I'm incredibly surprised that out of both previous threads, the piece "Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity" by Scott Aaronson [1] was only mentioned in one comment, and seemed to spark no further discussion.
Aaronson dedicates significant space specifically to the Chinese Room problem, and has a good literature review of different computer science objections (my favorite was probably the one estimating the entropy of English and coming up with space bounds on the size of all 5-minute long conversations in English).
It is one of the most comprehensive takedowns of the Chinese Room problem.
Along similar lines, Aaronson discusses later in the paper the problem "Does a rock implement every Finite-State Automaton?" popularized by Chalmers [2] and many computer science rebuttals.
Aaronson dedicates significant space specifically to the Chinese Room problem, and has a good literature review of different computer science objections (my favorite was probably the one estimating the entropy of English and coming up with space bounds on the size of all 5-minute long conversations in English).
It is one of the most comprehensive takedowns of the Chinese Room problem.
Along similar lines, Aaronson discusses later in the paper the problem "Does a rock implement every Finite-State Automaton?" popularized by Chalmers [2] and many computer science rebuttals.
[1] http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/philos.pdf
[2] http://consc.net/papers/rock.html