That's a pretty useless answer. Just because you cannot fully define something doesn't mean you cannot define parts of it or have different useful definitions of it.

That doesn't resolve the question. It just describes how to move on while ignoring the obvious elephant in the room

And how is that different from resolving the question?

The problem still exists

I thought problem was you couldn't get anywhere because of the question, but you're saying the problem is the question didn't get an answer that satisfies your taste?

The problem, as stated by the parent, is that it is "still pretty unclear at a fundamental level what it means to understand, learn, or conceptualize things."

Which Wittgenstein didn't resolve, he describes how to kick the can down the road. Which is fine, every science needs to make assumptions to move on, but in no way is that a "resolution" to the problem of "what it means to understand, learn, or conceptualize things."

A strict definition is almost never required outside maths. We got so far being unable to define "woman" it turns out.

The most naive meaning of understanding, such as "demonstrating ability to apply a concept to a wide range of situations" is good enough for many cases, Goedel be damned.

Agree. But computers are applied math. So it stands to reason that neutral networks require a strict definition

Your brain is a neural network. All education is therefore applied maths as well, right?

The problem doesn't exist in a meaningful sense if one can't define it clearly. Might as well say the wellabigomboopita still exists.

I am not referring to a formal definition of the word "understanding", but to a potential theory about the processes involved.

Wittgenstein's "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." does not help with that.

Didn't Wittgenstein shift a bit later in career. All 'word' play is built on other words, and language turns into a self-referential house of cards? Didn't his grand plan to define everything fall apart and he gave up on it?

(I might be mis-remembering later Wittgenstein)

That sounds clever, but it is actually devoid of both insight and information. There is nothing to be learned from that wit, witty as it is. Contrast with the question it is cleverly dismissing, which could potentially help us move technology forward.

Betrand paradox (in probability) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_paradox_(probability)) is a great counter example of how you can have a meaningful discussion with a poorly defined question. A bit of a meta example, as the meaningful discussion of how what appears to be a well defined question isn't, and how specifically defining a question can give different answer. It also shows that there are multiple correct answers for different definitions of the question. While they disagree, they are all correct within their own definition.

Back to the topic of neural networks, just talking about why the question is hard to clearly define can be a meaningful discussion.