I m having a little trouble figuring out if we have resolved this issue so just to make it clear what we re talking about here s the current structure of the Finding the mind section where means rebutted by CHINESE ROOM SIMPLE SYSTEMS REPLY pencils etc MAN MEMORIZES RULES no pencils Ignore CR SOPHISTICATED SYSTEMS REPLY virtual mind JUST A SIMULATION WHAT S WRONG WITH SIMULATION CR FAILS THIS DOESN T PROVE STRONG AI It is possible to also add rebuttals to the man memorizes like this CHINESE ROOM SIMPLE SYSTEMS REPLY pencils etc MAN MEMORIZES RULES no pencil MAN HAS TWO MINDS IN ONE HEAD CR SOPHISTICATED SYSTEMS REPLY virtual mind etc There are sources for man has two minds in one head and so this paragraph could be written if someone wants to I m not interested in writing it myself and I think the article is better without it The reason I believe it to be a waste of the reader s time Searle s description of the system reply is a straw man He thinks the systems reply ascribes intentionality to a set of objects one of which is a pencil Searle refutes this reply by throwing out the pencil He thinks he s disproved the systems reply Most readers have no idea what Searle is doing or why it matters if there is no pencil As Likebox says it s mysterious The problem is that no one actually ascribed intentionality to the pencil We all ascribe intentionality to something else We might call it software or neural correlates or a running program or an emulated mind or a virtual mind or a functional system etc But we re definitely not talking about just the pencil and the other physical objects What s required is a more sophisticated version of the systems reply and in this article that s what MInsky s virtual mind argument is supposed to supply So the article as it is written allows Searle to have the last word against his straw man and then moves on to the real argument A sophisticated systems reply that actually works and then Searle s basic objection to computationalism a simulated mind is not the same as a real mind I think these are the most important points on the ontological side of the argument So he hesitates are we all happy with that