()

()

Some objections to Searle:

Perhaps input-output equivalence is not enough.
But perhaps a programme that could provide outputs the way Searle imagines would be very complex.
Searle could not provide outputs in the way he claims unless he learned Chinese for real.

Searle's Reply:
The programme can be as complex as you like.
It is still just manipulating symbols - you can’t get semantics out of syntax.


Some objections to Searle:

(2) Perhaps the person in the room does not understand Chinese but it does not show that the whole system of the room (rules + plus person) does not.

Searle's Reply:
Let the man incorporate all elements of the room - he learns the rules for manipulation of the symbols, he does the calculations in his head.
He still does not understand Chinese


Some objections to Searle:
(3) The man in the Chinese room is too limited and doesn’t engage with its environment much.
Suppose we put a computer inside a robot.
The information to the computer came from cameras on the front and the output made the robot able to move dexterously round its environment.
If the robot could do all we can do it would understand/think.

Searle's Reply:
No.

()

Didn't suffer fools well, that Searle.