It's somewhat similar to Ockham's razor.

"I do have a mind, as is obvious. Others look like they have a mind like me, but somehow in fact they are automatons who mimic the feelings and emotions only I genuinely have" raises lots of unanswerable questions like

• "how come only me has a mind?"
• "How come our brains look similar as far as can be investigated without harming me?"
• "If others are just mimicking, who or what made them so good at mimicking my own emotions?"

On the other hand "others look like they have emotions like me because, like me, they have emotions" is simple and solves the problem just as good as the other hypothesis. It can therefore arguably said to be the best explanation.

As stated in the article, such a thought process is called abduction, it is to say holding as the truth the most convincing explanation considered so far. It has the obvious drawback that the real explanation might not have been considered yet, like in the infamous false dichotomy fallacy: "evolution looks improbable because of [insert cherry picked argument here], therefore the creation account of Genesis is true" : many other explanations could be the case.

But because consciousness is a "hard problem" and we can't investigate other people's feelings beyond the appearances of their manifestation, we are stuck with this abduction. As stated in the article "good a solution to the problem of other minds as we are going to get".

It's somewhat similar to Ockham's razor.

"I do have a mind, as is obvious. Others look like they have a mind like me, but somehow in fact they are automatons who mimic the feelings and emotions only I genuinely have" raises lots of unanswerable questions like

• "how come only me has a mind?"
• "How come our brains look similar as far as can be investigated without harming me?"
• "If others are just mimicking, who or what made them so good at mimicking my own emotions?"

On the other hand "others look like they have emotions like me because, like me, they have emotions" is simple and solves the problem just as good as the other hypothesis. It can therefore arguably said to be the best explanation.

As stated in the article, such a thought process is called abduction, it is to say holding as the truth the most convincing explanation considered so far. It has the obvious drawback that the real explanation might not have been considered yet, like in the infamous false dichotomy fallacy: "evolution looks improbable because of [insert cherry picked argument here], therefore the creation account of Genesis is true" : many other explanations could be the case.

But because consciousness is a "hard problem" and we can't investigate other people's feelings beyond the appearances of their manifestation, we are stuck with this abduction. As stated in the article "as good a solution to the problem of other minds as we are going to get".