<p>Will computers ever acquire consciousness? Physiologists have discovered how the eye processes images, and they have mapped areas of the brain where speech and hearing are centered, but the physical nature of consciousness has eluded them. (35) As a schoolboy, I was mystified by gravity, and when I reached college I eagerly attended physics lectures in hopes of learning what it really is. I was disappointed when I was merely taught that gravity is what it does, that it is an attractive force between bodies that makes the apple fall with an acceleration of 10 meters per second. (41) Perhaps consciousness is like that, and we may get no further than stating that it is what it does: a property of the brain that makes us aware of ourselves and of the world around us, "a beam of light directed outward," as the fictional character Dr. Zhivago calls it. In the absence of knowledge of the physical nature of consciousness, the question of whether it will ever be possible to simulate it with a machine cannot be answered.</p>
<p>In lines 35-41, the anecdote about physics serves to
A. express frustration with the inflexibility of scientific principles
C. suggest that certain phenomena can be understood only partially</p>
<p>I am really angry about getting this question wrong. Can someone help me understand clearly why the correct answer is correct and why the wrong one is wrong? I was very sure when I chose my answer, but ended up being wrong, so can you be as convincing as possible?</p>
<p>What exactly was your answer? I’d go for A because it’s clearly stated that the writer was ‘disappointed’ hence making ‘frustration’ in choice A very credible. Plus why would he state that something was disappointing to ‘suggest that phenomena can be understood only partially’? I sure hope I’m correct on this…
Please correct me if I’m wrong. :)</p>
<p>That’s exactly what I chose. I chose A, because he refers to gravity as being property-like, hence inflexible, just like consciousness (" a beam of light"–constant).
The answer is C.
(Rant: CB has to be sued for this ****!)</p>
<p>The answer is C. There’s no explicit mention of frustration or inflexible. </p>
<p>"[W]e may get no further than stating that it is what it does", this applies to both gravity and consciousness, as the writer remarks, hence C- certain phenomena can only be understood partially, i.e. think of partially as equivalent to no further.</p>
<p>“I was disappointed …” Doesn’t this qualify as frustration? It surely does. </p>
<p>In addition, “partially” = “to a degree”, which is synonymous with “partly”. Saying that he doesn’t wholly understand gravity is incorrect, because he says that he understood that it is what it is.</p>
<p>My mistake, I didn’t catch that. However, there isn’t any mention about the scientific method. The idea that the author is disappointed with the limits of the scientific method isn’t explicitly stated.</p>
<p>A. express frustration with the inflexibility of scientific principles
Understand this while he expresses frustration it is not with inflexibility of scientific principles but rather with the fact science cannot explain him the phenomena
C. suggest that certain phenomena can be understood only partially
This is right because it gravity cannot be fully understood like conscious. We can explain what gravity does but why it exists or how it exists remains unanswered just like conscious</p>
<p>I’m sooooooooooo sorry, i realized i chose an incorrect answer. Please excuse me as i was about to doze off. please excuse me again. An anecdote about physics is 100% used to suggest that some phenomena are inexplicable.</p>
<p>Nah dude, it’s fine. You actually made me happy because I felt like I wasn’t alone in choosing A.
But I guess now I can see why it’s not A. But it certainly was a tricky question (at least for me).</p>