In this Wireless Philosophy video, Mason Westfall talks about some replies to the problem of other minds. Check out the video on our website: www.wi-phi.com/videos/replies...
I have 4 ways to solve the problem of other minds: 1. Ludwig Wittgenstein’s argument of language, where he says that: the fact that others can understand that you feel pain or can describe it shows they have similar states. If they didn’t, then they couldn’t understand or respond to your distress. 2. From a neuroscience perspective; When certain emotions or thoughts come into our minds, the brain transmits different signals and neural activity. From this we can see that “ I have the same activity when I feel this “ . So, the other people display that same brain activity when asked to feel a similar feeling. 3. The discussion: It makes no sense for robots to understand the problem of other minds or the concept, if they have no perception or feelings. This discussion only makes sense in a context where people have minds but some people have worries about other minds ( weird philosophers). 4. The first place: This argument requires the belief in theism and that mental states are not physical, but these can be proven 100%. Why would you be the only person to experience while others don’t ,when you have the same behaviour, structure etc. Who caused this, it must be god. So, god must of not only made your mind, but created others minds too. 5. Concepts: There are so many concepts that we all accept that would make no sense to exist if people are not conscious or are robots. - morality wouldn’t make sense with good and bad. The court system wouldn’t make sense when sentencing people to a punishment as they have no mind and are robots. - the concept of feelings or emotions or belief. - logic and reasoning wouldn’t be possible - depression or mental illnesses. - also the distinction between robots and humans wouldn’t make sense as it is clearly stated and understood. From these, it is impossible for this scenario to really happen. It makes no damn sense
First and third way to solve it are terrible, they don't literally have to be robots in the normal way, even if they were, they could be programmed by a god-like figure, and for the 4th argument, you don't have to prove god exists, you just have to prove there is a chance that a higher power exists at the most, which can never be disproven. Neuroscience perspective imo is the best answer, but still, it seems like emotions and thoughts can be pinpointed to something in the brain, but again, it could just look like that and not be the case. It's impossible to prove with 100% certainty that other minds exist, much like anything exists. Cogito ergo sum is the only thing certain.
these are all exceedingly stupid "solutions" 1- there is no reason to believe a robot infinetely motivated to "trick" you couldn't emulate understanding your distress 2- the observable behavior of the brain can be entirely explained by laws of physics with no need to appeal to the existance of a "mind" 3- this one is particularly stupid. The motivations for a robot to trick you are not important at all to the question of whether they can or not. 4- you don't need to believe in a "god" (aka "theism") to believe in minds. 5- - yes morality doesn't exist. You can still use the threat of punishment on people as a preventive measure to make them not act in ways disruptive to society. - you can be sure your emotions exist. maybe you're just the only thing in the universe that has emotions. There is no basis to tell whether this is a probable scenario or not - depression is just the brain working differently. - yes it doesn't make sense when talking specifically about whether they have "minds" or not.
@jcavs9847 1. Your response is circular. A robot having motivation itself makes it an agent as motivation is a concious attribute. Therefore you just used the term " robot " to refer to humans. 2. What a red herring. That is irrelevant to my point. Certain emotions do indeed have a correlation with certain brain states. 3. Again, you have refuted yourself by attributing motivation to robots. 4. Yes you do as minds aren't physical. Btw, materialism is an opposite view affirming the existence of other minds in virtue of brain states = to conciousness 5. Even if you reject morality as an objective existence, it is still undeniable that moral feelings must exist among all humans. Also the concept exists which only can exist in virtue of agency and other minds. The distinction doesn't make sense as in order to have this discussion you need to know what mental states are. Which itself is a knowledge claim therefore affirming my argument
@@radirandom133 you don't have to believe in a mind to use the word "motivation". In this case "a robot infinitely motivated" could as well be shorthand for "a robot programmed by an infinitely motivated programmer". Your objection is meaningless to my point. Besides that, you're the one who started using "motivation" in relation to robots, I don't know how "motivation means mind" can make any sense in conjunction to you using robots as having "motivation" while also using them as examples for "mindless" beings. "Yes you do (have to believe in theism) as minds aren't physical." This is possibly one of the stupidest sentences I have ever read. Just as an example from the top of my head there are Hindu branches that don't believe in any gods but still talk about the "self"/"soul"
If we take knowledge as something that is undeniable fact, yes there is always room to doubt. However, as the evidence for a belief increases, so does the likelihood that that belief is correct. Conversely, as the evidence AGAINST a belief increases, so does the likehood that that belief is INcorrect. So at some point we just have to decide we're going to TRUST what the probabilities say.
