Views on Computationalism: Clark vs. Searle :: essays research papers

Views on Computationalism Clark vs. SearleComputationalism the view that computation, an abstract notion of materialism lacking semantics and real-world interaction, offers an explanatory ground for human comprehension. The main purpose of this paper is to discuss and study several(predicate) views regarding computationalism, and the designs associated with these views. The two main arguments I feel are the strongest are proposed by Andy Clark, in Mindware Meat Machines, and John Searle in Minds, Brains, and Programs. Andy Clark strongly argues for the theory that computers wealthy person the potential for being intelligent beings in his lean Mindware Meat Machines. The have got Clark uses to defend his claims states the similar comparison of domain and machines using an array of symbols to achieve carrys. The main argument of his work can be interpreted as followsp1. The brain is constructed exchangeable a computer, since both contain parts which alter them to function. p2. The brain, alike(p) a computer, uses symbols to make calculations and perform functions.p3. The brain contains mindware similarly as a computer contains software.c. Therefore, computers are capable of being intelligent beings. I find, however, that Clarks conclusion is false, and that the following considerations provide a convincing argument for the premises leading to this conclusion, starting with premise one the brain is constructed like a computer, since both contain parts which enable them to function. This statement is plausible, in so far questionable. Yes, the mind contains tissue, veins, and nerves etc. which enable it to function, the same way that a computer contains wires, chips, and gigabytes etc. which it needs to function. However, can it be possible to compare the two when humans devised these parts and the computer itself so that it can function? If both machines, as Clark believes, were constructed by the same being this comparison world power be more credi ble. Clark might argue that humans were made expert as computers were made so therefore it could be appropriate to categorise them together. I feel that this response would fail because it is uncertain where exactly humans were made and how, unless one relies on faith, whereas computers are constructed by humans in warehouses or factories. My second argument against Clarks claims applies to premise two the brain, like a computer, uses symbols to make calculations and perform functions. Before I state what I find is wrong with this claim, I should explain the example Clark uses to support this premise, which is from the work of Jerry Fodor