I will argue that in the literal sense the programmed computer understands what the car and the adding machine understand, namely, exactly nothing.

We often attribute 'understanding' and other cognitive predicates by metaphor and analogy to cars, adding machines, and other artifacts, but nothing is proved by such attributions.

It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too.

Where questions of style and exposition are concerned I try to follow a simple maxim: if you can't say it clearly you don't understand it yourself.

When mobile, computer or machine rules the mind, man himself becomes machine and behaves like machine.

You argue with the umpire because there is nothing else you can do about it.