Under this framework of skepticism, the skeptic might as well question if they're a brain in a vat. If you question what seems to be the most intuitive thing to believe in [other minds], why not question the intuitive trust you have in your own perceptual faculties. Maybe you aren't actually experiencing red. Maybe the objects that you experience are images being fired in your mind, rather than something being external to you.
I would think about this when I was little it's crazy to hear my own thoughts through others. In my opinion it would be selfish to think im the only real one! But it's not hard to.
What about the idea of Occam’s Razor? Having a world view where other people are real and conscious, just like you, is the simplest solution with the least number of assumptions. You could make the case for a solipsistic universe. For example, you are a bored post-human living out a simulation of humanity’s past. And everyone you see is a mindless computer program. But all these views end up with a universe that is a lot more complicated. It takes extra steps to make the case for a solipsistic world.
right, but even if all the others were made up by a.i that doesn't mean they aren't conscious. why couldn't we say that that ai that made them up isn't conscious, and is then lending them their consciousness? the same way we lend our consciousness to all the people we see in dreams. we process their own behaviours through our consciousness
Perhaps "knowledge of other minds" is rather a pointless thing. We can only react to how people behave, based on whatever their minds are assembling (which is impossible to know for sure). I think. 🤔
I agree. Let's assume that everyone else is a p-zombie... They still act just like you. Also, bad stuff still happens to you if you do something such as stab a p-zombie in broad daylight.
Interesting, but intent is based on ones brain state and not ones actions/behaviors. We hold a lot of weight on intent in societies for multiple things legally and interpersonally. So if intent requires knowledge of one's mind, it seems to be very important.
I don't think it's pointless at all! Maybe, in some sense, it's not that useful to argue whether other people have minds at all, against global skeptics about knowledge of other minds, but much more of the interesting stuff has to do with more specific issues of knowing other people's minds. Here's one just one example to show the importance of mental states in social cognition. A friend tells you that they just came from having a lengthy argument with their boss, and they say they're fine. Outwardly they seem to at least be holding it together fairly well, if not pretty normal. But, because you know that you friend is very conflict averse -- which is likely a complex of different mental states, dispositions, and processes -- you predict that they're actually not telling you the whole truth, and instead telling a white lie either not to be a burden, or because it'd make them upset to talk about, or something like that. You say in response "hey, it's ok if you're not ok, it's not a burden on me to listen to your problems," and your friend reveals they're actually quite upset about the argument they had with their boss. In this case, your mindreading skills, which requires at least justified belief about other minds, was needed over and above knowledge about outwardly observable behavior patterns to engage your friend in a caring way. If you're a skeptic about knowledge of other people's emotions, you'll say that you weren't justified in saying what you said, so there are some concrete upshots for this problem!
You might also say that it's pointless to think about general skepticism, since even if the world is a simulation and you're just a brain in a vat, the choices you can/should make are the same. However, just like researching abstract mathematics builds a foundation for math that's actually useful later on (such as applied math and physics), trying to answer philosophical questions with seemingly no practical benefit may build foundations of ideas and methods that prove useful to answering more pragmatic questions. We have no way of knowing in advance whether or how any particular query, such as a skeptical hypothesis, will be useful to pursue. Nevertheless, this area of study is clearly part of the grand project of philosophy, and working on that project is useful in its own right.
The Problem of Other Minds proves the necessity of Faith .... To be a good human being you have to have the faith that the others have as minds and feelings as you have.
No, it does not. The whole point of the video is to say that there exist rational reasons to believe other people have conscious experiences. Besides, if one controls themselves enough and is intelligent enough, they will recognize that doing harm to other people will cause problem to themselves. So even the incarnation of pure egoism has reasons not to do harm to others even if they do not think it is not morally wrong.
Hm, there is definitely secular faith (secular just for extra clarity) when you conclude someone is conscious , but is it necessary faith in order to be a good human being? Sounds like it could be in interesting conversation. Maybe you can start out by what you mean by good :):). I'm Matt btw.
@@thinkingthing4851 I mean by "good human being" the one who treats the others as human beings not as imaginary created being in spite of the doubts concerning the problem of other minds.
@@hakimal-hakim8890 I could still treat others the way I would want to be treated, and respect them as people, without being confident that they actually exist or have minds. Certainly, the arguments in this video provide enough evidence to think it's worth being a good person *just in case* other people have minds, since that possibility seems relatively likely (at least 50-60%). While this confidence may not rise to the level of belief, I don't think I'd need that belief to be a good person, so I wouldn't need to close the gap between my evidential confidence and full-fledged belief via a leap of faith.
