Question

It can be inferred that the author of the passage believes that Searle's argument is flawed by its failure to

• A. distinguish between syntactic and semantic operations
• B. explain adequately how people, unlike computers, are able to understand meaning
• C. provide concrete examples illustrating its claims about thinking
• D. understand how computers use algorithms to process information
• E. decipher the code that is transmitted from neuron to neuron in the brain

Hint:

When a passage explains an argument and a question asks for a flaw, consider what the argument asserts but doesn't prove. Arguments are often strong in their critiques of others but weaker in their own positive claims.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This question implies that the author, while presenting Searle's argument, also sees a weakness or flaw in it. We must infer the nature of this flaw from the likely structure of a critical but fair academic passage.

Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
A common structure for a passage like this is to present a strong argument (Searle's) and then offer a nuanced critique. A major philosophical criticism leveled against Searle is that while he is effective at pointing out what computers can't do, his own positive explanation for human consciousness is vague. He attributes it to the "causal powers of the brain" but doesn't explain what these are in a scientifically satisfying way. He essentially replaces one mystery (how computers might think) with another (how brains think). \[\begin{array}{rl} \bullet & \text{(A) This is what Searle's argument does well, not what it fails to do. This is the core of his argument.} \\ \bullet & \text{(B) This accurately reflects the common criticism. Searle posits that humans understand meaning via the brain's special "causal powers," but he doesn't provide a full, adequate explanation of how this mechanism works. An author presenting a balanced view would likely point this out as a limitation or flaw.} \\ \bullet & \text{(C) Searle's "Chinese Room" thought experiment is a very famous concrete example, so this is incorrect.} \\ \bullet & \text{(D) Searle's argument is predicated on a clear understanding of how computers use algorithms.} \\ \bullet & \text{(E) This is a task for neuroscience, not philosophy. Searle's argument is at a different level of abstraction; he would argue that even if we deciphered the neural code, it wouldn't change his logical point about syntax and semantics.} \\ \end{array}\]

Step 3: Final Answer:
The most probable flaw that the author would identify in Searle's argument is its failure to provide a comprehensive and adequate explanation for the very phenomenon—human understanding—that he claims computers cannot achieve.