Is there a way to prove that other minds exist?


I really don’t get this.
I know the point of the thread isn’t that I get anything but I really struggle with what you’re saying, it sounds so full of potential but I can’t see what you mean at all.

There is no X that can completely vanish and suddenly become Y. Ok something may appear to vanish but it’s not possible, it’s just not visible. So we have A becoming B becoming C.

Also, mind doesn’t cause anything as far as we know in our perceived existence except prayer which communes with God, but I get the feeling that you are not referring to God at all?

Is English your second language? sorry to ask but I feel there is a language problem here?


I try my best to explain things better.

The first and main idea is that X and Y cannot coexist in the same point since the state of affair become ill-defined. So X must vanishes in order to get Y. So we have three steps, X then nothing then Y. Y however cannot be caused by nothing. Therefore there must be a mind who is aware of X and cause Y. That is the first step in proving that there are at least two minds since we need to show that any change is related to a mind. The next step follow easy. You are aware that you are in charge of certain changes, therefore you are one mind. There are changes that you are not in charge of them, therefore there is at least one more mind.

Mind of course cause many things. You are typing certain things, thinking about certain thing, etc.

Yes, English is my second language.


Thank you. That’s clearer.
But yes I can change many things, yes I can be aware of many changes,
But changes occur somewhere of which I am not aware, and which no their mind is aware either, so I don’t understand why you jump from x and y and suddenly say “there must be a mind which is aware of x and cause y.”

We aren’t aware of all changes, and we don’t cause all changes.
The change that I am aware of may not be perceived by any other.


Basically you have got nothing when X vanishes. Nothingness cannot give rise to Y because of two reasons:

  1. We always observe fantastic correlation between X and Y. Nothingness is indifferent. Therefore the chance for getting a specific Y which always has a correlation with X is logically impossible even if we accept that nothingness has a causal power. By correlation I mean that two state of affair are related, for example a moving ball at two close instants has different positions and these two positions are in close proximity.
  2. Nothingness does not have any causal power.

So, the only solution to get Y is to have a mind otherwise there is only nothing when X vanishes.


So we are imagining an instance whereby only X OR Y can exist.

If X disappears only the recording of its existence can persist through time until Y appears. That recording takes place within an observers mind.

So in a universe of changes witnessed by many recorders those changes can be related and shared to minds which have not witnessed such changes. Therefore many minds exist?


Yes. Bravo.


Thank you dear STT, you are a patient teacher and I respect you greatly for it.

Let’s hope the OP is happy with your point. :slightly_smiling_face:


Look up “Theory of Mind.” It may not fully answer your question but it may help.

Most commonly we hear the word “theory” in connection with models (e.g., models of the physical world) which are shared by many people. Theory of Mind is not like that. It is not shared with other people. Theory of mind is your own internal model of the mind of others.

You observe their behavior. You try to understand and predict their behavior. You try to engage in behavior with them. Perhaps you try to control their behavior. You do all this by imagining their mind.

In the area of evolutionary psychology, it is speculated that the brain developed at first only to control the movement of the organism in a sort of mindless way. A primitive animal uses sensory information to move in such as way as to obtain food, avoid danger, reproduce, and so on.

This primitive brain evolve larger and more complex neural networks that facilitated interaction with other animals. A predator needs to predict the movement of prey, and vice versa. Animals need to engage with others of their own species at least occasionally in order to reproduce.

Cooperation among social animals requires even more sophisticated brain functions. Perhaps the only reason we evolved mind at all is so that we can use it to model the higher-level brain function of others of our species. In other words, we have a mind so that we can imagine others’ minds and work out how to interact with them.

I suggest you turn the original question around. Is there a way to prove that your mind exists? :thinking:


If X and Y are consecutive, is there a need for a mind?

I really do not see why we need the intermediate nothing. It means that everything is created from nothing, ex nihilo. That kind of creativity is usually reserved for God. Mass, energy, momentum, etc. are conserved according to scientists. There is no “disappearing” between X and Y. Rather the elements of X become the elements of Y.

Some events, on a quantum level, are viewed together, ie X and Y are a single state but go in opposite time directions. Before the event, we see X (moving backward in time); after the event, we see Y (moving forward in time). X and Y are the same, but moving through time in opposite directions. The sequence X Y has no intermediat.


There are two reasons to rejects that X and Y are consecutive.

  1. A state of affair doesn’t have capacity to cause another state of affair.
  2. Assume otherwise. This means that X must exist in order to cause Y. We have both X and Y once Y is caused. This is impossible since both X and Y cannot be present in reality.


You are very welcome.


This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit