Minds and Machines

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 285–319 | Cite as

The Chinese Room Argument Reconsidered: Essentialism, Indeterminacy, and Strong AI



I argue that John Searle's (1980) influential Chinese room argument (CRA) against computationalism and strong AI survives existing objections, including Block's (1998) internalized systems reply, Fodor's (1991b) deviant causal chain reply, and Hauser's (1997) unconscious content reply. However, a new ``essentialist'' reply I construct shows that the CRA as presented by Searle is an unsound argument that relies on a question-begging appeal to intuition. My diagnosis of the CRA relies on an interpretation of computationalism as a scientific theory about the essential nature of intentional content; such theories often yield non-intuitive results in non-standard cases, and so cannot be judged by such intuitions. However, I further argue that the CRA can be transformed into a potentially valid argument against computationalism simply by reinterpreting it as an indeterminacy argument that shows that computationalism cannot explain the ordinary distinction between semantic content and sheer syntactic manipulation, and thus cannot be an adequate account of content. This conclusion admittedly rests on the arguable but plausible assumption that thought content is interestingly determinate. I conclude that the viability of computationalism and strong AI depends on their addressing the indeterminacy objection, but that it is currently unclear how this objection can be successfully addressed.

artificial intelligence cognitive science computation essentialism functionalism indeterminacy philosophy of mind Searle's Chinese room argument semantics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Block, N. (1998), 'The Philosophy of Psychology: Classical Computationalism', in A. C. Grayling, ed., Philosophy 2: Further Through the Subject, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 5–48.Google Scholar
  2. Carleton, L. (1984), 'Programs, Language Understanding, and Searle', Synthese 59, pp. 219–233.Google Scholar
  3. Cummins, R. (1989), Meaning and Mental Representation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Fodor, J. A. (1991a; orig pub 1980), 'Searle on What Only Brains Can Do', in D. M. Rosenthal, ed., The Nature of Mind, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 520–521.Google Scholar
  5. Fodor, J. A. (1991b), 'Afterthoughts: Yin and Yang in the Chinese Room,' in D. M. Rosenthal, ed., The Nature of Mind, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 524–525.Google Scholar
  6. Fodor, J. A. (1994), The Elm and the Expert: Mentalese and Its Semantics, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hauser, L. (1997), 'Searle's Chinese Box: Debunking the Chinese Room Argument', Minds and Machines 7, pp. 199–226.Google Scholar
  8. Hodges, A. (1983), Alan Turing: The Enigma, New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  9. Pinker, S. (1997), How the Mind Works, New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  10. Quine, W. O. (1960), Word and Object, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Rapaport, W. J. (1988), 'Semantics: Foundations of Computational Natural Language Understanding', in J. Fetzer, ed., Aspects of Artificial Intelligence, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 81–131.Google Scholar
  12. Searle, J. R. (1980), 'Minds, Brains, and Programs', Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, pp. 417–424.Google Scholar
  13. Searle, J. R. (1982), 'The Chinese Room Revisited', Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, pp. 345–348.Google Scholar
  14. Searle, J. R. (1988), 'Minds and Brains Without Programs.', in C. Blakemore and S. Greenfield, eds., Mindwaves, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 209–233.Google Scholar
  15. Searle, J. R. (1990), 'Is the Brain's Mind a Computer Program?', Scientific American 262, pp. 26–31.Google Scholar
  16. Searle, J. R. (1991a; orig pub 1980), 'Minds, Brains, and Programs', in D.M. Rosenthal, ed., The Nature of Mind, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 509–519.Google Scholar
  17. Searle, J. R. (1991b; orig pub 1980), 'Author's Response', in D.M. Rosenthal, ed., The Nature of Mind, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 521–523.Google Scholar
  18. Searle, J. R. (1991c), 'Yin and Yang Strike Out', in D. M. Rosenthal, ed., The Nature of Mind,New York: Oxford University Press, (pp. 525–526).Google Scholar
  19. Searle, J. R. (1992), The Rediscovery of Mind, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Searle, J. R. (1997), The Mystery of Consciousness, New York: New York Review Books.Google Scholar
  21. Searle, J. R., J. McCarthy, H. Dreyfus, M. Minsky and S. Papert (1984), 'Has Artificial Intelligence Research Illuminated Human Thinking?', Annals of the New York City Academy of Arts and Sciences 426, pp. 138–160.Google Scholar
  22. Wakefield, J. C. (1992), 'The Concept of Mental Disorder: On the Boundary between Biological Facts and Social Values', American Psychologist 47, pp. 373–388.Google Scholar
  23. Wakefield, J.C. (1995), 'Dysfunction as a Value-free Concept: Reply to Sadler and Agich', Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 2, pp. 233–246.Google Scholar
  24. Wakefield, J. C. (1999), 'Disorder as a Black Box Essentialist Concept', Journal of Abnormal Psychology 108, pp. 465–472.Google Scholar
  25. Wakefield, J. C. (2001), Do Unconscious Mental States Exist?: Freud, Searle, and the Conceptual Foundations of Cognitive Science, Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley (Doctoral Dissertation).Google Scholar
  26. Wakefield, J. C. (in press), 'Fodor on inscrutability', Mind and Language.Google Scholar
  27. Wilks, Y. (1982), 'Searle's Straw Man', Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, pp. 344–345.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations