Searle's Argument And The Robot Reply

I will be explaining the Computational Theory of Mind and giving an illustration of the definition. Furthermore, explaining the objection to Computationalism, known as Searle’s Chinese Room argument. I will be stating and evaluating the premises of the Chinese Room argument, and explaining the Robot Reply. I will be concluding by giving a reply to Searle’s argument and the Robot Reply.
The basic concept of Computationalism suggests that the mind functions computationally; cognition and consciousness are bridged as a form of computation. Computationalism declares the brain functions as a natural processor of information stemming from algorithmic manipulation of the input, that is, symbols, to contrive an output. The role of symbols is that
The point of his argument was that even though the system can provide the correct answer to a question does not mean it can understand the question nor its provided answer. The system is answering correctly, simply by manipulating symbols, but not having the comprehension to understand what the symbols really mean. Syntax is not sufficient for semantics. Searle states that computers are merely syntactic but not semantic; syntax is not enough for understanding (Searle 1983, p. 4). The setup of the Chinese Room is that a person who does not understand Chinese is placed inside a room. Furthermore, the person is given a rulebook that lays out the correct responses to a question, based on the words syntax. The person can understand the rulebook because it is in English. The inputs are the questions given to the person inside and the outputs are their replies. The person is given inputs in Chinese, and with help of rulebook they correspond each input with the correct output.
The first premise is that if Computationalism is true then the whole Chinese Room System understands Chinese. Secondly, the person in the room following the rulebook and providing the outputs does not understand Chinese. Thirdly, if the person does not understand Chinese therefore the system does not understand Chinese. Lastly, the system does not understand Chinese, therefore Computationalism is
The reply basically states that if the Chinese room was made into a robot and put out into the real word it would be able to carry conversations with Chinese-speakers. If the robot would be able to carry a conversation with Chinese speakers, then the robot would understand. According to the Robot Reply, premise one is false. Premise one, if Computationalism is true then the whole system understands Chinese. However, if the system was made into a robot, put out to the world, carry conversations with Chinese-speakers, then the system would understand Chinese making premise one false. The robot would be considered to understand since it can be put out into the world (Anderson 2006, p.