You can, of course, define understanding as a metaphysical property that only people have. If you then try to use that definition to determine whether a machine understands, you'll have a clear answer for yourself. The whole operation, however, does not lead to much understanding of anything.

>> Understanding, when used in its unqualified form, implies people possessing same.

> You can, of course, define understanding as a metaphysical property that only people have.

This is not what I said.

What I said was unqualified use of "understanding" implies understanding people possess. Thus it being a metaphysical property by definition and existing strictly within a person.

Many other entities possess their own form of understanding. Most would agree mammals do. Some would say any living creature does.

I would make the case that every program compiler (C, C#, C++, D, Java, Kotlin, Pascal, etc.) possesses understanding of a particular sort.

All of the aforementioned examples differ from the kind of understanding people possess.