Re: what is understanding?

[twayburn@juno.com (Thomas L Wayburn)]

On Wed, 09 Jul 1997 11:22:29 brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net> writes:
> At 10:45 7/9/97 PST, Tom wrote:
> > On Wed, 09 Jul 1997 08:32:00 brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net> 
> writes:
>
> > > I would like to offer with my usual modesty, a definition of 
> > > 'understanding' which is objectively measurable and does not 
> > > suffer from the semantics of
> > > educational or psychological jargon.
> > >
> > > Understanding can be measured by first providing leading details of
> > > the physical behavior of some mechanism or process, and then 
> > > establishing if the subject can provide predictions of outcomes 
> > > and results for given
> > > variations in the mechanism's states or configuration.
> > >  The requisite behavior on the part of the subject is the ability 
> to 
> > > form a coherent model of the mechanism which she can manipulate in 
> > > accordance with the given configuration.
> > > You will see that this is close to the idea of 'physical 
> intuition',
> > > a quantity which Maxwell, Feinman (sp?) and Einstein are said to 
> have
> > > possessed in great measure.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>
> > > Altus OK
> > HI Brian, This is good, but with a little more thought, we can do 
> better.
> > Regards / Tom
> I personally doubt that Tom can come up with as good a definition of
> 'understanding' as mine, but being a very modest person, I'm willing
> to read over what he may offer in a spirit of helpful critiquing.
>
> Regards       :-)
> brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>
> Altus OK
Good for you,  Brian,  I have posted my preliminary message, but to work
out all the morphisms, mental images, minds' eyes, percepts, and
concepts, it is necessary to translate a lot of math into Roman
characters without "hats" and "twiddles" and  get it written down in an
understandable manner.   Please give me a day or two.    I am working
from my own copy; so, there's not much new to work up, but I am striving
for rigor, which may not appeal to physicists who deal with reasonably
concrete thingamajigs.  Also, it may not be possible to ascertain that a
student  has understood a teacher in the classroom except hypothetically.
 Nevertheless, I think more can be done along those lines than I have
bothered with heretofore.   I believe the discussion has come home to *my kitchen* this time.   Until my next  posting  / Tom