瑟爾在其1997年出版的書中提出一個更簡潔的論證形式來詮釋其在19年所提出的中文屋論證而主張「電腦程式不可能有心靈」，本文針對此詮釋方式來討論此論證並且指出，當瑟爾在論證中使用「語法」以及「語意」這些詞彙的時候可能同時指涉自然語言和電腦程式語言的語法和語意，本文指出，在中文屋論證中它們不是明顯可以被視為相同的東西，而瑟爾的論證有混淆這兩者的嫌疑，如果真是如此，此論證犯了歧義的謬誤。而在沒有歧義問題的所有解讀下，瑟爾的論證則是明顯的缺乏說服力的。

In his 1997's book, The Mystery of Consciousness, Searle presents a new type of argument to explain his famous "Chinese Room Argument." This argument is originally appeared in 1980 and has been discussed for more than 20 years. However, whether the argument is persuasive or nor may still be a controversial problem. The new argument gives a clearer way to present Searle's idea. In this paper, I analyze this argument and point out that it is either invalid or problematic. The crux is that Searle does riot distinguish the differences between natural languages and computer languages when he uses the concepts syntax and semantics. If Searle use the concepts to refer to both in his argument, the argument commits a fallacy of ambiguity. However, if we explain his argument in a way of avoiding the fallacy, it becomes unpersuasive.