The Chinese Room argument, proposed by John Searle, challenges claims that computers can truly understand language. Imagine a person in a room manipulating Chinese symbols according to rules, producing appropriate responses without understanding Chinese. Searle argues that computers similarly manipulate symbols without genuine understanding. Critics contend that while the person doesn't understand, the system—person plus rules—does; understanding emerges from the whole, not parts.
Based on the passage, it can be inferred that
everyone agrees that computers cannot understand language
where understanding or consciousness 'resides' in a system remains philosophically contested
Searle believes computers genuinely understand language
the person in the room understands Chinese
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the best answer. Searle and critics disagree about where understanding exists.
- Context clues: Searle says no understanding exists; critics say the "system" understands.
- Meaning: The disagreement is about what entity or level possesses understanding.
- Verify: This is a foundational debate in philosophy of mind about consciousness location.
💡 Strategy: When debates center on 'where' a property exists, infer that location is contested.
Choice A is incorrect because critics defend computer understanding at the system level. Choice C is incorrect because Searle argues against computer understanding. Choice D is incorrect because both sides agree the person doesn't understand Chinese.