I think the reference to cellular automata is a bit misplaced. Yes, Rule 110 is Turing complete, but I don&#x27;t think this has anything to do with the sort of lookup table that Searle is appealing to. You can <i>write programs</i> with Rule 110, by arranging an initial state and letting the rules mutate it. However, a lookup table that merely contains terminal endpoints can&#x27;t do that. It doesn&#x27;t have the necessary self-reference.<p>People always like to say this about Matthew Cook&#x27;s result on Rule 110 and connect it to Searle&#x27;s argument, but they are just totally different things. If Searle instead talked about encoding a general purpose AI program to translate sentences, and his substrate of computation happened to be a cellular automata, that&#x27;s fine, but it would be no different than him postulating an imaginary C++ program that translates the sentences, meaning he would be assuming a solution to A.I. completeness from the start, whether it is via cellular automata or some typical programming language or whatever.<p>But the type of lookup table he is talking about is just an ordinary hash table, it&#x27;s just a physical store of fixed immutable data which is not interpreted as self-referencing in a programmatic sense, but instead which simply holds onto, and is &quot;unaware&quot; of, translation replies for each possible input.