[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.