> If you think you disagree with him (as I once did), please consider the possibility that you've only been exposed to an ersatz characterization of his argumen

> If you think you disagree with him (as I once did), please consider the possibility that you've only been exposed to an ersatz characterization of his argument. My first exposure was a video of Searle himself explaining the Chinese room argument. It came across as a claim that a whole can never be more than its parts. It made as much sense as claiming that a car cannot possibly drive, as it consists of parts that separately cannot drive.