No, it was used to argue that computers could pass the Turing test and still _not_ understand anything. It was a reducto intended to dispute exactly the claim you are ascribing to it, and argue _against_ "computers as being capable of understanding like humans do".
Thanks. I stand corrected. I guess I should also add that, aside from the black box view, there are pro-computer stances that claim there is mentality and intentionality.
