Analogous Argument

Since we are inclined to strongly believe in the existance of other minds, then it is imperative to come up with a rational argument for it. One such argument was the argument through analogy. This is a type of inductive reasoning by which we can see antecedent and subsequent bodily states to conclude that another does have similar feelings to us.

John Stuart Mill put forth an argument to the following effect:

1. Initial modification of the body.
2. My feelings caused by (1).
3. My subsequent bodily change (as a reaction to (2))

When looking at others, Mill argued, you can see condition one and condition three but not directly experience condition two. However, condition two can be directly inferred from analysing similar situations ocurring to oneself.

There are several problems with the traditional argument from analogy. One problem with the argument is that we cannot check up on the accuracy on the actor's feelings. Using this argument, is based on a probability that there is another mind which exists. However, we are so sure that other minds exist, this demonstrates that there is a lack in reason.

Lastly, and more devastating is the generalisation problem. The inductive reasoning to conclude (2) from directly experiencing (1) and (3) is based on one case from which the argument makes a generalisation. Usually, in inductive reasoning you have many individual cases which can be analysed and come up with a conclusion. But here there is one case, your experiences, from which you apply to everyone else. For example, the argument applied to another field can be seen as follows. If a primitive person sees one tree, an apple tree. From this he concludes that all trees are apple trees.