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 |
| 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. | What it says: Philosopher Searle disagrees - he thinks computers can't handle meaning like humans do What it does: Introduces the opposing viewpoint and its main argument Source/Type: Searle's philosophical position Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly contrasts with sentence 1 - "However" signals the opposition to the dominant view Visualization: Mainstream scientists (80/100) vs. Searle (1 philosopher) - David vs. Goliath scenario Reading Strategy Insight: Classic RC setup: dominant view vs. challenger. Expect the passage to explore this debate |
| Computers are syntactic, rather than semantic, creatures. | What it says: Computers deal with symbols and rules, not actual meaning What it does: Restates Searle's argument in simpler terms Source/Type: Searle's view (continuation) Connection to Previous Sentences: This is NOT new information! It's a clearer way of saying what sentence 2 told us - computers "cannot deal with meaning and content" Visualization: Computer sees "DOG" as three letters to manipulate, while humans see the furry, barking animal Reading Strategy Insight: Feel relieved here - this is simplification, not new complexity |
| People, on the other hand, understand meaning because they have something Searle obscurely calls the causal powers of the brain. | What it says: Humans understand real meaning through something Searle vaguely calls "causal powers" What it does: Completes Searle's argument by explaining the human side Source/Type: Searle's view (with author's editorial comment - "obscurely") Connection to Previous Sentences: Builds on sentence 3 by showing the human side of the computer vs. human distinction Visualization: Humans have special "meaning-understanding power" that computers lack What We Know So Far: Mainstream view (brain = computer) vs. Searle (computers ≠ brains because only brains understand real meaning) What We Don't Know Yet: What the author thinks about this debate |
| 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 it says: But wait - brains must work by processing information between neurons, right? What it does: Begins the author's challenge to Searle Source/Type: Author's rhetorical question/argument Connection to Previous Sentences: "Yet" signals a shift - the author is questioning Searle's view from sentences 2-4 Visualization: Brain with 100 billion neurons passing coded messages like a biological internet Reading Strategy Insight: The author is entering the debate! This rhetorical question suggests the author supports the brain-as-computer view |
| What else could meaning and content be? | What it says: What could meaning be other than information? What it does: Reinforces the previous rhetorical question Source/Type: Author's rhetorical question Connection to Previous Sentences: This restates the challenge from sentence 5 in simpler terms - if not information, then what? Reading Strategy Insight: Double rhetorical questions = author feels confident in this point |
| If the code can be cracked, a computer should be able to simulate it, at least in principle. | What it says: If we can figure out the brain's code, computers should be able to copy it What it does: Extends the author's argument logically Source/Type: Author's logical conclusion Connection to Previous Sentences: Builds on sentences 5-6: if brains work through information codes, then computers could potentially simulate them Visualization: Scientists crack the "brain code" like breaking an encryption, then program it into computers |
| 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. | What it says: Searle would say even a perfect computer copy wouldn't really think - just fake it What it does: Returns to Searle's position to show his counterargument Source/Type: Searle's predicted response Connection to Previous Sentences: Addresses the scenario from sentence 7 - even if computers could simulate brains, Searle would still object Visualization: Computer perfectly imitating human conversation but being "hollow" inside - like an actor playing a role |
| 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. | What it says: Searle uses this analogy: a computer showing stomach movements on screen isn't actually digesting food What it does: Introduces Searle's analogy to support his position Source/Type: Searle's analogy Connection to Previous Sentences: Provides concrete example of the abstract point from sentence 8 Visualization: Computer screen showing animated stomach churning while real food sits undigested nearby Reading Strategy Insight: Analogies in RC passages usually simplify complex arguments |
| It would just be blindly manipulating the symbols that generate the visual display. | What it says: The computer would just be moving symbols around without understanding What it does: Restates the stomach analogy's conclusion Source/Type: Searle's analogy (conclusion) Connection to Previous Sentences: This explains WHY the stomach simulation doesn't actually digest - connects back to the "syntactic vs. semantic" idea from sentence 3 Reading Strategy Insight: This ties back to earlier concepts - good RC passages create these connections |
| 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. | What it says: But imagine building a physical artificial stomach with real parts What it does: Begins the author's counter-analogy to challenge Searle Source/Type: Author's alternative analogy Connection to Previous Sentences: "Suppose, though" signals the author is modifying Searle's stomach analogy to make a different point Visualization: Artificial stomach machine with real tubes, motor, and digestive fluids - like a food processing factory |
