Chinese Room

Comments:
Miguel Alex Cardenas - http://alex-chi.blogspot.com/2011/01/chinese-room.html#comments
Zack Henkel -  http://zmhenkel-chi2010.blogspot.com/2011/01/chinese-room-blog.html 

Reference Information:
Title: Minds, brains, and programs
Author: John R. Searle
Presentation: (Article) Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (3): 417-457
 

Summary:
This article is about a question raised in the 1980 by John R. Searle about the idea that computers' understanding of their own work. Do computers really understand what they are doing? The scenario presented by Searle consists of a hypothetical program that can respond to any questions (input) it receives in Chinese, and respond (output) accordingly to the question, in Chinese. The question becomes, does the computer really understand Chinese just because it is able to maintain a conversation with a Chinese speaker. Searle sets a scenario with a man inside a room, with enough file cabinets full of papers that allow him to translate and answer questions that are passed to him under the door. Even if he is able to carry out this function, does that mean he understands Chinese? 

Searle raises two questions, does the computer really understand what it is saying? Which Searle identifies as strong AI, or is the computer merely simulating a knowledge?, weak AI. Searle's position is that strong AI is mistaken. That a computer cannot have an understanding of it functionality simply because a computer does not have a mind. 

Source

Discussion: 
In the discussion presented in Wikipedia, it explains the importance of this article, and the great impact that it has had since its publication. It explains how majority of critiques are trying to refute Searle's position. I think I partly understand his point and agree with him. For me a computer is just as smart as the programmer can make it. For me, computers simulate the brain functionality in order to provide a service. For example, in the scenario that Searle explained, the computer's main functionality was to provide a service. Something that maybe Searle could do by hand, but that it is more convenient and faster to have it done by a computer. However, that does not mean that he himself would understand what he was doing if he was just following an algorithm, for example. I just do not think that a human mind can be compared to a computer. Maybe the brain can, since a computer can have a capacity of problem solving and storage. My overall opinion is that computers simulate the functionality of the human brain. Now I'm a little confused between the difference between the mind and the brain, but I shall do more reading about it in order to give a more solid opinion.