A commonly raised question brought up when analyzing the methodology behind the "The Turing Test", is can a computer's "thinking" exist with both syntax and semantics? And are both these required to "think"? John Searle's "Chinese Room Experiment" sets out to prove that although a merely syntactic computer may be able to pass "The Turing Test" it's understanding of the issues being posed to it are non-existent. In this essay I shall argue how Searle …showed first 75 words of 1579 total…

…showed last 75 words of 1579 total…can not be achieved in the future. In conclusion, The Chinese Room argument put forward by John Searle does not convey that syntax is not sufficient for semantics, the basis of his argument to prove the Turing Test invalid. Hence it can be seen that Searles' objection to A. I. is chauvinistic and incorrect. Therefore it is clear that there is the definite possibility of computers or robots possessing strong artificial intelligence in the future.