子机构
400-600-1123
logo
备考资讯 提分课程 答疑社区
登录
注册
题库解析   >   其他 题型   >   自测章RC49-65
本题由hyman1提供
自测章RC49-65

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 author of the passage would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements about the simulation of organ functions?

    (A) An artificial device that achieves the functions of the stomach could be considered a valid model of the stomach.
    (B) Computer simulations of the brain are best used to crack the brain’s codes of meaning and content.
    (C) Computer simulations of the brain challenge ideas that are fundamental to psychology and neuroscience.
    (D) Because the brain and the stomach both act as processors, they can best be simulated by mechanical devices.
    (E) The computer’s limitations in simulating digestion suggest equal limitations in computer-simulated thinking.

登录申友雷哥GMAT,查看答案及解析

视频解析

暂无视频解析,点击获取更多视频内容

文字解析

答案:
A

Brains, unli

ke 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.大脑和胃不一样,大脑是信息处理器。如果一个信息处理器可以去模拟另一个信息处理器,很难说为什么一个在思考另一个没思考。所以作者对待机器的态度是,如果功能一样,那就可以被当成是同样的东西

GMAT会员

提交
OG视频
申友雷哥GMAT小助手

添加官方小助手微信
了解更多GMAT考试与咨询

100蜜糖购买当前课程

当前蜜糖数:颗 去获取

立即购买 取消购买

吉祥物小蜜蜂

关注公众号

公众号

扫码关注申友雷哥GMAT公众号

立即获取12GGMAT核心资料

微信咨询

申友在线咨询二维码图片

扫码添加申友雷哥GMAT官方助手

立即咨询GMAT网课面授课程

联系申友雷哥 全国免费咨询热线:400-600-1123

Copyright © 2021 All Right Reserved 申友雷哥教育 版权所有 沪ICP备17005516号-3 免责声明 互联网经营许可证编号:沪B2-20210282