Fair enough. In which case Sear&#x27;s argument is that even fantastically complex, sophisticated information processing systems with billions of moving parts and vast information storage retrieval resources operating over long periods of time cannot be intelligent. If that&#x27;s what his position boils down to, what does casting it as a single person in a room add to the argument? As Kurzweil asked, how is that different from neurons manipulating neurotransmitter chemistry? Searl doesn&#x27;t seem to have an answer to that.