John Searle formulated the Chinese Room Argument in the early 1980s in an attempt to prove that computers are not cognitive operating systems. In short, although the emergence of artificial and computational systems has rapidly increased the infinite possibilities of knowledge, Searle uses the Chinese Room Argument to demonstrate that computers are not cognitively independent. John Searle developed two areas of thought regarding computer-independent cognition. These ideas included defining weak AI and strong AI. Essentially, these two types of AI have their fundamental differences. Weak AI was defined as a system, which was simply human mind simulation systems and AI systems characterized as an AI system completely capable of cognitive processes such as consciousness and intentionality, as well as understanding. He uses the Chinese room argument to show that strong AI does not exist. The Chinese argument is based on the premise that a person who does not speak Chinese can indeed learn and become literate in Chinese by being exposed to it in a room with symbols representative of the Chinese language. It is important to emphasize that the Chinese Room Argument is a thought experiment. He suggests that if a person is placed in a room filled with Chinese symbols, they will be able to speak Chinese. It is important to emphasize that this person must have no prior knowledge of the Chinese language and must manipulate the symbols based on the reaction of a computer. Hypothetically, by following a set of rules, the person would be able to answer questions in Chinese. Processing skills would be mandated by a set of rules provided to the person. The rules would represent ...... middle of paper ......e and codes. With continued advances in computer technology, this argument, while seemingly compelling, may in the future become mute. It is interesting that this argument has attracted so much interest over the years. Undoubtedly, this argument is not yet flawless, it remains valid in supporting the belief that computers are not cognitively independent. -457.Searle, J. (1990a), “Is the brain's mind a computer program? Scientific American 262(1):26-31.Bridgeman, B. (1980), Reply to: "Minds, Brains and Programs", The BBS 3, p. 427. Searle, J. (1980), “Minds, brains and programs”, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, p. 423. Lycan, WG (1980) Reply to: "Minds, Brains and Programs", The BBS 3, p.. 431.