Give me one (1) good solution to the problem of other minds.

you ask the question using language taught to you by your community, that only gets it's stable meaning through shared use and shared practices around correct/incorrect uses of the words

>but are those humans conscious

note the thinking going on here. if we take just the visua field for example, what you're doing is instead seeing things in the world around you, you're stepping back in your awareness and becoming cognizant of your visual field itself. You are then imagining a sort of realist meatphysics in which your visual field exist in a sort of objective space, an the question you ask yourself is someething like "within this objective space that my visual fied exists within (along with my other senses/life), does there *also* exist other visual fields/experiences? And how am I, from my subjectivist little world within this objective space, to know whether other little worlds like mine exist?

These are a *lot* of metaphysical assumptions being made, and they're being made based on a specific mental practice of stepping back from our normal everyday way of experiencing the world and other people, into a very specific, unusal type of awareness and viewing your own sense experience from a sort of 'faux' third person view, almost like heidegger's sense of 'present-at-hand'.

but this is not how we experience and interact with others in the vast majority of instants, so why should this form the basis of our metaphysics and our belief in 'other minds'

>>3237299
hold an orange up in front of someone, in our normal everyday mode of existence it is a singular object that both people see, and understand eachother as seeing (for example, get your friend to point at the orange, they don't point to a personal, private experience of a second orange - they point to the orange out there in the shared world). you use shared language, learnt from others to even ask for the guy to point. and then you go into this autistic spastic mode of seeing your own experience as private, and even your friends body as private, and this autisitc question arises "DOES ANOTHER ORANGE EXIST IN MY FRIENDS EXPERIENCE THAT EXISTS IN AN OBJECTIVE SPACE, TRANSCENDENT TO MY OWN EXPERIENCE?"

it's a question that seems coheerent, but when we unpack the assumptions that lead to it, we can see that it's not realy a valid question. it's a sort of category error, it arises from false assumptions and thoughts, and it is something that the philosopher *dissolves* rather than solves.

p-zombies are literally the very same thing as other humans, prove me wrong

>>3237978
This desu

File: chinatsu.jpg (506KB, 1280x1077px) Image search: [Google]

506KB, 1280x1077px

>>3237978
Correct. There's your hard problem solved. People don't literally have non-physical qualia phenomena in need of some new science to explain, they just have physiology / behavior and qualia is the fictional abstraction of that used to tell a story and make sense out of it.