The traditional notion that seeks to compare the human mind, with all its intricacies and biochemical functions, to that of artificially programmed digital computers, is doomed to failure and should be discredited in dialogues concerning the theory of artificial intelligence. . This traditional notion is like comparing, in crude terms, cars and planes or ice cream and cream cheese. Human mental states are caused by various behaviors of brain elements, and these behaviors are determined by the biochemical composition of our brain, which is responsible for our thoughts and functions. When discussing the mental states of systems, it is important to distinguish between the human brain and that of any natural or artificial organism with central processing systems (i.e. chimpanzee brains, microchips, etc.). Although various similarities may exist between these systems in terms of functions and behaviorism, the intrinsic intentionality within these systems differs significantly. Although it may not be possible to prove whether or not mental states exist in systems other than our own, in this article I will endeavor to present arguments that a machine that calculates and responds to input does indeed have a state of mind, but this does not necessarily result in a form of mentality. This article will discuss how the states and intentionality of digital computers are different from the states of the human brain and yet, they are indeed states of mind resulting from various functions of their central processing systems. The most common refutation of the notion of mental states in Digital Computers is that there are inherent limitations to computation and that there are inabilities in any algorithm to...... middle of paper... an intelligent and intentional activity taking place inside the room and the digital computer. Proponents of Searle's argument, however, would counter that if there is an entity that performs calculations, such as a human being or a computer, it cannot understand the meaning of the symbols it uses. They argue that digital computers do not understand given input or given output. But we can't pretend that digital computers as a whole can't understand. Someone who only enters data, being only a part of the system, cannot know the system as a whole. If there is a person inside the Chinese room manipulating the symbols, that person is already intentional and has a mental state, therefore, due to the seamless integration of their hardware and software systems that understand the inputs and outputs like entire systems, digital computers. I also have states of mind.