Since he is the installation of the computer program, it shows the reader how other installations, such as a program running on a machine, must lack the same understanding of Chinese and of the stories as he does. The Chinese room offers a good starting point for thinking about the claims of strong AI, but it does not completely prove they are false. It is not at all surprising that Searle running the program does not show understanding of Chinese since the program, in any of its installations, never seems to understand it in the first place. The program was only a simple story, which could give answers to certain questions, but also made no attempt to ever really understand the story. Searle shows no proof that his theory can pass the Turing test.If the program were really able to pass the Turing test, Searles scenario would be different than the program. A machine may take a fraction of the time to compute a problem compared to the length of time Searle would need to complete the same thing. The main thing to keep in mind here is that Searle stated in his first example that it is clear he has no understanding of Chinese. In reality, the actions of Searle must be complex. Searle avoids any comeback remarks that the robot may have. It claims that Searle has no understanding of Chinese, whereas the machine, when considered a whole, does. The robot argues that if the program were installed in the machine, it would be able to carry out true understanding of it. The Chinese room example neither disproves the claims of AI, nor does it prove that Searle's conclusions cannot be drawn from a different argument. He is still fixed upon his view. He still believes that the installation of a program alone can never be enough to generate true understanding. The Chinese room leaves any support to this view up for grabs. I think machine dont have minds. They are only as smart as the person who programs them, though they may be able to calcula...
