Demolishing Searle's Chinese Room

TL;DR

This paper refutes Searle's Chinese Room argument by demonstrating that his two different versions fail for different reasons, undermining his claim that systems can simulate understanding without genuine comprehension.

Contribution

It provides a critical analysis showing that Searle's argument is flawed due to inconsistent versions, challenging the validity of his original claim.

Findings

Searle's two versions of the Chinese Room are inconsistent.

Both versions fail to prove systems lack understanding.

The critique undermines the philosophical basis of the Chinese Room argument.

Abstract

Searle's Chinese Room argument is refuted by showing that he has actually given two different versions of the room, which fail for different reasons. Hence, Searle does not achieve his stated goal of showing ``that a system could have input and output capabilities that duplicated those of a native Chinese speaker and still not understand Chinese''.