The Chinese Room argument was literally an argument against mechanism / computationalism (ie that your mind is just a really complex neural network.) So no, "b

The Chinese Room argument was literally an argument against mechanism / computationalism (ie that your mind is just a really complex neural network.) So no, "by the same reasoning" humans cannot be considered non sentient. In fact the original paper is not talking about sentience at all, but intelligence (these are different things.) And the argument it isn't about declaring something sentient or non-sentient, it simply states that responding with expected outputs to a given input is not proof of sentience or intelligence. It basically says you have to use some other method to determine if something is intelligent and has "understanding." You should read up on this a lot more, it's fascinating, and you've got a very incorrect understanding of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room