John Searle’s Chinese Room Argument is a thought experiment designed as a response to philosopher Alan Turing’s “Turing Test.” It was designed to verify that computer programs cannot create minds, understand, or be conscious, regardless of how it may make it behave. Searle intended to challenge the claim that it is possible for a digital computer running a program to have a mind and be conscious. The main question to be answered is: if one can carry on an intelligent conversation with an unknown partner, does this imply that the unknown partner understands the conversation, has a mind, and expresses consciousness? Searle believes these questions can be answered using the Chinese Room Experiment. Searle argues that the thought experiment underscores the fact that computers merely use syntactic rules to manipulate symbol strings, but have no understanding of the semantics …show more content…
System’s Reply entails that Searle is not the machine, yet only represents the central processing unit of the machine. System’s Reply discusses that there are many other parts of the machine like the program, memory, and input or output devices. Since Searle is only the central processing unit, he is not the system. He is but a part in a larger system. System’s Reply concedes that Searle does not understand Chinese due to the fact that he is only running the program. He does not understand Chinese, yet the system as a whole does. The total understanding comes from all parts of the system and not just the central processing unit, which Searle represents. System’s Reply renders Part Two of the Chinese Room Argument false. Part Two states “What Searle is doing in the Chinese room is what such a computer is doing.” Searle is not in fact doing what a computer is doing yet he is doing what part of a computer does, hence the reason as to which he represents only the central processing unit of the computer and not the entire