[mathgenius]

I don't see why "understanding" is equivalent to mere pattern recognition. Even using this word "recognition", what does that mean? It's another word like "understand". These algorithms are just pattern patterning. They don't even know they are patterning, that is a meta-property assigned in (or by) a context.

[ffwd]

I agree, but I think human knowledge can be represented as either a graph, hierarchy or network of patterns. Like my knowledge of the letter 'A' is a network of connections to patterns 'language', 'english', 'alphabet', whatever else, and if the computer can do the same, it can use that knowledge of that network (as a whole separate entity) to make a decision, so to speak.

Consciousness does come into it since we have a pretty visceral sense of it, and especially when we mentally trawl through our patterns to make some story, but really understanding should just be creating new patterns from existing patterns and the ability to utilize them as distinct entities in some way (rather than being emergent in the system implicitly and only being utilized by accident, say as emergent behavior randomly occurring because of local constraints)

[AndrewKemendo]

I don't see why "understanding" is equivalent to mere pattern recognition.

You're underestimating what goes into high accuracy pattern recognition as well as assuming that patterns exist for only one vector and in a single context.

If I asked you to explain how you "understand" some concept, it will inevitably be how the structure and mechanics of it relate to others and in what context. All of those are simply patterns that are abstracted or made more granular.

For example, how do you "understand" what a car is? You would inevitably describe some definition of a car mechanically and the context in which a car operates. So it's a contained combination of metal and plastic objects and usually liquids with a mechanism to transfer power through gearing and wheels, a compartment for humans, some control mechanisms etc... (definition of the technical), but it can't operate in water (boat) or in the air (airplane).

Each of these things is learned through exposure over time, and recognized as connected, to come up with a "understanding" of a car even before it's formally defined. This is why children ask if cars can fly or go in the water.

[macleodnine]

I whole heartedly agree with this. I think your first paragraph sums up what the majority of people are missing.