We’ve all been chatting with machines lately — ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude — and they sound impressively human.
It’s easy to wonder: do they just seem to understand, or is there something real going on inside?
Back in 1980, philosopher John Searle argued that no matter how good a machine’s answers are, something crucial is missing.
His Chinese Room thought experiment challenges the idea that smart programs can ever really understanding.
I’ve written an essay exploring what Searle’s Chinese Room says about AI, minds, and meaning.
The essay unpacks the argument, why it feels convincing, and why many philosophers still push back on it today.
At its heart, the Chinese Room forces us to ask: is manipulating symbols enough to create a mind — or does it leave us forever on the outside of meaning?
If Searle’s right that symbol-shuffling isn’t enough, then what is enough to make meaning?
