Timeline for What is meant by the behavior of other people in argument?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 4, 2023 at 0:40 | comment | added | armand | @Johnny5454 it's written in the answer and the comment i already made in response to you: 1 if other people dont exist the problem of whether they have a mind is pointless. 2 nobody takes solipsism seriously, even those who say they do. | |
| Aug 3, 2023 at 7:54 | comment | added | Johnny5454 | In all your explanations, you emphasized that the existence of other minds is the simplest explanation. But why not solipsism? Solipsism has fewer entities, so it is also simple. | |
| Aug 3, 2023 at 7:53 | comment | added | Johnny5454 | Why does IBE believe that the existence of other minds is the best explanation for the behavior of other people? | |
| Aug 3, 2023 at 2:01 | comment | added | armand | @Johnny5454 note that the question was "do other people have minds?" which supposes there are other people and is out of the scope of solipsism. Solipsism has a strong "gotcha" feeling to it as it plays the Okham razor (at least the "entity" formulation you are using), but the main problem with it is that i never saw anyone take solipsism seriously enough to actually put their money where their mouth is and start treating the world around them as a product of their imagination. Usually they keep eating, engaging with people... (and those who do take solipsism seriously tend to die, anyway...) | |
| Aug 2, 2023 at 12:44 | comment | added | Johnny5454 | But if solipsism has fewer entities (only one conscious mind), then wouldn't it be a simpler and therefore the best explanation? | |
| Aug 31, 2022 at 10:39 | comment | added | Scott Rowe | @Arnold3 In essence, we use the Turing Test on people constantly to assess how aware they are. If Mr Turing had described a robot, then dancing around probably would have been included in the Test. If it walks like an intelligent robot, and talks like an intelligent robot, then it is probably... "A witch!" | |
| Jul 10, 2022 at 13:57 | comment | added | armand | At this point I think you're kidding me. Smiling, crying, shouting, sighing and other displays of emotions, but also talking, listening, etc are all part of the behavior of a person. And are all hints that they do have emotions and thoughts, like you. Not only that but if you observe people playing chess, or doing a task like crafting an object or building a house, those are all things you think while doing. So probably other people do think too when they behave like that. It seems improbable that all chess masters are just staring at the board, faking concentration. | |
| Jul 10, 2022 at 10:02 | comment | added | Arnold3 | that is, does this argument only establish by talking to other people that other people also have thoughts and that other people also think? What role does the behavior of other people play here? | |
| Jul 10, 2022 at 9:01 | comment | added | armand | Well it would be easier for an algorithm to just repeat prefabricated sentences, that's why I added the precision about originality. Yet 1: I can't imagine you never heard a single person say something original. 2: what about you when you say a platitude? Are you not thinking? Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume others can also say unoriginal things yet think, just like you do? | |
| Jul 10, 2022 at 8:54 | comment | added | Arnold3 | And if their answers do not contain originality? | |
| Jul 10, 2022 at 8:45 | comment | added | armand | If you hear someone a explain their views about a given subject, and these views have some originality, you never heard the subject addressed in this way, this person actually looks like they are thinking. You could also ask them questions, and they would answer in a meaningful way, actually addressing your remarks. In other words, their behavior is that of a thinking person like you know you are. What is the most probable explanation to this behavior? That they have thoughts like you do, or that they are an automaton elaborate enough to fool you? What hypothesis raises the less questions? | |
| Jul 10, 2022 at 6:23 | comment | added | Arnold3 | Could you give another example of how this argument establishes through behavior that other people also have thoughts and that other people also think. | |
| Jul 10, 2022 at 5:16 | comment | added | armand | If you could point me to what you don't get, it would be helpful because it's quite straightforwardly put in my opinion (but of course, I wrote it so I'm not objective...) | |
| Jul 10, 2022 at 4:15 | comment | added | Arnold3 | Could you explain again in more detail how this argument determines by behavior that other people also have thoughts and that other people also think? | |
| Jul 9, 2022 at 21:19 | comment | added | armand | I'd rather not to. I think it's all laid out here at this point. | |
| Jul 9, 2022 at 15:39 | comment | added | Arnold3 | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Jul 9, 2022 at 13:20 | comment | added | armand | Yes. It seems reasonable to conclude by abduction that people describe their thoughts and feelings because they do indeed have them, like you do, considering the alternative is they are automatons credibly formulating thoughts they don't have about feelings they don't have either. | |
| Jul 9, 2022 at 13:12 | comment | added | Arnold3 | That is, when other people talk about their thoughts, emotions, desires, feelings, and sensations, does that also apply to the behavior of other people and is relevant to the best explanation argument? | |
| Jul 9, 2022 at 13:06 | comment | added | armand | People talk or write and can formulate very elaborate reasonings or questions like we do now. What is the best solution, that I am an automated process haphazardly aligning random words that just happen to answer your questions or that I am actually able to read them, think of an answer and formulate it like you do when you write a question ? (I could indeed be an AI or something, as this is internet after all, but how about people you meet every day?) | |
| Jul 9, 2022 at 12:23 | comment | added | Arnold3 | What about thoughts? How does the behavior of other people show that other people have thoughts? How does behavior show that other people are thinking too? | |
| Jul 9, 2022 at 12:19 | comment | added | armand | The fact that they show emotions like I do. If I watch a sad movie I cry, the person sat next to me in the theater cries too. What is the best explanation? That they felt sad like me or that they are an automaton programmed to cry when they see a sad movie? (Btw, how do they identify it as sad if they have no emotions? etc...) | |
| Jul 9, 2022 at 12:16 | comment | added | Arnold3 | What is meant by the behavior of other people in the best explanation argument? What is included in the behavior of other people? | |
| Jul 9, 2022 at 12:16 | history | edited | armand | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Jul 9, 2022 at 12:07 | history | answered | armand | CC BY-SA 4.0 |