The idea of the brain as an information processor—a machine manipulating blips of energy according to fathomable rules—has come to dominate neuroscience. However, one enemy of the brain-as-computer metaphor is John R. Searle, a philosopher who argues that since computers simply follow algorithms, they cannot deal with important aspects of human thought such as meaning and content. Computers are syntactic, rather than semantic, creatures. People, on the other hand, understand meaning because they have something Searle obscurely calls the causal powers of the brain.
Yet how would a brain work if not by reducing what it learns about the world to information—some kind of code that can be transmitted from neuron to neuron? What else could meaning and content be? If the code can be cracked, a computer should be able to simulate it, at least in principle. But even if a computer could simulate the workings of the mind, Searle would claim that the machine would not really be thinking; it would just be acting as if it were. His argument proceeds thus: if a computer were used to simulate a stomach, with the stomach's churnings faithfully reproduced on a video screen, the machine would not be digesting real food. It would just be blindly manipulating the symbols that generate the visual display.
Suppose, though, that a stomach were simulated using plastic tubes, a motor to do the churning, a supply of digestive juices, and a timing mechanism. If food went in one end of the device, what came out the other end would surely be digested food. Brains, unlike stomachs, are information processors, and if one information processor were made to simulate another information processor, it is hard to see how one and not the other could be said to think. Simulated thoughts and real thoughts are made of the same element: information. The representations of the world that humans carry around in their heads are already simulations. To accept Searle's argument, one would have to deny the most fundamental notion in psychology and neuroscience: that brains work by processing information.
6) Which of the following most accurately represents Searle's criticism of the brain-as-computer metaphor, as that criticism is described in the passage?
(A) The metaphor is not experimentally verifiable.
(B) The metaphor does not take into account the unique powers of the brain.
(C) The metaphor suggests that a brain's functions can be simulated as easily as those of a stomach.
(D) The metaphor suggests that a computer can simulate the workings of the mind by using the codes of neural transmission.
(E) The metaphor is unhelpful because both the brain and the computer process information.
Passage: Searle
Question: Inference–Metaphor
The Simple StoryMost neuroscientists think of the brain as an information processor. The philosopher John Searle disagrees with this view, arguing that people can understand meaning and content, while computers cannot. The author, however, disagrees with Searle. She presents one of Searle’s arguments, related to simulated digestion, and refutes it. She then concludes that Searle’s argument is incompatible with a fundamental notion in psychology and neuroscience: that brains work by processing information.
Sample Passage MapHere is one way to map this passage. (Note: abbreviate as desired!)
P1:
brain = info processor
Searle: computers can’t really think
Searle: human brain has ‘causal powers’
P2:
Author: brain = info processor
Searle: computer stomach not really digesting
→ computer brain not really thinking
P3:
Author: simulated stomach COULD really digest
Computer is the same, but with info
So: simulated thought = thought
Step 1: Identify the QuestionThe question asks for a statement that accurately represents Searle’s criticism. The right answer will not be written explicitly in the passage, but will accurately reflect what is written there. Therefore, this is an Inference question.
Step 2: Find the SupportSearle’s criticism of the brain-as-computer metaphor is described in the first paragraph.
“…since computers simply follow algorithms, they cannot deal with important aspects of human thought such as meaning and content. Computers are syntactic, rather than semantic, creatures. People, on the other hand, understand meaning because they have something Searle obscurely calls the
causal powers of the brain.”
Step 3: Predict an AnswerSearle’s criticism is that a computer that follows algorithms can’t understand meaning and content, while the human mind can understand these things. This makes a computer an inaccurate metaphor for the human mind.
Step 4: Eliminate and Find a Match(A) Searle’s views on experimentation are not described in the passage.
(B) CORRECT. Searle’s criticism is that the human mind has a property that a computer lacks:
the causal powers of the brain.
(C) Searle uses this example in order to argue that the stomach, like the brain, cannot be accurately simulated by a computer.
(D) Searle’s criticism does not involve the specifics of how information is transmitted in the brain, or whether a computer can simulate this transmission. Rather, Searle criticizes the implications of such a simulation: a computer simulation, he argues, wouldn’t actually be thinking.
(E) The fact that brains and computers both process information makes the metaphor between them more accurate, not less.
_________________
"Be challenged at EVERY MOMENT."“Strength doesn’t come from what you can do. It comes from overcoming the things you once thought you couldn’t.”"Each stage of the journey is crucial to attaining new heights of knowledge."Rules for posting in verbal forum | Please DO NOT post short answer in your post!
Advanced Search : https://gmatclub.com/forum/advanced-search/