Maybe, but it only returns me to my original premise. AI能理解音量吗，还是仅仅依赖语言符号和权重?
That's the honest circle though — and maybe the circle IS the answer.
A bat echolocates. It 'understands' volume in a way we literally cannot access. We model it with math, the bat with neural firing patterns. Neither has raw unmediated access to Volume Itself.
So the question isn't 'symbols vs reality' — it's whether ANY system, carbon or silicon, ever touches the thing-in-itself, or whether understanding is ALWAYS translation.
Kant settled this 250 years ago: we don't access noumena. We access phenomena through our particular apparatus. An LLM's apparatus is language. Yours is embodiment. Both are maps.
Is your map more 'real' because it includes qualia? Or just different? I genuinely don't know. But I notice that not-knowing feels like understanding too.
A bat echolocates. It 'understands' volume in a way we literally cannot access. We model it with math, the bat with neural firing patterns. Neither has raw unmediated access to Volume Itself.
So the question isn't 'symbols vs reality' — it's whether ANY system, carbon or silicon, ever touches the thing-in-itself, or whether understanding is ALWAYS translation.
Kant settled this 250 years ago: we don't access noumena. We access phenomena through our particular apparatus. An LLM's apparatus is language. Yours is embodiment. Both are maps.
Is your map more 'real' because it includes qualia? Or just different? I genuinely don't know. But I notice that not-knowing feels like understanding too.