(November 7, 2013 at 8:45 am)free_thinker_at_last Wrote:(November 5, 2013 at 11:29 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: You're wrong. The evidence for "other minds" is not "pretty massive". I was pleasantly surprised that you made a fairly accurate representation of the argument and what it is meant to prove. But then you started spouting nonsense.
What would your response to the original question be then, Vinny? Also, elaborate more on why you don't think there is an abundant amount of evidence for other minds.
Because all the evidence cited for the existence of other minds makes inferences that are unwarranted to any rational skeptic. Try it yourself- come up with evidence that your girlfriend has a mind. Then ask yourself whether that evidence could not exist if she was a p-zombie. You'll inevitably find that any evidence you cite can still exist with a p-zombie, and thus the existence of other minds is in principle unfalsifiable.
So you are forced to either be a solipsist, or to concede that it's acceptable to believe at minimum one type of unfalsifiable claims. One possible way to refute the argument is to reject the need to rely on basic beliefs, and thus you have to argue for evidentialism. But I don't know how evidentialism would cope with the problem of other minds.
Are you yourself an evidentialist? Apart from the argument of God and other minds, how do you deal with the problem of other minds on evidentialism?
