If understanding is criterially linked to behavioral competence rather than hidden semantic facts, Empirical Strong AI's possibility claim survives Searle's internalist objection intact.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Behavioral competence(what understanding might be based on): The ability to successfully perform tasks and respond appropriately—what you can actually do and demonstrate.
Criterially linked(as used in philosophy): Connected to something as a defining feature or standard; if you see the link present, it serves as proof or evidence of the connection.
Empirical Strong AI(Simon and Eisenstadt's weaker target thesis, which they argue Searle's Chinese Room does not refute.): The thesis that it is possible to program a computer that convincingly satisfies ordinary criteria of understanding — a possibility claim, not a necessity claim.
John Searle(as the philosopher being referenced): An influential American philosopher who studies how minds work, language functions, and how people cooperate; he argues that collective intentions are fundamentally different from just combining individual ones.

Based on where you are in your exploration