First, Searle can be right while his argument is unsound, i.e., machines cannot think, but the reasons for this are not the ones he gives. For myself, I think Searle is hiding behind the magic word "meaning," and I'm agnostic about whether a piece of software or even some kind of specialized hardware could pass the Turing test, let alone have internal states comparable to human consciousness. I think what he *does not* say about state, either in the Chinese Room or in an actual piece of software or hardware is telling, however.
Second, strong AI as I understand it means this: all mental processes can be represented as algorithms/idealized Turing machines. That's not the same as "mimicry of certain aspects of human cognition"; infinitely many Turing machines do not halt, and there is _a priori_ no way to distinguish between those that do and those that don't. This also has zero, zip, nada to do with the actual performance of hardware and software--it may well be the case that the only thing that can *completely and efficiently* implement a brain is a brain--and actually I incline not only to that, but that brain states called "consciousness" only develop in response to social stimuli. But that doesn't matter; people don't implement actual Turing machines either, but they're indispensible as formalisms.
As for saying that machines don't think--well, what is it to think?
Curtiss
> Having worked with AI based systems and huge computing
> clusters for a few years now, I find this faith in
> strong AI bewildering and disappointing. It is
> perhaps, an indication of the deep complexity of the
> systems we depend upon that many people believe almost
> any innovation to be possible - as if via magic.
>
> But strong AI is a failure and will remain a failure
> because its underlying assumption - that minds can be
> built or evolved using canned mimicry of certain
> (poorly understood) aspects of human cognition - is
> deeply flawed.
>
> Well phrased and on-point criticisms of Searle's
> arguments are fine and necessary but do nothing to
> change the fundamentals: machines do not think.