What Is the Problem of Other Minds? Knowing Anyone Else Is Conscious
By the BrainSnail editorial team. How these articles are written and checked, and how to tell us when one is wrong.
You have direct access to your own experience and none at all to anyone else's. Everything you know about other people's inner lives is inferred from their behaviour and their bodies, and the question of whether that inference is justified turns out to be far harder to answer than it first appears.
The asymmetry
The problem arises from a genuine difference in how the two kinds of knowledge are obtained. Your own pain is not something you observe and conclude about, it is something you undergo directly. Another person's pain is known only through what you can observe: they wince, they say it hurts, their body is damaged, their brain shows characteristic activity. Every one of those is evidence about behaviour and physiology, and the step from there to the conclusion that there is an experience accompanying them is an inference. That inference is universally made, and almost nobody seriously doubts it in practice, which is part of why the problem is philosophically interesting rather than practically urgent. The question is what justifies it, and the standard answers have known weaknesses. Nothing in the problem requires believing that other people lack minds, and the sceptical conclusion is generally treated as a reductio showing that something is wrong with the way the question has been set up.
The proposed solutions
Several answers have been offered and each attracts a specific objection:
- •The argument from analogy, holding that others resemble you physically and behaviourally, so they probably resemble you inwardly, which is criticised as a generalisation from a single instance, namely yourself
- •Inference to the best explanation, treating other minds as the hypothesis that best accounts for the observed behaviour, which is stronger and still leaves the alternative hypotheses hard to rule out
- •Criteria-based accounts, following Wittgenstein, which deny that mental terms refer to hidden private objects at all and hold that pain behaviour is part of what the word means rather than evidence for something behind it
- •The private language argument, which contends that a language whose terms referred to purely private sensations could not have rules and therefore could not be a language, undermining the picture that generates the problem
- •Direct perception accounts, arguing that we see emotion in a face rather than inferring it, and that the inferential picture misdescribes ordinary experience
- •Theory of mind research in psychology, which studies how humans actually attribute mental states and how that capacity develops, which answers a different question than the philosophical one
The zombie argument
The problem is sharpened by a thought experiment concerning philosophical zombies, meaning hypothetical beings physically and behaviourally identical to a person but with no inner experience at all. If such a being is genuinely conceivable, the argument runs, then consciousness is not entailed by physical facts, which supports the claim that there is a hard problem of consciousness not addressed by any account of brain function. Opponents deny the conceivability, arguing that a being identical in every physical respect would necessarily be conscious and that the apparent conceivability reflects a failure of imagination. The debate is central to contemporary philosophy of mind and it also sharpens the problem of other minds, because if a zombie is possible then no amount of behavioural or physical evidence could establish that anyone is conscious. Most participants treat this as a reason to doubt the coherence of the scenario rather than as grounds for scepticism about their colleagues.
Where it has practical weight
The question stops being purely academic in several areas. Animal consciousness is the largest, since the inference from behaviour and physiology to experience is exactly what is at stake in deciding which animals can suffer, and the evidence is assessed differently for a chimpanzee, an octopus, a fish and an insect, with real legal consequences following, including legislation recognising sentience in cephalopods and decapod crustaceans after formal evidence reviews. Disorders of consciousness raise it acutely, since patients who appear unresponsive have in some cases been shown by brain imaging to be aware and able to answer questions by modulating their brain activity, which has changed clinical practice and legal decisions about treatment withdrawal. Artificial systems raise it prospectively, since a machine that produces convincing reports of inner states supplies exactly the behavioural evidence the inference relies on while differing in every physical respect, which is why claims about machine sentience are so difficult to assess and so easy to make.
The takeaway
Your own experience is undergone directly and everyone else's is inferred from behaviour and physiology, which is an asymmetry no evidence removes. The argument from analogy generalises from one case, and Wittgenstein's response denies that mental words name hidden private objects at all. The zombie thought experiment sharpens it to the point where no evidence could settle the question. Animal sentience law and unresponsive patients turn on the same inference.