In the part of this dialogue, find the arguments presented and determine if they are valid or invalid.
“I just came from Professor Shaw’s class in the Philosophy of Human Nature,” Nick says to his friend Erin, as he meets her in the hallway. “We discussed the question of whether an android could be a person and whether they have rights.
Sounds like an interesting class, Erin replies, but an android could never be a person.
“Why is that,” Nick asks.
“It’s really quite simple,” she says. “If an android is a person, then it’s rational. But no android is rational, so it’s not a person.”
“But wait,” Nick says. “Androids can solve problems, and they can also deliberate. And if they can either deliberate or solve problems, then they’re rational. Right? So androids are rational, after all”.
“No they’re not,” Erin says. “If an android is rational, then it’s conscious, and if it’s conscious, then it has reflective mental activity—it can reflect on its own act of thinking. But no android can do that, so it’s not rational.”
"How do you know that no android has reflective mental activity?” he asks.
“Because an android has reflective mental activity only if it has a soul,” Erin says. “And it’s ridiculous to think that an android could have a soul. Hence it has no reflective mental activity.”