2

I did not understand how this argument should sound.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/#BestExpl

The article reads as follows: On this way of thinking, mental states are taken to be inner states of an individual that provide the best explanation of the behavior we observe in others.

I didn't get it a bit.

That is, the internal mental states of one person best explain the behavior of other people? Why is it not mentioned here that other people have minds?

Can someone explain this?

How does the argument of the best explanation in favor of other minds sound?

Thank you

Robert Antoni
  • 55
  • 5
  • 1
    Does this answer your question? [Help with whether other minds exist, 'best explanation' argument](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/88909/help-with-whether-other-minds-exist-best-explanation-argument) – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Dec 15 '22 at 07:01
  • I want to know what the best explanation argument sounds like. The article is not clearly written. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/#BestExpl – Robert Antoni Dec 15 '22 at 07:59
  • What sort of answer would you find helpful? "*If you don't know what you are looking for, how will you know when you find it?*" – Scott Rowe Dec 15 '22 at 17:45
  • The article reads as follows: On this way of thinking, mental states are taken to be inner states of an individual that provide the best explanation of the behavior we observe in others. - I didn't understand that. Why is it not mentioned here that other people have minds. Can you explain it more clearly? – Robert Antoni Dec 15 '22 at 18:08
  • How does this argument sound? – Robert Antoni Dec 15 '22 at 18:35
  • 1
    We can convince ourselves our own mental states explain our behavior (or a large part of our behavior), so the presence of mental states (having minds) in others best explains their behavior. Does that help? – J Kusin Dec 15 '22 at 19:57
  • Are you concerned over the poor writing? Or do you not understand internal states as explanation of behavior? Yes, saying internal states of one person explains the behvior of others is a poorly expressed argument. It only means that supposing Bill (a person other than you) has internal states is a good explanation for you to apply to Bill. It does not mean that Bill's internal states are an explanation of things about people other than Bill. Although the poor writing seems to say that. – BillOnne Dec 15 '22 at 20:46
  • "Are you concerned over the poor writing? " - Yes, I did not understand how this argument should sound. – Robert Antoni Dec 15 '22 at 20:49

1 Answers1

4

The argument can be loosely summarised in the following way. On Earth there are billions of humans. The humans act individually. They talk and appear capable of understanding ideas, formulating ideas, and exchanging ideas. They seem able to perform tasks in logic and mathematics. They have powers of perception and memory. They can solve practical and abstract problems. They appear to be capable of self-analysis. Collectively such abilities can be labelled thinking. Countless experiments have confirmed that there is a link between thinking by individuals and chemical activities in their brains. It seems obvious, therefore, that every human has a similar set of mental abilities that is in some way bound up with processes in their brain. It is difficult to imagine a better explanation to account for all of the outward evidence of thought.

Marco Ocram
  • 8,686
  • 1
  • 8
  • 28
  • 1
    But in the past, people took all the occurrences of Nature as evidence for a multitude of spirits: for wind, plant growth and so on. How is this 'thinking' thing any different? Maybe we are all just parts of a big collective force. Plants turn to face the sun, but they don't have to have a spirit to do that. Colonies of ants and bees organize themselves. – Scott Rowe Dec 15 '22 at 02:22
  • @ScottRowe 'Maybe we are all just parts of a big collective force'. Why is that a candidate for a better explanation? – Marco Ocram Dec 15 '22 at 07:23
  • Tell me how the argument of the best explanation in favor of the existence of other minds should sound? In the article, it is a little vaguely formulated. – Robert Antoni Dec 15 '22 at 09:46
  • Because we *are* parts of a big collective force. Did you see the movie "Arrival"? – Scott Rowe Dec 15 '22 at 12:48
  • You have described the argument in sufficient detail, but I did not understand how it should sound. In the article it is written as follows: On this way of thinking, mental states are taken to be inner states of an individual that provide the best explanation of the behavior we observe in others. I do not understand this a bit. Can you elaborate more? – Robert Antoni Dec 15 '22 at 18:30
  • @Robert Antoni Perhaps it would be clearer if I change it to: - ."On this way of thinking, mental states are taken to be inner states of a given individual and such mental states provide the best explanation of the behavior we observe in other individuals." – Ludwig V Dec 17 '22 at 13:14
  • @RobertAntoni Perhaps it will also help if I comment that most people would assume that the "given individual" is oneself, but the argument doesn't say that. I think the assumption makes the best sense of the argument. – Ludwig V Dec 17 '22 at 13:33
  • So now you've given an example of a best explanation argument without referring to your own example? – Robert Antoni Dec 17 '22 at 19:59