsters or U.S. cities and then ask ourselves whether they meet the other criteria explicitly imposed or implicitly suggested by the clue, Watson consults a sophisticated table of statistical associations between words,

Nota - Posizione 19

LISTA

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 25

How could a table of statistical associations comprehend the difference between fact and fiction,

Nota - Posizione 25

VERO E FINTO

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 29

grasp on the facts

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 31

There are two kinds: understanding language and understanding the world. Consider this sentence: Δέδυκε μεν ἀ σελάννα.

Nota - Posizione 32

CAPIRE UNA LINGUA E IL MONDO

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 35

Watson’s problem is that it does not understand the world.

Nota - Posizione 36

WATSON PROBLEM

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 36

I put that question aside.) It gives answers, but it has no grasp of what makes its answers correct.

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 38

Perhaps you know that Bach wrote fugues, but you don’t understand what a fugue is— the more so , perhaps , if you are tone deaf.

Nota - Posizione 39

SORDO CHE ASCOLTA BACH

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 41

superposition

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 55

A different test for understanding investigates abilities rather than internal imagery,

Nota - Posizione 56

IMMAGINAZIONE

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 59

Imagine a more versatile version of Watson, proficient in answering questions generally,

Nota - Posizione 60

WATSON PERFETTO

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 64

its expertise is parasitic:

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 67

connections.

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 69

You grasp why

Nota - Posizione 69

PERCHÈ

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 70

For you the statistics are a byproduct of what really matters,

Nota - Posizione 70

STATISTICHE

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 71

Watson lives in a world where there are no such relations: all it sees are statistics.

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 76

Many scientists believe that, at bottom, our thought is implemented in neural networks that make statistical associations.

Nota - Posizione 76

COSCIENZA

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 84

underlying structures

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 85

direct experience of the subject

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 87

skeptical views,

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 91

consciousness?

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 92

other people

The empty brain di Robert Epstein

• The empty brain
• Your brain does not process information, retrieve knowledge or store memories. In short: your brain is not a computer
• No matter how hard they try, brain scientists and cognitive psychologists will never find a copy of Beethoven’s 5th Symphony in the brain – or copies of words, pictures, grammatical rules or any other kinds of environmental stimuli.
• Bambino. Senses, reflexes and learning mechanisms – this is what we start with, and it is quite a lot, when you think about it. If we lacked any of these capabilities at birth, we would probably have trouble surviving. But here is what we are not born with: information, data, rules, software, knowledge, lexicons, representations, algorithms, programs, models, memories, images, processors, subroutines, encoders, decoders, symbols, or buffers –
• We don’t store words or the rules that tell us how to manipulate them. We don’t create representations of visual stimuli, store them in a short-term memory buffer, and then transfer the representation into a long-term memory device. We don’t retrieve information or images or words from memory registers. Computers do all of these things, but organisms do not.
• Computers, quite literally, process information – numbers, letters, words, formulas, images. The information first has to be encoded into a format computers can use, which means patterns of ones and zeroes (‘bits’) organised into small chunks (‘bytes’). On my computer, each byte contains 8 bits, and a certain pattern of those bits stands for the letter d... Computers, quite literally, move these patterns from place to place in different physical storage areas etched into electronic components.
• The mathematician John von Neumann stated flatly that the function of the human nervous system is ‘prima facie digital’, drawing parallel after parallel between the components of the computing machines of the day and the components of the human brain
• Ray Kurzweil’s book How to Create a Mind: The Secret of Human Thought Revealed (2013), exemplifies this perspective, speculating about the ‘algorithms’ of the brain, how the brain ‘processes data’, and even how it superficially resembles integrated circuits in its structure.
• But the IP metaphor is, after all, just another metaphor – a story we tell to make sense of something we don’t actually understand. And like all the metaphors that preceded it, it will certainly be cast aside at some point – either replaced by another metaphor or, in the end, replaced by actual knowledge.
• Just over a year ago, on a visit to one of the world’s most prestigious research institutes, I challenged researchers there to account for intelligent human behaviour without reference to any aspect of the IP metaphor. They couldn’t do it...
• Reasonable premise #1: all computers are capable of behaving intelligently. Reasonable premise #2: all computers are information processors. Faulty conclusion: all entities that are capable of behaving intelligently are information processors.
• In a classroom exercise I have conducted many times over the years, I begin by recruiting a student to draw a detailed picture of a dollar bill – ‘as detailed as possible’, I say – on the blackboard in front of the room. When the student has finished, I cover the drawing with a sheet of paper, remove a dollar bill from my wallet, tape it to the board, and ask the student to repeat the task. When he or she is done, I remove the cover from the first drawing, and the class comments on the differences...What is the problem? Don’t we have a ‘representation’ of the dollar bill ‘stored’ in a ‘memory register’ in our brains? Can’t we just ‘retrieve’ it and use it to make our drawing? Obviously not, and a thousand years of neuroscience will never locate a representation of a dollar bill stored inside the human brain for the simple reason that it is not there to be found
• no one really has the slightest idea how the brain changes after we have learned to sing a song or recite a poem. But neither the song nor the poem has been ‘stored’ in it. The brain has simply changed in an orderly way that now allows us to sing the song or recite the poem under certain conditions.
• Fortunately, because the IP metaphor is not even slightly valid, we will never have to worry about a human mind going amok in cyberspace; alas, we will also never achieve immortality through downloading. This is not only because of the absence of consciousness software in the brain; there is a deeper problem here – let’s call it the uniqueness problem – which is both inspirational and depressing.
• Worse still, even if we had the ability to take a snapshot of all of the brain’s 86 billion neurons and then to simulate the state of those neurons in a computer, that vast pattern would mean nothing outside the body of the brain that produced it. This is perhaps the most egregious way in which the IP metaphor has distorted our thinking about human functioning
• Meanwhile, vast sums of money are being raised for brain research, based in some cases on faulty ideas and promises that cannot be kept. The most blatant instance of neuroscience gone awry, documented recently in a report in Scientific American, concerns the $1.3 billion Human Brain Project launched by the European Union in 2013. Convinced by the charismatic Henry Markram that he could create a simulation of the entire human brain on a supercomputer by the year 2023, and that such a model would revolutionise the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease and other disorders, EU officials funded his project with virtually no restrictions. Less than two years into it, the project turned into a ‘brain wreck’, and Markram was asked to step down

Che depressione!

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2006/09/an_evolutionary.html#

Fede cieca

Scrivendo questo rigo ho in mente una cosa da dire.

No! Dice il matrerialista bloccandomi: tu non hai in mente proprio nulla, l' unica cosa che "hai" è un cervello che "formicola" in un certo modo stando rinsaldato nella sua scatola cranica. Tutto lì, il resto è illusione.

Ok, ho un cervello che frizza nella sua scatola cranica, questo lo so. Però, oltre al cervello, caro materialista, ti assicuro che avevo anche in mente qualcosa mentre scrivevo il rigo di cui sopra. Lo saprò, mica sono scemo. Lo so con una certezza che è almeno pari a quella con cui avvisto all' Osservatorio il transito delle comete.

Che avessi in mente qualcosa non devo dimostramelo, e spero di non doverlo dimostrare nemmeno a te, poichè è l' unica cosa certa in questo caos. Da lì, semmai, devo partire per capire meglio come stanno le cose in questo mondo.

Questi materialisti vè... mi sembra molto poco "scientifico" dire che la realtà debba coincidere con qualcosa che la nostra teoria (fisica o chimica) riesce a spiegare adeguatamente.

Non c' è un bel po' di dogmatismo in tutto cio'? Un dogmatismo che rasenta la cecità.

E' quel particolare dogmatismo a cui alludeva Bergson quando diceva: "la fede cieca non sposta le Montagne, la fede cieca non vede nemmeno che ci sono delle montagne da spostare".

link



p.s. ecco una metafora felice: la mente è un astronauta, il cervello è la sua astronave.