John Searle's 1980 thought experiment against the claim that a suitably programmed computer genuinely understands language. Searle imagines himself locked in a room, manipulating Chinese symbols by following an English rulebook well enough to produce convincing answers to Chinese questions without understanding a word of Chinese; since he instantiates the same symbol manipulation a computer program would, Searle argues that running the right program is not sufficient for genuine understanding, whatever behavioural test it passes. The systems reply, that understanding belongs to the room-plus-rulebook system rather than to Searle alone, is the most discussed response, alongside the robot and brain-simulator replies.
Facts
Origin YearJohn Searle, Minds, Brains, and Programs, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (1980). Classification
Position Kind Connections
Associated With
Source Chinese Room (Wikipedia)
In Branch
Sources
1. The Chinese Room Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The Chinese Room Argument, on the 1980 introduction
In 1980 U.C. Berkeley philosopher John Searle introduced a short and widely-discussed argument intended to show conclusively that it is impossible for digital computers to understand language or think, now or in the future.
The Chinese Room Argument
The argument and thought-experiment now generally known as the Chinese Room Argument was first published in a 1980 article by American philosopher John Searle (1932-2025).
Chinese Room (Wikipedia)
WikipediaAssociated With: John Searle, Lead sectionQuote, Associated With: John Searle, Lead section
The argument was presented in a 1980 paper by the American philosopher John Searle, entitled 'Minds, Brains, and Programs' and published in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
Dissenting Readings (1 dissenting reading)
Description
The Systems Reply, associated with philosophers including Ned Block and Georges Rey among others, holds that while the man running the program does not understand Chinese, the system as a whole does: the room, the rules and the paper together realize genuine understanding even though no single part of that system does on its own. On this view Searle's thought experiment mistakes the man's own lack of understanding for the system's, the same mistake as denying a single neuron understands English and concluding the whole brain cannot either.
A dissenting reading, from Ned Block and Georges ReyThe Chinese Room Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Frequently Asked Questions
If a computer produces exactly the responses a fluent Chinese speaker would give, why not say it understands Chinese?
The Systems Reply grants that the person following the rules inside the room does not understand Chinese, but argues that understanding still belongs to the whole system, the room, the rules and the paper together, not to any one part of it.
The Systems Reply, one of the most common responses to the Chinese Room argument, concedes Searle's own point that the man manipulating symbols by rule understands no Chinese. But it denies this settles the question, since on this reply the man is only one part of a larger system that includes the rulebook, the paper and the room itself, and it is the system as a whole, not the man alone, that understands Chinese. Searle's own rejoinder is that the man could memorize the entire rulebook and do the whole job in his head, becoming the whole system himself, and would still not thereby come to understand Chinese, which the reply's defenders in turn dispute.
Reader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.
View At A Past Year
Choose a year to see this entry's facts and connections as the atlas records them at that moment: what it held then, what it held instead, and what it had not yet adopted. Choose Present for the current record.