Question: In John Searle's Chinese room thought experiment, why is it acceptable to assume that the man does not understand Chinese? One could say that it is because he is using some table of rules, but the man could simply have memorized all of them and the entire situation would be preserved in its salient features. I don't see how "understanding" Chinese is in any way different from having memorized a set of rules for interpreting Chinese. Isn't that precisely what a language is? Any thoughts?