'Now, look at how different these two are.' Now, the quickest way I can point to what I think is the flaw in this, is the question is, what the hell is Searle doing in the room and why is the criterion of whether a system understands, whether an intelligent person inside the system has understanding? This is a version of what's well known in philosophy and elsewhere as the homunculus fallacy. Alan Saunders : This is the notion that when I perceive the world there's a little man inside me who's as it were looking at this movie screen projected through my eyes. Peter Slezak : Exactly, and the homunculus fallacy is the fallacy of explaining something by begging the question, by really postulating the very thing that you're trying to explain. Now, that's the quickest way I can kind of indicate what I think the problem is, and I think it's a much more widespread problem, and a very compelling mistake to fall into,  when you think that you can explain something by relying on the very ability, which is the one in question. In this case, Searle is relying on his own ability to understand as if it's relevant. Now, if I could quickly indicate the proper way to run the test. If it's appropriate to put a homunculus into the symbol system and ask whether you, Searle, can understand it, the appropriate analogy would not be with English coming into the room, but it would be