The chinese room thought experiment is simply annoying because it doesn&#x27;t even get the questions right. It basically asks if the hardware becomes conscious&#x2F;understanding when running software - instead of asking the real question - if the software can gain the understanding&#x2F;consciousness. The man in the room is just a hardware component replacing a computer processor. But the only place to look for intelligence in this experiment should be in the rule-system, not in the processor executing those rules. As those rule systems decide if the communication makes sense or not. To make a real conversion the rule-system needs flexibility to handle dynamic input and thereby creating a dynamic flow between the inside and outside of the room, but that flow is about symbol manipulation, not about the symbol manipulator. I think no one in AI ever even argued that the hardware part of a computer would gain understanding.<p>The only good part about this thought experiment is that it makes the hard question of consciousness - how can it arise from physical phenomena - somewhat more obvious. But it&#x27;s still the same question as for normal human minds and neither an argument for software systems becoming conscious nor against it.