"Chinese Room Argument
...Chinese, just as the person does . What Searle tried to demonstrate is that there is no need to assume that the central processing unit (the English speaker) understands (or, for that matter, performs any other cognitive or mental function) the input or the output (both in Chinese). Searle generalized and stated that this shows that computers will never be capable of thinking, being conscious, or having other mental states. In his picturesque language "syntax is not a sufficient base for semantics". Consciousness is not reducible to computations. It takes a certain "stuff" (the brain) to get these results. I agree with Searle that it is knowledge of meaning that defines understanding. I also agree that understanding does not exist in a strictly input-process-output system. For example, many functionalists believe that understanding stems from the simple process of input, process, and output, they look at the whole picture. They believe that even though the English speaker (Bob) in the room does not understand Chinese the room does. Bob is a piece of a larger whole. Inside of the room exist three things: 1. Bob, a computer, and a big stack of Chinese writing symbols. While Bob, one of the three, may not individually understand Chinese, the functioning of the three together creates an understanding. The symbols exist already, but are not structured in any particular order; they need direction to create meaning. The computer gives that direction, but cannot execute its instructions; it needs a processing unit. Bob can follow the instructions and give proper order to the Chinese symbols. He may not understand the symbols nor why he places one after another, but an understanding exists in the working of the three pieces together....