For the vast majority of people, the problem of other minds may seem irrelevant or nonexistent; to some; however, the problem of other minds is a tantalizing dilemma. The problem of other minds asks how one can sustain the commonsense belief in the existence of individuals with other minds against the general denial of other minds. A general denial of other minds requires that an individual believe wholeheartedly that he or she is the only minded individual who exists and that all others are mere automatons. The problem of other minds arises because any beliefs we have about another's mind arise solely from observation and inference; and information provided by the senses cannot be proven accurate. Furthermore, no amount of observation can reveal the conscious thought processes and experiences of another individual (and, more importantly, their mind) with the same clarity and understanding that we have about our own mind. Consequently we must ask ourselves: what justifies our inferences and beliefs about the mentality of other individuals? How can we truly know that the individual sitting next to us in class, or on a plane, is a conscious, thinking person with his or her own beliefs and experiences? According to George Graham there are three main proposed explanations for the problem of other minds failing to withstand criticism (logical behaviorism, humiliating disclosure, arguments from analogy) and one acceptable solution to the problem (inference to the best explanation). Behaviorism claims that observation of intelligent peripheral behavior is the only way to draw inferences about other minds; in this way the observation of intelligent external behavior constitutes the totality of the mind (minds are just expressions of people and... middle of the paper... or hypotheses should be used. Network Criteria efficiently groups Graham's example of Mrs. T and the Flatworm together because, in the case of Mrs. T, she possesses a singular belief not established in a network of other beliefs In the case of the Flatworm Network Criteria eliminates her from the beliefs containing due to her total lack the intelligence or even the ability to detect the direction of stimuli. Network criteria apply beliefs to more intelligent animals such as dogs and cats whose actions can be explained by a network of beliefs. For example, a cat runs up a tree because it knew it was being chased by a dog and assumed that the tree would provide security. Although the cat may not recognize the tree as a living organism or the dog as a dog, this does not mean that it has no beliefs, but rather that its beliefs are less complex. of those that you and you have. Maybe I did.