The idea of the brain as an information processor—a machine manipulating blips of energy according to fathomable rules—has come to...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
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.
The main purpose of the passage is to
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| The idea of the brain as an information processor—a machine manipulating blips of energy according to fathomable rules—has come to dominate neuroscience. | What it says: Scientists mostly think of the brain like a computer that processes information. What it does: Introduces the dominant view in neuroscience Source/Type: Factual statement about scientific consensus Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our starting point - no previous context Visualization: Imagine 100 neuroscientists: 80 of them view the brain as a biological computer processing data Reading Strategy Insight: This establishes the "mainstream view" that we'll likely see challenged |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To defend the mainstream scientific view that brains work like computers by refuting a philosopher's argument against this idea.
Main Point:
Computers that successfully simulate brain functions would be genuinely thinking, not just pretending to think, because both human brains and computers work by processing the same basic element: information.
Why It's Wrong:
• The author doesn't propose conducting any new experiments
• The stomach analogy scenarios (sentences 11-12) are thought experiments, not actual experimental proposals
• The passage is purely theoretical/philosophical discourse without experimental methodology
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage doesn't systematically break down how brain functions work
• While brain function is discussed, it's not analyzed in detail
• The focus is on defending a particular view of brain function, not analyzing the function itself
Why It's Right:
• The author systematically challenges Searle's argument against the brain-as-computer metaphor
• The passage structure moves from presenting Searle's view to dismantling it piece by piece
• The author uses rhetorical questions, counter-analogies, and logical arguments to show Searle's position is flawed
Why It's Wrong:
• There is no contradiction being explained - the author sees the brain-as-computer view as consistent
• The passage presents opposing viewpoints but argues one is wrong, not that both create a genuine contradiction
• Searle's position is treated as mistaken, not as creating a paradox to be resolved
Why It's Wrong:
• The author doesn't walk through the steps of any simulation process
• While simulation is discussed, it's not demonstrated or modeled
• The focus is on the philosophical implications of simulation, not the simulation process itself