Abstract

This article furmulates three theses regarding John Searle’s thought experiment called “Chinese room”. The aim of this article is to demonstrate the internal logical contradictions of said thought experiment. The first point concerns the ability of the "Chinese room" to perform specific tasks Turing’s "imitation game" requires, such as value-judgments about the subject. The second thesis concerns question of term "understanding" being used by Searle. Argued that this term is an abstract function , Searle’s using of the said term is a case of functionalism, therefore Kalke’s critics of Putnam’s functionalism applies. The third thesis of this article identifies illocutive assertions as expression assertions, intentional states as emotional states, which allows suggesting that recreating of intentionality is a recreating of reflexes