| If food went in one end of the device, what came out the other end would surely be digested food. | What it says: This physical artificial stomach would actually digest real food What it does: Completes the counter-analogy Source/Type: Author's logical conclusion Connection to Previous Sentences: Shows the outcome of the physical simulation from sentence 11 Visualization: Raw food entering artificial stomach, digested nutrients coming out - real function achieved |
| 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. | What it says: Since brains process information, a computer simulating that information processing should also think What it does: Applies the analogy to brains and delivers the author's main argument Source/Type: Author's central argument Connection to Previous Sentences: Connects the stomach analogy (sentences 9-12) back to the brain debate, supporting the brain-as-computer view from sentence 1 Visualization: Brain and computer both processing the same information streams - if function is identical, thinking should be identical Reading Strategy Insight: This is the author's key point - everything has been building to this moment |
| Simulated thoughts and real thoughts are made of the same element: information. | What it says: Both computer and human thoughts are just information What it does: Restates and reinforces the previous sentence's argument Source/Type: Author's supporting argument Connection to Previous Sentences: This simplifies and strengthens sentence 13 - if thoughts = information, then simulated information = simulated thoughts Visualization: Human thought as data stream, computer thought as data stream - same fundamental "material" Reading Strategy Insight: Author is helping us by restating the complex argument in simple terms |
| The representations of the world that humans carry around in their heads are already simulations. | What it says: Our mental pictures of reality are already simulations anyway What it does: Provides additional support for the author's position Source/Type: Author's supporting argument Connection to Previous Sentences: Extends sentence 14 - if human thoughts are already simulations of reality, then computer simulations aren't fundamentally different Visualization: Your mental image of your childhood home is a simulation of the real building |
| To accept Searle's argument, one would have to deny the most fundamental notion in psychology and neuroscience: that brains work by processing information. | What it says: Accepting Searle's view would mean rejecting the basic principle of brain science What it does: Concludes by showing the high cost of accepting Searle's position Source/Type: Author's final argument Connection to Previous Sentences: This brings us full circle to sentence 1 - the "fundamental notion" is the same as the "dominating" idea from the opening Visualization: Accepting Searle = throwing out decades of brain research and starting over Reading Strategy Insight: Perfect circular structure - we end where we began, but now understand why the mainstream view makes sense |
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.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their argument in clear steps:
- First, they introduce the dominant view in neuroscience that brains are like computers processing information
- Next, they present philosopher Searle's opposing argument that computers can't truly understand meaning like humans do because they only manipulate symbols
- Then, they challenge Searle's position by arguing that brains must work through information processing and use a stomach analogy to show that simulations can perform real functions
- Finally, they conclude that since both brains and computers process information, computer simulations of thinking would be genuine thinking, and rejecting this view would mean abandoning basic brain science
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.
3. Question Analysis:
The question asks us to identify the main purpose of the entire passage. We need to determine what the author is fundamentally trying to accomplish through their writing - not just what they discuss, but their primary goal.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our analysis, we can see a clear argumentative structure:
1. The passage introduces the mainstream view that brains are like computers (sentence 1)
2. It presents Searle's philosophical challenge to this view (sentences 2-4, 8-10)
3. The author systematically challenges Searle's position using rhetorical questions (sentences 5-7) and counter-analogies (sentences 11-16)
4. The passage concludes by showing that accepting Searle's view would require abandoning fundamental brain science (sentence 16)
The passage analysis reveals that the author enters the debate with sentence 5 ("Yet how would a brain work...") and builds a sustained argument against Searle's position. The author doesn't remain neutral - they actively defend the brain-as-computer metaphor.
Prethinking:
The author's main purpose is to defend the mainstream scientific position by systematically dismantling Searle's philosophical objections. This is fundamentally about refuting an argument rather than proposing something new, analyzing a function, or explaining contradictions. The entire structure serves to show why Searle's argument fails.
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