So, something can behave as if it knew Chinese perfectly but yet does not grasp a single word of it, therefore concluding that syntax is not adequate for semantics (218). .
Searle argues that both computers and the individual sitting in the Chinese room are participating in "mindless" symbol manipulation. He claims that computers use syntax and cannot do all the things humans can do when they understand something. With that, Searle says that human minds use semantics and can think emotionally, unlike a computer. To put things in perspective, let's say that a girl named Sara's interactive outlooks regarding Chinese expression are alike from another girl named Eva's outlooks who understands Chinese, than Sara must also understand Chinese since there language expressions are similar. It is with this concept that Searle tries to prove wrong. If we assume that this is Searle's target than we can prove that the person in the room does not understand Chinese so therefore this example in not true (Class notes, 2/17). In order to understand and know what a language means, a person not only has to understand the language's syntax but they also have to be able to grasp its semantics. The notions of truth, reference, and meaning are all concepts that make up semantics. .
Although the re-establishment of Searle's argument is distinctly effective, the problem is is that we cannot automatically assume the person in the Chinese room does not understand Chinese. Because of this, we cannot say this is accurate or not unless we have other valid disputes for or against it. While I believe that the person in the room does not understand Chinese, I do not think that the Chinese Room Argument suggests that the person in the room understands Chinese. Opposing to what Searle says, the person sitting in the room does not act similar to someone who understands Chinese. Someone that fully understands Chinese and knows its semantics can understand the language even though they are not working in a room like the one in the argument.
