Notes

I will present the Turing Test and Searle’s Chinese Room objection andwill argue that Searle is/is not correct
The Turing Test is a test for machines with no physical requirements such that you (the investigator) try to figure out whether the machine (investigatee) is a is human or machine by engaging in a conversation with it. A machine is said to pass the test if you fail to detect it as a machine. According to Turing, the question 'Can machines think?' is non verifiable and thus should be replaced by something verifiable like 'Will there be a machine that can pass the turing test?'. Turing believes that given that a machine can pass the test, then it can genuinely think and have understanding in the same way humans do.
Searle objects the Turing Test and proposes the Chinese Room. It is a thought experiment in which Searle who does not know any chinese but does know english is inside an isolated room where there are inputs given from the outside written in Chinese. Inside the room there is also a rule ledger written in English which instructs Searle how respond to any given inputs in the way if he sees a particular shape(Chinese character) then he writes the corresponding shape in response. Searle then drops off the response of the input to the output of the room. Since Searle does not understand Chinese at all but from the poing of view of someone outside the room, his outputs to the questions are indisguinshable from those of natural chinese speakers.The chinese room is meantto serve as an analogy of a machine where the searle is the processor and the rule ledger as the program that the processor executes. so when you give a machine an input of data, it obeys the proram and gives an output. Thus, searle uses the Chinese room to claims the ability to mimic human ansers and the babiliy to answer questions perfectly is not evidence for understanding. s

and grants that there are computer programs such that computer answers are the same as human answers but maintan that the human has understanding, but in the computer case, there is no understanding.

Searle directs us to a false idea of where the thought takes place in a machine and simplifying the workings of a machine to an extreme degree.
Assuming we have a material mind and believe that human thoughts are generated when neurons fire, then the chinese room can be said to be analogous to the brain where Searle is the one doing the process of neurons firing , but since Searle himself does not understand anything, the brain doesn't. but clearly the brain does. And it is the entire action of the process that forms understanding, (the act of searle flipping through the ledger and the act of Searle comparing the symbols.) The composite of Searle's action of the process that as a whole manifests into thoughts. these actions are analogous to nearons firing, the process of thinking, and the result are the outputs.
If Searle replies by saying it's absurd the actions have any understanding, then i argur back by saying To mimic human-like ability of thinking, the rule ledger must be astoundingly large and complex. The speed at which Searle executes the symbol manipulation through the enormous ledger should also be immeasurably fast to produce any meaningful conversation. like how one single neuron firing slowly does not produce thoughts but a bunch at the same time quickly does.
so we can make an analogy to a flip book where if we flip through the pages slowly we see still images one by one but if we flip though the book fast, we see the image as if it's moving.