John Searle's Chinese Room Argument from his work “Minds, Brains, and Programs” was a thought experiment against the premises of strong Artificial Intelligence (TO THE). The premises conclude that something is of the nature of strong artificial intelligence if it is capable of understanding and can explain how human understanding works. I will argue that the Chinese room argument successfully refutes the strong AI conclusion, however, it does not provide an explanation of what understanding is, which becomes problematic when creating a distinction between humans and machines. I will begin by providing a brief overview of the thought experiment and how Searle derives his argument. Imagine that there is someone in a room, says Searle himself, and he has a rulebook explaining what to write when he sees certain Chinese symbols. Across the room is a Chinese speaker writing a note to Searle. After Searle receives the message, he must respond: use the rulebook to write a perfectly coherent response to the real Chinese speaker. From an objective point of view, you wouldn't say that Searle can actually write fluently in Chinese: he doesn't understand Chinese, he only knows how to calculate symbols. Searle argues that this is exactly what happens if a computer responds to the note in Chinese. He claims that computers are only capable of processing information without actually being able to understand the information they are processing. This does not satisfy the first premise of strong AI. It also fails the second premise of strong AI because even if a computer were able to understand the communication it is having in Chinese, it would not be able to explain how this understanding occurs. It seems clear at this point that a human mind is not ......middle of paper......the same thing that Searle does in his work: intentionality. I don't believe that understanding is synonymous with intentionality. In fact, I think intentionality is the only definitive way to break out of the double bind and still prove that the Chinese room argument is true. Intentionality is not a form of understanding, but rather appears to be a form of consciousness that is something a human being can explain, but not attribute to something else. The Chinese room argument certainly shows a distinction between a human mind and strong artificial intelligence. However, it seems that the depth of human understanding may also be a weakness when compared to strong AI and how knowledge and understanding are derived. Perry, John, Michael Bratman and John Martin Fischer. “Minds, Brains, and Programs.” Introduction to Philosophy. New York: Oxford UP, 2013. 298-311. Print.