Objections to mode of presentation selected by Searle and to conclusions that he derived were almost immediately raised. Searle fought back effectively. But throughout these debates a few points seemed to have escaped most of those involved.

First, English speaker inside room himself is a conscious entity, replete and complete with mental states, cognition, awareness and emotional powers. Searle went to extent of introducing himself to Chinese Room (in his disputation). Whereas Searle would be hard pressed to prove (to himself) that English speaker in room is possessed of mental states – this is not case if he himself were in room. The Cartesian maxim holds: "Cogito, ergo sum". But this argument – though valid – is not strong. The English speaker (and Searle, for that matter) can easily be replaced in thought experiment by a Turing machine. His functions are recursive and mechanical.

But there is a much more serious objection. Whomever composed book of instructions must have been conscious, possessed of mental states and of cognitive processes. Moreover, he must also have had a perfect understanding of Chinese to have authored it. It must have been an entity capable of thinking, analysing, reasoning, theorizing and predicting in deepest senses of words. In other words: it must have been intelligent. So, intelligence (we will use it hitherto as a catchphrase for gamut of mental states) was present in Chinese Room. It was present in book of instructions and it was present in selection of input of Chinese messages and it was present when results were deciphered and understood. An intelligent someone must have judged results to have been coherent and "right". An intelligent agent must have fed English speaker with right input. A very intelligent, conscious, being with a multitude of cognitive mental states must have authored "program" (the book of instructions). Depending on content of correlated inputs and outputs, it is conceivable that this intelligent being was also possessed of emotions or an aesthetic attitude as we know it. In case of real life computers – this would be programmer.

But it is computer that Searle is talking about – not its programmer, or some other, external source of intelligence. The computer is devoid of intelligence, English speaker does not understand Chinese (="Mentalese")– not programmer (or who authored book of instructions). Yet, is SOURCE of intelligence that important? Shouldn't we emphasize LOCUS (site) of intelligence, where it is stored and used?

1. Sometimes technology becomes an inseparable part of law. In extreme cases, technology itself becomes law. The use of polygraphs, faxes, telephones, video, audio and computers is an integral part of many laws - etched into them. It is not an artificial co-habitation: technology is precisely defined in law and forms a CONDITION within it. In other words: very spirit and letter of law is violated (the law is broken) if a certain technology is not employed or not put to correct use. Think about police laboratories, about O.J. Simpson case, importance of DNA prints in everything from determining fatherhood to exposing murderers. Think about admissibility of polygraph tests in a few countries. Think about polling of members of boards of directors by phone or fax (explicitly required by law in many countries). Think about assisted suicide by administering painkillers (medicines are by far most sizeable technology in terms of money). Think about security screening by using advances technology (retina imprints, voice recognition). In all these cases, use of a specific, well defined, technology is not arbitrarily left to judgement of law enforcement agents and courts. It is not a set of options, a menu to choose from. It is an INTEGRAL, crucial part of law and, in many instances, it IS law itself.

2. Technology itself contains embedded laws of all kinds. Consider internet protocols. These are laws which form part and parcel of process of decentralized data exchange so central to internet. Even language used by technicians implies legal origin of these protocols: "handshake", "negotiating", "protocol", "agreement" are all legal terms. Standards, protocols, behavioural codes - whether voluntarily adopted or not - are all form of Law. Thus, internet addresses are allocated by a central authority. Netiquette is enforced universally. Special chips and software prevent render certain content inaccessible. The scientific method (a codex) is part of every technological advance. Microchips incorporate in silicone agreements regarding standards. The law becomes a part of technology and can be deduced simply by studying it in a process known as "reverse engineering". In stating this, I am making a distinction between lex naturalis and lex populi. All technologies obey laws of nature - but we, in this discussion, I believe, wish to discuss only laws of Man.

3. Technology spurs on law, spawns it, as it were, gives it birth. The reverse process (technology invented to accommodate a law or to facilitate its implementation) is more rare. There are numerous examples. The invention of modern cryptography led to formation of a host of governmental institutions and to passing of numerous relevant laws. More recently, microchips which censor certain web content led to proposed legislation (to forcibly embed them in all computing appliances). Sophisticated eavesdropping, wiring and tapping technologies led to laws regulating these activities. Distance learning is transforming laws of accreditation of academic institutions. Air transport forced health authorities all over world to revamp their quarantine and epidemiological policies (not to mention laws related to air travel and aviation). The list is interminable.