Editing Chinese room (section)

=== Symbol processing ===
{{Main|Physical symbol system}}
Computers manipulate physical objects in order to carry out calculations and do simulations. AI researchers [[Allen Newell]] and [[Herbert A. Simon]] called this kind of machine a [[physical symbol system]]. It is also equivalent to the [[formal system]]s used in the field of [[mathematical logic]].

Searle emphasizes the fact that this kind of symbol manipulation is [[syntactic]] (borrowing a term from the study of [[grammar]]). The computer manipulates the symbols using a form of syntax, without any knowledge of the symbol's [[semantics]] (that is, their [[Meaning (semiotics)|meaning]]).

Newell and Simon had conjectured that a physical symbol system (such as a digital computer) had all the necessary machinery for "general intelligent action", or, as it is known today, [[artificial general intelligence]]. They framed this as a philosophical position, the [[physical symbol system|physical symbol system hypothesis]]: "A physical symbol system has the necessary and sufficient means for general intelligent action."{{sfn|Newell|Simon|1976|p=116}}{{sfn|Russell|Norvig|2021|p=19}} The Chinese room argument does not refute this, because it is framed in terms of "intelligent action", i.e. the external behavior of the machine, rather than the presence or absence of understanding, consciousness and mind.

Twenty-first century AI programs (such as "[[deep learning]]") do mathematical operations on huge matrixes of unidentified numbers and bear little resemblance to the symbolic processing used by AI programs at the time Searle wrote his critique in 1980. [[Nils John Nilsson|Nils Nilsson]] describes systems like these as "dynamic" rather than "symbolic". Nilsson notes that these are essentially digitized representations of dynamic systems—the individual numbers do not have a specific semantics, but are instead [[sample (signal)|sample]]s or [[data point]]s from a dynamic signal, and it is the signal being approximated which would have semantics. Nilsson argues it is not reasonable to consider these signals as "symbol processing" in the same sense as the physical symbol systems hypothesis.{{sfn|Nilsson|2007}}