The systems objection, which I take to be identical (or at least nearly so) with the virtual mind reply, suggests that the Chinese Room argument is entirely beside the point. When Searle says “It seems to me quite obvious in the example that I do not understand a word of the Chinese stories,” the computationalist merely need reply, “So what?” The English speaker has a representation of Chinese-speaking syntax, a phenomenon which is entirely independent of the representation which is supposed to be created by the latter. This confusion of representation/consciousness/understanding of syntax and the syntax of representation/consciousness/understanding is the primary motivation which makes Searle’s conclusion so ‘obvious’ or intuitive. (more…)
