Atheists, please prove empirically the existance of "Other Minds"

[8128]

As far as I can see this thread isn't about the problem of induction. My post provides reasonable though informal empirical grounds to believe "other minds" exist. People act as if they have minds, it then makes perfect sense baring other contrary information to assume they do have minds and in any case it is practically useful to assume they do. It also makes perfect sense to assume any faculty of the so called "mind" is simply derived from the brain and it must be clear that other people have brains.


As you seem interested in proving things absolutely I present a revised proof for your examination



Instead of providing a definition OP instructed the use of google

"A mind /ˈmaɪnd/ is the set of cognitive faculties that enables consciousness, perception, thinking, judgement, and memory—a characteristic of humans, but which also may apply to other life forms"

^wikipedia the first result of my search

There are other humans. By definition humans have minds. Therefor there are other minds.



You claim I misunderstood OP who seemed to have asked for an empirical proof of "other minds" which I provided. If you could in fact clear up my misunderstanding perhaps that would be more useful.

[Athanasius90]

Well, I have. I guess it's somewhat unfortunate that "mind" is equivocal and will have context-specific usages and meanings, but OP and my further clarifications made it fairly clear what was being referred to. It's not inductive or inferential reasoning at stake here, either.

That we can study the brain while it brains with science was never disputed. In fact, what would be the contrary? We science someones head and we don't see a brain, just an empty space, and we go "Oh gee, guess we can't empirical other minds after all!"

Like I said, the pure empirical evidence is indeterminate with respect to a variety of hypotheses about the world.

[MuscleXtreme]

As far as I can see this thread isn't about the problem of induction. My post provides reasonable though informal empirical grounds to believe "other minds" exist. People act as if they have minds, it then makes perfect sense baring other contrary information to assume they do have minds and in any case it is practically useful to assume they do. It also makes perfect sense to assume any faculty of the so called "mind" is simply derived from the brain and it must be clear that other people have brains.


As you seem interested in proving things absolutely I present a revised proof for your examination



Instead of providing a definition OP instructed the use of google

"A mind /ˈmaɪnd/ is the set of cognitive faculties that enables consciousness, perception, thinking, judgement, and memory�a characteristic of humans, but which also may apply to other life forms"

^wikipedia the first result of my search

There are other humans. By definition humans have minds. Therefor there are other minds.



You claim I misunderstood OP who seemed to have asked for an empirical proof of "other minds" which I provided. If you could in fact clear up my misunderstanding perhaps that would be more useful.

The issue is you're using rationalism as your inductive proof. I am asking for empirical proof (empricism), which only accepts something that you can sensory perceive - sight, sound, taste, hear, feel.

The issue with dogmatically following empiricism, is that you run into issues such as this where you cannot empirically prove something that we all know exist. As such if you adhere to empiricism as your methodology, you cannot accept that other minds exist because you cannot empirically prove that they do. Another issue is that empiricism is self-refuting.

[Athanasius90]

The issue is you're using rationalism as your inductive proof. I am asking for empirical proof (empricism), which only accepts something that you can sensory perceive - sight, sound, taste, hear, feel.

The issue with dogmatically following empiricism, is that you run into issues such as this where you cannot empirically prove something that we all know exist. As such if you adhere to empiricism as your methodology, you cannot accept that other minds exist because you cannot empirically prove that they do. Another issue is that empiricism is self-refuting.

But....science?

[Canadian2point0]

To start a conversation, and help point out to atheists that not everything can proved through empiricism. If just one persons leaves this thread now understanding that not everything can be proved through empiricism, then I consider my thread a success.

Wait you wanted to educate us atheists that there are things that can't be proven by science? Wow..... you changed my life today, what a revelation!

Summary.
But this thread continues for some reason.

[8128]

Well I couldn't be bothered to look through the thread to try and find what OP actually wanted me to define because he couldn't be bothered to edit it into the OP. I only got as far as him crying about sophistry to people who asked for a more clear definition and repeatedly instructing the use of google and insisting it was obvious.

