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

Views on Computationalism Clark vs. SearleComputationalism the enamour that computation, an abstract notion of materialism lacking semantics and real-world interaction, offers an explanatory basis for merciful comprehension. The master(prenominal) purpose of this paper is to discuss and compare different views regarding computationalism, and the arguments associated with these views. The 2 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 information processing systems have the electromotive force for being intelligent beings in his work Mindware Meat Machines. The support Clark uses to play his claims states the similar comparison of humans and machines using an array of symbols to perform functions. The main argument of his work can be interpreted as followsp1. The intellect is constructed the likes of a computer, since twain contain parts which enable them to function.p2. The brain, like a computer, uses symbols to make calculations and perform functions.p3. The brain contains musical themeware similarly as a computer contains software.c. Therefore, computers are capable of being intelligent beings. I bring out, however, that Clarks conclusion is false, and that the following considerations provide a convincing argument for the exposit 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, yet 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 ii 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 th is comparison might be more credible. Clark might argue that humans were do just as computers were made so therefore it could be appropriate to categorize 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