Searle (1980, 1989) has produced a number of arguments purporting to show that computer programs, no matter how intelligently they may act, lack ' intentionality' Recently, Harnad (1989) has accepted Searle' s arguments as having ' shaken the foundations of Artificial Intelligence' (p. 5). To deal with Searle' s arguments, Harnad has introduced the need for ' noncomputational devices' (e.g. transducers) to realize ' symbol grounding' This paper critically examines both Searle' s and Hamad' s arguments and concludes that the foundations of AT remain unchanged by these arguments, that the Turing Test remains adequate as a test of intentionality, and that the philosophical position of computationalism remains perfectly reasonable as a working hypothesis for the task of describing and embodying intentionality in brains and machines.