[cscurmudgeon]

Thats not the Chinese Room argument. The argument says just because a system processes X doesn't imply it has consciousness of X.

[wrs]

The flaw is the unsupported assertion that the whole system being conscious of X depends on a part of the system being conscious of X. The same assertion would fail here in the same way.

[mensetmanusman]

At these levels of discussion everything is asserted as axioms to see what the consequences are.

If a human isn’t conscious of Chinese, but the arrangement of paper rules is, one would have to assert that paper + human is conscious.

[cscurmudgeon]

Are you talking about access consciousness or phenomenal consciousness?