The fact that P does not understand [x] is nowhere in your formulation, not in premise #1.
Yes it is. Reread more closely, please.
Conclusion #3 is wrong and should be written as “the fact that humans can [x] cannot be explainable by P”.
That is not Searle’s argument.
I don’t think anything more may productively be said in this conversation as long as (as seems to be the case) you don’t understand what Searle was arguing.
Yes it is. Reread more closely, please.
That is not Searle’s argument.
I don’t think anything more may productively be said in this conversation as long as (as seems to be the case) you don’t understand what Searle was arguing.