I&#x27;m incredibly surprised that out of both previous threads, the piece &quot;Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity&quot; by Scott Aaronson [1] was only mentioned in one comment, and seemed to spark no further discussion.<p>Aaronson dedicates significant space specifically to the Chinese Room problem, and has a good literature review of different computer science objections (my favorite was probably the one estimating the entropy of English and coming up with space bounds on the size of all 5-minute long conversations in English).<p>It is one of the most comprehensive takedowns of the Chinese Room problem.<p>Along similar lines, Aaronson discusses later in the paper the problem &quot;Does a rock implement every Finite-State Automaton?&quot; popularized by Chalmers [2] and many computer science rebuttals.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.scottaaronson.com&#x2F;papers&#x2F;philos.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.scottaaronson.com&#x2F;papers&#x2F;philos.pdf</a><p>[2] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;consc.net&#x2F;papers&#x2F;rock.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;consc.net&#x2F;papers&#x2F;rock.html</a>