Locke Paper

I will argue that Leibniz's argument is plausible as it explains that there could not be a system of thinking matter because it does not go beyond what we cannot already explain. Leibniz's Mill Argument is sufficient in explaining the unlikelihood of the physical brain being able to produce thought, this idea requires natures to explain the phenomenon. Locke's account of the Super Addition Argument which explains that it is possible that there could be a system of thinking matter, and it is a decent one. Locke does not say that it is possible that thinking matter exists, but instead takes a more agnostic approach by saying we do not know, and will probably never know whether matter can think or not. (1) How does this argument work? Explain it using other texts besides the Monadology. Leibniz believed that there could not be a system of thinking matter, and he uses the “Mill Argument” against the possibility of a thinking machine, and to explain his process of thinking. Leibniz wants us to see bodies being magnified, and when they are, you do not see anything that explains thought. In his argument, he uses the example of a mill. He wants us to imagine exploring the inside of a mill. Inside the mill, Leibniz says that if we are only physical beings, then a person exploring mill would see similar things as they would see inside a brain. When the person is walking around inside the mill, they see physical things happening, they see how the mill works, and how it produces flower. Leibniz states: “It follows that if it cannot be conceived how perception arises in a crude machine, whether composed of fluids or solids, it also cannot be conceived how it arises in a more subtle machine” (Reflections on the Souls of Beasts).We unders... ... middle of paper ... ...would reply to Leibniz's view by saying that we do not really know what the substratum of thought is, and God is omnipotent, so he can add thought to bodies. Locke would explain that we cannot question what God can or cannot do, if he wants to add thought to bodies, then that is what will happen, we cannot disprove that either, nor can we prove it, so it is not much to think about. Locke might also state as Leibniz thought as well, that there are no actual brute facts, that whatever is the case should be explained; which implies that whatever happens is caused to do so. Locke's aim is to show the limitations of knowledge that humans possess. He does not declare that it is possible for that thinking matter exists, but only that it is impossible to tell whether we know it exists or not. Thinking matter is merely a possibility, and Leibniz cannot prove otherwise.