How can i counter argue this argument?

My subject is philosophy and we had a discussion class today which spoke about the mind. This argument was put forth by a philosopher named John Searle. The discussion is involving what qualifies one person to have a thought... here is the argument

1. Let S be any program whatsoever.
2. The program, S, can be specified as a set of purely formal rules, R, for
mapping inputs to outputs.
3. Someone could, in principle, perform the functions of the computer—
producing output by manually applying the rules R to inputs.
4. Such a person would not thereby understand Chinese.
5. But if the person applying R would not understand Chinese thereby, the
computer running S could not understand Chinese thereby either.
6. Thus, no computer understands Chinese in virtue of running program S.
7. But, S was any program whatsoever.
8. So, no computer can be made to understand Chinese by running any
program whatsoever.
9. As it goes for understanding Chinese, so it goes for any other sort of
mentation.
10. In short, running the right software is not sufficient for thought.


So what are some idea's that i could attempt to go on to counter this argument? Any broad ideas or anything would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!