And yes when you put it that way it seems like a pointless triviality to empirically demonstrate other people have minds doesn't it? But for OPs sake I did in my previous two posts.

[GreatOldOne]

That above argument wouldn't even be taken seriously by a physicalist philosopher of mind. In fact, pointing at MRI and PET scans and arguing that this is any insight into thought/mind, is actually the subject of many a book right now demonstrating what flawed thinking it is. Methodologically even, it's awry, let alone philosophically.


"I haz science! Look at the science! I scienced your brain while you think!"

Yeah, no. Sorry. We know people have brains and we can empirical and science the brain while it brains. Trivial and obvious. Completely misses the point of OP.

Shut your brain.

[8128]

The issue is you're using rationalism as your inductive proof. I am asking for empirical proof (empricism), which only accepts something that you can sensory perceive - sight, sound, taste, hear, feel.

The issue with dogmatically following empiricism, is that you run into issues such as this where you cannot empirically prove something that we all know exist. As such if you adhere to empiricism as your methodology, you cannot accept that other minds exist because you cannot empirically prove that they do. Another issue is that empiricism is self-refuting.

What an ridiculous post, there is nothing wrong with empiricism. You say there are things everyone knows that we didn't figure out through observing the world? In what manner do we attain information about the world that is not sensory? Any "knowledge" is empirical but scientific knowledge is gained empirically in a careful, formal, self reinforcing structure that makes it more likely to be useful. Everyone knows there are other minds because we observe other people acting as if they have minds and there is blatant evidence any "mind" definition you make up is simply derived from the brain which we can also observe other people have. It is all perfectly empirical, all empiricism says is information is derived from sensory experience.

[Athanasius90]

This may be surprising, but you're employing non-empirical methods even before you attempt to investigate the world. Namely, that there is even a world at all. I don't think people realise how truly restrictive empiricism really is. The instant you attempt to interpret, structure, arrange, or categorise an experience, you've done something non-empirical.


Strict empiricism actually leads you directly to theism! You can never know anything beyond your consciousness. But at any rate, we're not discussing epistemology here and the virtues of any theory. We're just demonstrating that you cannot empirical someone elses mind.

[8128]

This may be a surprise but knowledge derived from sensory experience and not just the sensory experience itself is empirical knowledge! Empiricists believe ALL knowledge is derived from sensory experience. Rationalists, perhaps like you, believe there are some things we can know without ANY sensory experience at all! A big surprise for you will be I don't know of any rationalist who believes we can know "other minds" exist without any sensory experience!

Here is the key point!

Knowledge derived from sensory experience and not just the sensory experience itself is empirical knowledge! Thats why we say scientific knowledge is empirical even though scientists say more then just "I saw a bright light" "I heard a clanking noise".




Yes I have heard of the problem of induction no it does not lead directly to theism.

[Athanasius90]

I wasn't referring to the problem of induction. I was saying even basic beliefs are not susceptible to empirical confirmation, such as the fact there's even a world out there at all, let alone transparent to my reason.


Most of what we consider knowledge is abstract, and necesarily so for any meaningful engagement with the world. And the empirical/rationalist divide two options which are less preferable than the classical epistemology. Still o/t though.

[GreatOldOne]

Yes I have heard of the problem of induction no it does not lead directly to theism.

Considering theism in a meaningful sense involves an invisible person who doesn't exist I don't think there's any great concern what leads to it.

Only how to stop the water run off leading away from it so we don't have people picking up venomous snakes and wrapping women in trash-bags, etc, etc...

[8128]

I wasn't referring to the problem of induction. I was saying even basic beliefs are not susceptible to empirical confirmation, such as the fact there's even a world out there at all

Even in this made up belief system(which is not empiricism) where we only believe in EXACTLY what we perceive sensorily and stop short of deriving any further knowledge we can quite clearly look around and see there is a world.

