> Searle goes on to contend that intentional behavior must be in response to real contingencies, not formal simulations of reality. If so... He does indeed, bu

> Searle goes on to contend that intentional behavior must be in response to real contingencies, not formal simulations of reality. If so... He does indeed, but the Chinese Room paper presents no compelling argument for that view; it ultimately depends on an appeal to one's intuitions about the feasibility of a remarkable and unrealistic situation that is far from our own experiences, and one, moreover, where he misunderstood the most common response (the 'systems reply'). Dennett has objected that these sort of arguments (or, as he calls them, 'intuition pumps') are simply unsuitable for proving anything, comparing them to denying heliocentricity on the grounds of it being just obvious that the Earth is not moving.