Opinions on computationalism: Clark vs. Searle Computationalism: the view that computation, an abstract notion of materialism devoid of semantics and interaction with the real world, offers an explanatory basis for human understanding. The main purpose of this article is to discuss and compare different views regarding computationalism and the arguments associated with these views. The two main arguments that I find the strongest are made by Andy Clark, in “Mindware: Meat Machines,” and John Searle in “Minds, Brains, and Programs.” Andy Clark strongly supports the theory that computers have the potential to be intelligent beings in his work “Mindware: Meat Machines”. The support Clark uses to defend his claims states the similar comparison between humans and machines that use a series of symbols to perform functions. The main argument of his work can be interpreted as follows: p1. The brain is built like a computer, as both contain parts that allow them to function. p2. The brain, like a computer, uses symbols to make calculations and perform functions. p3. The brain contains mental software similar to how a computer contains software.c. Therefore, computers are capable of being intelligent beings. I find, however, that Clark's conclusion is false, and that the following considerations provide a compelling argument for the premises that lead to this conclusion, starting with premise one: “the brain is built like a computer, since both contain parts that allow them to function. This claim is plausible, but questionable. Yes, the mind contains tissues, veins, nerves etc. that allow it to function, in the same way that a computer contains wires, chips and gigabytes etc. that it needs to function. However, is it possible to compare the two when humans designed these parts and the computer itself so that it can function? If both “machines,” as Clark believes, were built by the same being, this comparison might be more believable. Clark might argue that humans were made just as computers were made, so it might be appropriate to classify them together. I believe this answer would fail because it is unclear where exactly humans were created and how, unless one relies on faith, while computers are built by humans in warehouses or factories. My second argument against Clark's claims applies to premise two: "the brain, like a computer, uses symbols to make calculations and perform functions. Before I state what I find wrong with this statement, I should explain the example Clark uses to support this premise, which comes from the work of Jerry Fodor: