<\/p>\n
<\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>Examining the view that mind and body are separate substances.<\/p>\n<p>Note at 7:08 A reductio ad absurdum argument (one which attributes a machine with thought purely for the sake of argument, to demonstrate that genuinely absurd \/ contradictory consequences follow) would be valid. We can see immediately that Plantinga\u2019s thought experiment doesn\u2019t achieve this: failure to discern how a thinking machine is thinking indicates only lack of comprehension, not a genuine absurdity \/ contradiction.<\/p>\n<p>But his use of Leibniz\u2019 scenario isn\u2019t valid. Leibniz doesn\u2019t just propose a thinking machine, but one we can enter and inspect. If physical thinking things are impossible \u2014 as Plantinga claims \u2014 then whatever machine we conjure up in our imagination to enter and inspect, it can\u2019t be a genuine physical thinking thing, just as it would be impossible to inspect a machine that prints square circles. (Besides, if there\u2019s truly nothing we could be faced with inside the machine that would signal thought, it makes no sense to ask us to inspect it, since no inspection could help us discern thinking machines from non-thinking ones anyway.) It is this sense in which Plantinga cannot use thinking machines to show machines can\u2019t think. His argument is incoherent. It is certainly not a valid reductio ad absurdum.<\/p>\n<p>Selected Resources:<\/p>\n<p>Humanoid robot Asimo demonstration:<br \/>\n<iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"Honda Unveils All-new ASIMO with Significant Advancements\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/yND4k4NM0qU?feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>Descartes, R \u2014 Discourse on the Method (1637)<\/p>\n<div class=\"more-link-wrapper\"> <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/2023\/07\/substance-dualism-part-1-of-2-hd\">Continue reading \u201cSubstance Dualism (Part 1 of 2) [HD]\u201d | ><\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Examining the view that mind and body are separate substances. Note at 7:08 A reductio ad absurdum argument (one which attributes a machine with thought purely for the sake of argument, to demonstrate that genuinely absurd \/ contradictory consequences follow) would be valid. We can see immediately that Plantinga\u2019s thought experiment doesn\u2019t achieve this: failure [\u2026]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":661,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-168446","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-robotics-ai"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168446","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/661"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=168446"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168446\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=168446"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=168446"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lifeboat.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=168446"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}