6.4.III - Android RightsThe following dialogue contains eleven arguments. On a separate piece of paper, use the translation legendbelow and translate each argument into symbolic form. Use full truth tables, indirect truth tables (shortcutmethod), or identify valid/invalid argument forms to determine whether each argument is valid or invalid.Legend:A: Androids are personsB: Androids are rationalC: Androids can solve problemsD: Androids can deliberateE: Androids are consciousF: Androids have reflective mental activityG: Androids could have soulsH: Souls are material entitiesI: Androids are materialJ: God could infuse a soul into an androidK: Androids have free willL: Androids are programmedM: What we do is caused by our biological makeupN: What we do is caused by our social conditioningO: What we do is determinedP: What we do is freeR: Our actions are influencedS: Our actions are causedT: Androids have feelingsU: Androids feel loveV: Androids feel compassionW: Feelings are mentalX: Feelings are physicalY: Feelings are brain states **Discussion on Androids and Personhood**In a hallway meeting, Nick shares with his friend Erin that he has just come from Professor Shaw's Philosophy of Human Nature class, where they debated whether an android could be considered a person and have rights.Erin expresses skepticism, asserting that "an android could never be a person." When Nick inquires why, Erin explains, "If an android is a person, then it’s rational. But no android is rational, so it’s not a person."Nick counters by noting that "androids can solve problems, and they can also deliberate," suggesting that these abilities imply rationality. Erin disagrees, arguing that rationality involves consciousness and reflective mental activity, qualities she believes androids lack.Nick questions Erin's confidence that no android possesses these traits. Erin responds that reflective mental activity requires a soul, which she views as implausible for androids. Therefore, she concludes, androids lack reflective mental activity.Nick challenges Erin to consider that a soul is either a material or nonmaterial entity, seeking her agreement. Erin concurs with this premise. **Transcript of the Dialogue on Souls and Androids:**---“Okay,” says Nick. “Now let me finish the argument. If a soul is a material entity, then if an android is material, it could easily have a soul. But if a soul is a nonmaterial entity, then if God could infuse a soul into it, then it could have a soul. Now an android is material and God could infuse a soul into an android—after all, God can do anything. Thus, an android could have a soul.”“Well, I know that Descartes considered humans to be machines with souls, but to me it’s crazy to think that God would infuse a soul into a computer. He might as well infuse a soul into a pile of rocks. Anyway, let me try another approach,” Erin says. “If an android is a person, then it has free will. But if androids are programmed, then they have no free will. Androids are just computers made to appear like humans, and are programmed. Hence, once again, an android is not a person. What do you think of that?”“By your reasoning,” Nick replies, “even humans may not be free.”“How is that?” Erin asks.“Well,” he says, “whatever we do is caused by our biological makeup or by our social conditioning. If it’s caused by our biological makeup, then it’s determined. If it’s caused by our social conditioning, then it’s determined, too. And if it’s determined, then it’s not free. Thus, whatever we do is not free.”“Not so,” Erin objects. “Our actions may be influenced by our biological makeup and our social conditioning, but they’re not caused by them. Not strictly. And if they’re not strictly caused by them, they’re not determined by them, and if they’re not determined by them, then they’re free. Thus, our actions are free.”“Well, I don’t know what it means for our actions to be influenced by something yet not be determined,” Nick replies. “If X is influenced by Y, then X is caused by Y, and if X is caused by Y, then X is determined by Y. Thus, if X is influenced by Y, then X is determined by Y.”“I think you’re equivocating on the meaning of cause,” Erin replies. “But if you’re unconvinced, how about this: If an android

The given arguments from A to Y are considered to be true, which lead to a conclusion for the eleven…

