I actually agree with the OA on this one.
Here is my reasoning:
B says "(fails to) explain adequately how people, unlike computers, are able to understand meaning."
In the first paragraph the author says, "People on the other hand, understand meaning because they have something that Searle OBSCURELY calls the causal powers of the brain."
This clearly indicates that the author does not think that Searle has "adequately explained."
Then in the second paragraph the author begins his analogy with the artificial stomach (too weird, right?) And the author again indicates that Searle would "claim the maching would not really be thinking" and again the author seems to want Searle to explain why.
Finally the author concludes that "To accept Searle's argument one would have to deny the most fundamental notion in pyschology and neuroscience"
You said:
The answer says that the correct choice is B because Searle has not adequately explained how people are able to understand meaning. However, I do not see the need for him to explain HOW people understand meaning to be necessary to substantiate his argument. It would be sufficient for him to show that people DO understand 'meaning and content' and neglect the HOW.
Yet the author clearly indicates that without the HOW of humans being different from computers - the author will not except that they are. The entire analogy of the stomach is all about HOW.
On the other hand C says) "(fails to) provide concrete examples illustrating its claims about thinking." The author does not seem to call for concrete examples of why the human brain is different but just a explanation of how it is different. Clearly the author thinks that the brain is just another computer and wants to Searle to better explain why this is not the case.