[Athanasius90]

Even in this made up belief system(which is not empiricism) where we only believe in EXACTLY what we perceive sensorily and stop short of deriving any further knowledge we can quite clearly look around and see there is a world.

All we can look around and see/have are experiences. Not once, ever, has some world outside consciousness ever come into view.

[Harbinger]

reachingdeepforsomebullchit.gif

[8128]

All we can look around and see/have are experiences. Not once, ever, has some world outside consciousness ever come into view.

uh hu, I am not yet at a high enough level of spiritual enlightenment to understand wtf that means.

[Athanasius90]

What I'm saying is immediately obvious and trivial.

[Athanasius90]

uh hu, I am not yet at a high enough level of spiritual enlightenment to understand wtf that means.

You don't need to be, it's so straightforward even a kindergartner could understand it: You have never known anything that wasn't a conscious experience, and have never known anything of an external world beyond it which is apparently a cause of it. You take it to be properly basic, as do I.

[8128]

What I said was obvious and trivial. What you said was not only not obvious but came across as contrived bull****.

Edit: So we are solipsists now, or can we not play philosophical games and you can respond to my points as if it is "properly basic"?

[GreatOldOne]

What I'm saying is immediately obvious and trivial.

Let me change course because of your immediately obvious and trivial comment.

[Athanasius90]

What I said was obvious and trivial. What you said was not only not obvious but came across as contrived bull****.

Read it again champy. It was fairly simple and nothing spiritual about it. None of us have ever experienced/known something that was not a conscious experience.

[GreatOldOne]

Read it again champy. It was fairly simple and nothing spiritual about it. None of us have ever experienced/known something that was not a conscious experience.

Question begging.

There's plenty of reason to believe we experience/know things which are not consciously experienced.

Probably not what you were going for.

[Athanasius90]

Question begging.

There's plenty of reason to believe we experience/know things which are not consciously experienced.

Probably not what you were going for.

Do you just randomly type in the words 'question begging' on a whim? What are you talking about?

[GreatOldOne]

Do you just randomly type in the words 'question begging' on a whim? What are you talking about?

Would that constitute a miracle?

I was referring to subconscious/unconscious.

[8128]

Assuming you missed my edit.

Do you sign off acknowledging solipsism or are you interested in addressing any of my points?

[Athanasius90]

Assuming you missed my edit.

Do you sign off acknowledging solipsism or are you interested in addressing any of my points?

No, I don't acknowledge solipsism. That was my point--I do believe in the existence of other minds and a world. These are metaphysical beliefs I hold, something I take to be properly basic for meaningful engagement with reality. I just admit I have nothing to say to the ardent skeptic. I certainly can't science them. But I don't feel I need to, and I'd question the skeptics motives and/or sanity in this case, too.

[8128]

No, I don't acknowledge solipsism. That was my point--I do believe in the existence of other minds and a world. These are metaphysical beliefs I hold, something I take to be properly basic for meaningful engagement with reality. I just admit I have nothing to say to the ardent skeptic. I certainly can't science them. But I don't feel I need to, and I'd question the skeptics motives and/or sanity in this case, too.

I agree though for my part I instead start by accepting certain tools for investigating reality as to some degree valid. Has our discussion dispelled the notion that we can not empirically prove the existence of other minds?

[Harbinger]

No, I don't acknowledge solipsism. That was my point--I do believe in the existence of other minds and a world. These are metaphysical beliefs I hold, something I take to be properly basic for meaningful engagement with reality. I just admit I have nothing to say to the ardent skeptic. I certainly can't science them. But I don't feel I need to, and I'd question the skeptics motives and/or sanity in this case, too.

So what I took from this statement was "I don't know therefore Jesus doesn't want me to masturbate.

[Athanasius90]

Nope. Still can't empirical another mind (in the sense that OP and I mean)

[Harbinger]

yep