[curious_yogurt]

I do not believe I have presupposed the answer; I have simply articulated how I believe the reductio to work.

The key, of course, is whether we think that the person in the Room actually understands Chinese. The inference Searle wants us to draw, based on our intuition, is that the person does not understand Chinese just because the person is following a lookup table. The way to get around the argument is to claim either (i) that the inference doesn't work—that is, Strong AI does not imply machines understand, or (ii) that the Chinese Room does not imply machines do not understand.

I think (i) is a reasonable claim that follows from understanding what is intended by the term "Strong AI." (ii) is the tricky one. It seems to me the best route out is to find a way to substantiate a claim alluded to by another commentator, viz. the property of intelligence does not exist (though I would say "understanding does not apply" or something like that). The thing is, it does seem to me that understanding is a reasonable category for this case; and anyone who thinks this is likely to feel the force of the argument.

[Retric]

> The key, of course, is whether we think that the person in the Room actually understands Chinese.

As I said that’s no more relevant than if the paint on the walls understands Chinease. You can’t answer the question of if the room understands something by saying if a single element understands something or not.

Or consider this, does Microsoft the company understand French? It seems like a simple question, but you can easily support yes or no. In some situations it can respond to a French speaker, but not all situations.

[curious_yogurt]

To be fair, I did not ask the question of whether "the room understands." The question was whether "the person in the room understands," which seems perfectly reasonable.

In order to grasp what you are saying about "Microsoft the company understand French" one needs to define what we mean by "understand." As you (correctly) say, our answer will depend on that definition.

But to say everything depends on our definition of understanding is to miss the point of the Chinese Room. The point of the argument is to support the claim that the sort of thing we normally classify as understanding—such as when we say someone understands Chinese—is not a property of the person following a lookup table (or by analogy, a machine with instructions). Thus, neither the person in the room, nor the machine, understands in the same sense as when we say "this person understands Chinese."

This is how the Chinese Room is supposed to work against Strong AI. Strong AI supposes that when you have appropriate instructions, a machine is said to understand in the same sense in which you say a human understands. The Chinese Room argument is meant to prompt the claim that the machine does not understand—or at the very least does not understand in the same sense that a human understands.

[Retric]

While you say you are only talking about “the machine” it’s rather pointless. Fine, my hair is not sentient either again it’s not an argument.

Strong AI is a system not a machine. The person using a lookup table is just a portion of the system and thus can’t be used to limit the entire system.

Twins don’t nessisarily understand the same languages based on their training. Referring to the Human in “the room” as the machine following specific instructions is the same as saying human DNA don’t understand English. It’s might be true, but it’s definitely irrelevant.

Machine code is binary data used by computers that ideally maps 1:1 with ASM. A human can know ASM and with the aid of a computer produce, read, edit, etc Machine code they don’t directly understand. In effect they are part of a system that understands something that they themselves don’t.

Thus “the Chinese Room” has an inescapable though easily missed failure in logic. Saying the machine is nor the room, seems like an unreasonable objection. But, talking about the machine it’s just as relevant as saying people without exposure don’t know specific languages.

PS: Starting with a glass of water you can separate it into smaller places up to a point. But in the end water is H20, if you just look at the H that’s not water because you reached the point where subdivision results in a different substance. Saying H is not water thus water does not exist is a silly argument.