However, if instead of a room, one was in a robot whose different actions triggered different words, then eventually the symbols would begin to mean something. Searle makes the claim that this is irrelevant to the person in the room: no matter what triggers the word being given, all one receives is the symbol. There is no image to accompany it, as computers process symbols and nothing but symbols. Since there is no way to represent the context of the words in a way that is readable by a computer, anything but 0s and 1s, or, in this case, Chinese symbols, there is no way for the words to gain meaning. Thus, there must be something in thought that cannot be represented purely by
However, if instead of a room, one was in a robot whose different actions triggered different words, then eventually the symbols would begin to mean something. Searle makes the claim that this is irrelevant to the person in the room: no matter what triggers the word being given, all one receives is the symbol. There is no image to accompany it, as computers process symbols and nothing but symbols. Since there is no way to represent the context of the words in a way that is readable by a computer, anything but 0s and 1s, or, in this case, Chinese symbols, there is no way for the words to gain meaning. Thus, there must be something in thought that cannot be represented purely by