Bingley
I think you're just about right. You don't take it as far as Searle does, though, because he uses this thought experiment to point out what he considers the difference between syntax and semantics. He says that, as far as any observer outside is concerned, the man in the room, or the room itself, seems to understand Chinese. But we know that the man in the room hasn't a clue about Chinese - he is just manipulating, to him meaningless, symbols. Ergo, the Turing Test plays us false: even if someone, or some entity, could behave human (or speak Chinese) that is no assurance that this person is human (or understands Chinese).
In fact a number of philosophers have attacked this thought experiment, and there was, famously, some rather vitriolic correspondence between Searle and Dennett on this issue (I think it may have been in the New York Times). I (personal opinion only) plump for Dennett's interpretation and reject Searle's - but the debate ain't done and dusted yet.
cheer
the sunshine (pretentiously philosophising) warrior
ps. As far as the thinking like a bat thing goes, see Wittgenstein on 'the beetle in the box', and remark on how fragile is the basis upon which we attribute consciousness to others...
