Q23 - No computer will ever be

[kmewmewblue]

I have a question.
Could you let me know if I am understanding this correctly.

So the answer (B) is saying that, if computer cannot solve problems by following mechanically applicable rules, then only human mind can.

Also, does it have to be "at least one human mind"? or "every human mind" would be okay?
If "every human mind" is not appropriate, is that because in the stimulus, it says "some human minds can do"?

Sorry, if my question is messy.

Any advice will be helpful.
Thanks

[timmydoeslsat]

The stimulus states "some" human minds.

It is not necessary for every human mind.

I will go over the stimulus.



Some problems that cannot be solved by following any set of mech. applicable rules.

Computers can only solve problems by using those rules.

______________________________________________________
No computer will ever be able to do everything that some human minds can do



Notice that the premises given never mention that humans can solve the problems that cannot be solved by following those mech. applicable rules!


Think of an analogous argument.

Some things cannot be solved by B.

To solve problems, A must use B.

___________________________________________________
No A will ever be able to do everything that some X can do


Do we know that X can do that stuff? No.


Thus, for the conclusion to hold, it is necessary for there to be at least one problem that the human mind can solve that the mech. applicable rules cannot.

[WaltGrace1983]

There are some problems that cannot be solved by mechanically applicable rules
→
No computer will be able to do everything that some humans minds can do

This argument is saying that a human mind will be able to do at least one thing that a computer cannot do, assuming that there is at least one human mind out there that can solve a problem that is not solvable by mechanically applicable rules. (A), (C), (D), and (E) actually have no bearing on the argument whatsoever because these answer choices are talking only about what "can be solvable" by following some sort of mechanically applicable rules. This has no bearing on the argument because it simply doesn't matter what human minds can do when it comes to problems solvable by mechanically applicable rules. It doesn't matter if every human mind can solve them, no human mind can, some humans minds can, etc. etc. etc.

[robinzhang7]

Could someone please notate this using conditional reasoning? I'm having a hard time visually seeing the logic behind it. Thanks!

[rinagoldfield]

Hi robinzhang7

Thanks for your post. Conditional reasoning definitely helps clarify this problem. Here’s how I approached it:

C represents computer
S M represents solve mechanically
H represents human

Premise 1: C --> only SM
Contrapositive: can S~M --> ~C
Premise 2: S~M
Conclusion: C --> ~H

The conclusion has a new term: things humans can do. But wait, we don’t know what humans can do! The correct answer will forge some kind of connection between humans and the ability to solve problems nonmechanically.

Choice (B) tells us something about what humans can do. This answer choice tells us that humans are able to solve nonmechanical rules. It says H --> can S~M. We can connect this to the contrapositive of P1 to get H --> can S~M --> ~C, or C --> only SM --> ~H. This is what we are looking for!

--Rina