We are independent & ad-supported. We may earn a commission for purchases made through our links.

Advertiser Disclosure

Our website is an independent, advertising-supported platform. We provide our content free of charge to our readers, and to keep it that way, we rely on revenue generated through advertisements and affiliate partnerships. This means that when you click on certain links on our site and make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn more.

How We Make Money

We sustain our operations through affiliate commissions and advertising. If you click on an affiliate link and make a purchase, we may receive a commission from the merchant at no additional cost to you. We also display advertisements on our website, which help generate revenue to support our work and keep our content free for readers. Our editorial team operates independently from our advertising and affiliate partnerships to ensure that our content remains unbiased and focused on providing you with the best information and recommendations based on thorough research and honest evaluations. To remain transparent, we’ve provided a list of our current affiliate partners here.

What is the Chinese Room Argument?

Mary McMahon
Updated May 23, 2024
Our promise to you
Language & Humanities is dedicated to creating trustworthy, high-quality content that always prioritizes transparency, integrity, and inclusivity above all else. Our ensure that our content creation and review process includes rigorous fact-checking, evidence-based, and continual updates to ensure accuracy and reliability.

Our Promise to you

Founded in 2002, our company has been a trusted resource for readers seeking informative and engaging content. Our dedication to quality remains unwavering—and will never change. We follow a strict editorial policy, ensuring that our content is authored by highly qualified professionals and edited by subject matter experts. This guarantees that everything we publish is objective, accurate, and trustworthy.

Over the years, we've refined our approach to cover a wide range of topics, providing readers with reliable and practical advice to enhance their knowledge and skills. That's why millions of readers turn to us each year. Join us in celebrating the joy of learning, guided by standards you can trust.

Editorial Standards

At Language & Humanities, we are committed to creating content that you can trust. Our editorial process is designed to ensure that every piece of content we publish is accurate, reliable, and informative.

Our team of experienced writers and editors follows a strict set of guidelines to ensure the highest quality content. We conduct thorough research, fact-check all information, and rely on credible sources to back up our claims. Our content is reviewed by subject matter experts to ensure accuracy and clarity.

We believe in transparency and maintain editorial independence from our advertisers. Our team does not receive direct compensation from advertisers, allowing us to create unbiased content that prioritizes your interests.

The Chinese Room Argument is a thought experiment which is designed to refute conventional ideas about artificial intelligence. According to John Searle, the man who proposed the Chinese Room Argument, this thought experiment shows that computers cannot be said to have a true sense of mind or understanding of natural languages. Instead, various proposed forms of artificial intelligence are little more than advanced signal processors. Naturally, this theory has numerous opponents in the artificial intelligence community.

In the Chinese Room Argument, people are first asked to imagine a computer which has been programmed to converse in Chinese so convincingly that it passes the Turing Test, meaning that a human would mistake the computer for another human. Next, one is asked to imagine a speaker of the English language sitting in a room which contains English directions for responding to material presented in Chinese, such as manuals, charts, and so forth.

Next, someone on the outside of the room passes a slip of paper with a question in Chinese to the person on the inside. Using the English directions, an answer to the question is formulated, and passed back through. This exchange continues, with the person on the outside of the room fully believing that the person on the inside can speak in Chinese.

In fact, the person on the inside cannot speak or write in Chinese; the questions are meaningless scrawls. Instead, the person in the room looks for patterns, symbols, and syntax, using these as clues to respond to the questions. Although the person in the room has fooled the person on the outside, he or she cannot truly be said to be conversing in Chinese.

Using this scenario as an example, Searle suggests that machines which “speak” in natural languages are not, in fact, using those languages at all. According to the Chinese Room Argument, these machines are instead simply interpreting symbols and looking for patterns which can be used to formulate convincing replies. Therefore, he suggested in a 1980 paper, it is impossible to create a truly artificial intelligence, because the understanding of natural language is a key to intelligence and independent thought.

All sorts of arguments have been used to refute the Chinese Room Argument, such as the systems reply, which points out that the room is like a system, and therefore the system as a whole understands and can communicate in Chinese, even if individual components couldn't. These arguments are used to advance the study of artificial intelligence, in addition to being utilized in an attempt to respond to the Chinese Room Argument.

Language & Humanities is dedicated to providing accurate and trustworthy information. We carefully select reputable sources and employ a rigorous fact-checking process to maintain the highest standards. To learn more about our commitment to accuracy, read our editorial process.
Mary McMahon
By Mary McMahon

Ever since she began contributing to the site several years ago, Mary has embraced the exciting challenge of being a Language & Humanities researcher and writer. Mary has a liberal arts degree from Goddard College and spends her free time reading, cooking, and exploring the great outdoors.

Discussion Comments

By anon110725 — On Sep 13, 2010

Understanding goes beyond just producing a reply. A person can look at a photograph and understand the contents and why the photographer took the photograph. No reply is necessary for a person to understand it. What is the equivalent process for a computer if no "reply" is necessary?

Leopold's Theorem on Understanding: To understand requires that the material be capable of changing the observer. That future responses can be different because of the interaction with the material.

Naturally, there are different levels of such understanding. There can be very simple understanding (a menu driven phone system) and the more complex understanding of a person reading a book. Regards, Leopold

Mary McMahon

Mary McMahon

Ever since she began contributing to the site several years ago, Mary has embraced the exciting challenge of being a...

Learn more
Language & Humanities, in your inbox

Our latest articles, guides, and more, delivered daily.

Language & Humanities, in your inbox

Our latest articles, guides, and more, delivered daily.