What does it mean to "understand"?

[xerosaburu]

Please use words that have precise definitions. I hate soft-headed new-age thinking.

[Cory Duchesne]

To understand is to see. Hence the expression: "I see what you mean"

[Tomas]

Please use words that have precise definitions. I hate soft-headed new-age thinking.

Can you dig it?

[Tomas]

Please use words that have precise definitions. I hate soft-headed new-age thinking.

Right on!

[brokenhead]

Please use words that have precise definitions. I hate soft-headed new-age thinking.

When that part of your mind that automatically responds "why" to an assertion, or a perception of an assertion or an event, momentarily does not do so. When further elucidation becomes unnecessary or superfluous. When a new perception fits into a recognizable category or pattern; when a perception of an occurence or an assertion matches such a recognizable pattern or category, it thus becomes relatable, i.e., that you can in the future relate it to someone else. It goes much deeper than that, though. A symbol, for instance, may be understood to mean different things to different people. I may understand a symbol the same way you do, but I may also understand it at additional levels, or be able to attach meanings to it of which you are entirely unaware. People usually use the phrase "I understand" when they believe that at least a minimal common ground has been achieved between themselves and the person making an assertion, or when they feel they can recount an event or concept to another in such a way as to make that other person believe that such a common ground has been achieved. Often times, additional information about an event or an assertion can be "too much information," or tend to degrade one's understanding.

[daybrown]

If you want precise definitions, learn Tocharian. You dont get it in English.

Like everyone else, they had words for "men" and "women". But they also had a special suffix, "-os" which meant a ratioal sentient being. Their verbs had more cases. Not only past, present, and future, but also the past which was past, and is no more, the past which might have been, is now, and shall be, or the past that says nothing of what was later. They always knew what the meaning of "is" is.

Curiously, the imperative case only exists with stuff like "pick me up!" or "give me!", the kind of thing children and non-sentient beings say. I could go into why they spoke like this, but dunno if anyone would understand.

[Unidian]

I'm sure it's far above our feeble capacities.

But seriously, feel free to go on. I'm actually interested in this.

[|read|]

It's probably just hard to explain. But I'm interested too, so give it a shot, if you would be so kind. :)

[Laird]

|read|! You're here after all. Where are you in the "the more entrenched injustices of the world..." thread? You told me to go first, I assumed that that meant that you'd go second. Did I need to actually invite you? If so, consider yourself invited.

[|read|]

I'm just busy, Laird. I'm afraid I can't guarantee I'll be able to participate here with any regularity, but I will when I can. I'm sure you'll get along fine without me. :p

[|read|]

In my dictionary, to understand means to have the ability to take some input information and arrive at some output information, where the input information is said to correspond to the output information in the context of whatever you are said to understand. Of course, it's a matter of degree - can you take any arbitrary inputs in the entire to domain of discourse and arrive at the corresponding outputs, or can you only do it for some smaller set of inputs, and how large is your set compared to my set?

For example, to understand a given logic is to have the ability to take some premises and arrive at some conclusion, where the premises imply the conclusion by the inference rules of the logic. But can you take any given premises and prove all conclusions they imply, or are there some proofs you can't do, and are there proofs you can do but I can't?

For another example, to understand EM fields in a theoretical sense is to take some equations representing some charge and current distributions and arrive at some other equations representing some electric and magnetic vector fields, where the field equations follow from the distribution equations by mathematical derivation. (But can you take any given distributions and derive the fields, or are there some problems you can't do...)

You also understand EM fields in an empirical sense if those equations map to actual measurements. It's possible to understand something theoretically but not empirically, if the equations don't map to measurements (or you don't know that they do). Mathematicians solve lots of complex problems with no concrete application, or at least none yet. Scientists focus on things they can understand empirically as well as theoretically.

I guess I think of philosophers in the same bucket as mathematicians and logicians, but philosophical abstractions are less likely to find concrete applications, let alone useful applications. To understand QRS-philosophy is to take the facts QRS chose to focus on plus the QRS assumptions (veiled as they may be) and arrive at the QRS-approved brand of enlightenment. Of course, to understand QRS in a theoretical sense does not necessarily mean you think the assumptions and the tenets of "enlightenment" map to reality.

[brokenhead]

Of course, to understand QRS in a theoretical sense does not necessarily mean you think the assumptions and the tenets of "enlightenment" map to reality.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[snow bunny]

If you want precise definitions, learn Tocharian. You dont get it in English.

Like everyone else, they had words for "men" and "women". But they also had a special suffix, "-os" which meant a ratioal sentient being. Their verbs had more cases. Not only past, present, and future, but also the past which was past, and is no more, the past which might have been, is now, and shall be, or the past that says nothing of what was later. They always knew what the meaning of "is" is.

Curiously, the imperative case only exists with stuff like "pick me up!" or "give me!", the kind of thing children and non-sentient beings say. I could go into why they spoke like this, but dunno if anyone would understand.

how about an offshoot about perfect punctuation? Do I capitalize or not? I just assume everything I write is punctuated perfectly, and if I make a typo, then I assume it is just that a typo everything should be readable in 1's and 0's, and if it's not, then you (not you daybrown) are incorrect. I have never heard of Tocharian, but I heard of something else which is supposedly another attempt at a universal language, but I forget what they call it. I don't think it was Tocharian, tho.

That thread really got me thinking, so I just figured I would type my perfect code into the message board, but then all your imperfect translators can decipher it however they will.

[brokenhead]

I have never heard of Tocharian, but I heard of something else which is supposedly another attempt at a universal language, but I forget what they call it. I don't think it was Tocharian, tho.

You're thinking of Esperanto, maybe?

[snow bunny]

That sounds right, something about a language that didn't quite catch on, not a successful universal, but I guess we would all know about it if it had worked properly. You could probably have just thrown any word out there, and I would have gone for it, however.