Answered: .4.III - Android Rights The following…

Advanced Engineering Mathematics

10th Edition

ISBN:9780470458365

Author:Erwin Kreyszig

Publisher:Erwin Kreyszig

Chapter2: Second-order Linear Odes

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 1RQ

See similar textbooks

Related questions

Concept explainers

Question

6.4.III - Android Rights
The following dialogue contains eleven arguments. On a separate piece of paper, use the translation legend
below and translate each argument into symbolic form. Use full truth tables, indirect truth tables (shortcut
method), or identify valid/invalid argument forms to determine whether each argument is valid or invalid.
Legend:
A: Androids are persons
B: Androids are rational
C: Androids can solve problems
D: Androids can deliberate
E: Androids are conscious
F: Androids have reflective mental activity
G: Androids could have souls
H: Souls are material entities
I: Androids are material
J: God could infuse a soul into an android
K: Androids have free will
L: Androids are programmed
M: What we do is caused by our biological makeup
N: What we do is caused by our social conditioning
O: What we do is determined
P: What we do is free
R: Our actions are influenced
S: Our actions are caused
T: Androids have feelings
U: Androids feel love
V: Androids feel compassion
W: Feelings are mental
X: Feelings are physical
Y: Feelings are brain states

**Discussion on Androids and Personhood**

In a hallway meeting, Nick shares with his friend Erin that he has just come from Professor Shaw's Philosophy of Human Nature class, where they debated whether an android could be considered a person and have rights.

Erin expresses skepticism, asserting that "an android could never be a person." When Nick inquires why, Erin explains, "If an android is a person, then it’s rational. But no android is rational, so it’s not a person."

Nick counters by noting that "androids can solve problems, and they can also deliberate," suggesting that these abilities imply rationality. Erin disagrees, arguing that rationality involves consciousness and reflective mental activity, qualities she believes androids lack.

Nick questions Erin's confidence that no android possesses these traits. Erin responds that reflective mental activity requires a soul, which she views as implausible for androids. Therefore, she concludes, androids lack reflective mental activity.

Nick challenges Erin to consider that a soul is either a material or nonmaterial entity, seeking her agreement. Erin concurs with this premise.

**Transcript of the Dialogue on Souls and Androids:**

---

“Okay,” says Nick. “Now let me finish the argument. If a soul is a material entity, then if an android is material, it could easily have a soul. But if a soul is a nonmaterial entity, then if God could infuse a soul into it, then it could have a soul. Now an android is material and God could infuse a soul into an android—after all, God can do anything. Thus, an android could have a soul.”

“Well, I know that Descartes considered humans to be machines with souls, but to me it’s crazy to think that God would infuse a soul into a computer. He might as well infuse a soul into a pile of rocks. Anyway, let me try another approach,” Erin says. “If an android is a person, then it has free will. But if androids are programmed, then they have no free will. Androids are just computers made to appear like humans, and are programmed. Hence, once again, an android is not a person. What do you think of that?”

“By your reasoning,” Nick replies, “even humans may not be free.”

“How is that?” Erin asks.

“Well,” he says, “whatever we do is caused by our biological makeup or by our social conditioning. If it’s caused by our biological makeup, then it’s determined. If it’s caused by our social conditioning, then it’s determined, too. And if it’s determined, then it’s not free. Thus, whatever we do is not free.”

“Not so,” Erin objects. “Our actions may be influenced by our biological makeup and our social conditioning, but they’re not caused by them. Not strictly. And if they’re not strictly caused by them, they’re not determined by them, and if they’re not determined by them, then they’re free. Thus, our actions are free.”

“Well, I don’t know what it means for our actions to be influenced by something yet not be determined,” Nick replies. “If X is influenced by Y, then X is caused by Y, and if X is caused by Y, then X is determined by Y. Thus, if X is influenced by Y, then X is determined by Y.”

“I think you’re equivocating on the meaning of cause,” Erin replies. “But if you’re unconvinced, how about this: If an android

Expert Solution

Trending now

This is a popular solution!

Step by step

Solved in 10 steps

SEE SOLUTION Check out a sample Q&A here

Knowledge Booster

$Logical Arguments$

Learn more about

Need a deep-dive on the concept behind this application? Look no further. Learn more about this topic, advanced-math and related others by exploring similar questions and additional content below.