Origin of the Mind/Mental States

[JimL]

You have to accept that reasoning is a valid method of finding the truth as a first principal, as something self-evident. Reasoning is a basic principal that you can't "prove" without using reason. A big circle.

Reason and logic are self evidential valid methods of finding truth as has been proven throughout time. Reason is not itself something that need be proven, it's what we use to prove facts about the world. The facts concerning the world would be first principles, the physical laws say, would be first principles.

[Sparko]

Reason and logic are self evidential valid methods of finding truth as has been proven throughout time. Reason is not itself something that need be proven, it's what we use to prove facts about the world. The facts concerning the world would be first principles, the physical laws say, would be first principles.

Tell Tassman that.

[lee_merrill]

You've agreed to my comment that "A premise that "might be true or false" will result in a conclusion that "might be" true or false", but you snipped the important bit, namely that such a premise "may be merely a belief not a reliable fact". Why?

Well, I don't believe there is a dichotomy between beliefs and facts, which this part of your comment seems to imply.

Best wishes,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Well, I don't believe there is a dichotomy between beliefs and facts, which this part of your comment seems to imply.

Best wishes,
Lee

this eludes to an underlying problem with with you view of reasoning if you do not distinguish between the reasoning for objectively verified facts, and the reasoning for subjectively held beliefs.

[Tassman]

Well, I don't believe there is a dichotomy between beliefs and facts, which this part of your comment seems to imply.

Maybe, maybe not! But if your “facts” are based upon unevidenced “beliefs” you can’t claim them as facts.

[Tassman]

He is arguing that correct reasoning is a first principal that you have to just accept as valid and true. Which you do. It is Prima Facie.

“Correct reasoning” is necessary for a valid argument, but a valid argument is not necessarily “true”. For a true argument you must show that the premise is true.

[Sparko]

“Correct reasoning” is necessary for a valid argument, but a valid argument is not necessarily “true”. For a true argument you must show that the premise is true.

Yeah. But you were arguing that you can't accept reasoning as a valid method of finding the truth without the scientific method. And that is false. Reasoning is prima facie a valid method of finding the truth. It is a first principal. You can't even come up with the scientific method without first using reasoning.

[shunyadragon]

Yeah. But you were arguing that you can't accept reasoning as a valid method of finding the truth without the scientific method. And that is false. Reasoning is prima facie a valid method of finding the truth. It is a first principal. You can't even come up with the scientific method without first using reasoning.

lee_merrill asserts that reasoning is not the first-principle to justify the validity of reasoning

[Sparko]

lee_merrill asserts that reasoning is not the first-principle to justify the validity of reasoning

He does? Can you show me where?

[shunyadragon]

He does? Can you show me where?

lee_merrill stated that reasoning itself is not the first-principle for the validity of reason, and requires the first-principle as supernatural.

I am making a positive claim, actually, and one demonstration is in the validity of human reasoning. The naturalist has no basis on which to establish the validity of human reasoning, therefore it is supernatural.

[shunyadragon]

He does? Can you show me where?

lee_merrill stated that reasoning itself is not the first-principle for the validity of reason, and requires the first-principle as supernatural.

I am making a positive claim, actually, and one demonstration is in the validity of human reasoning. The naturalist has no basis on which to establish the validity of human reasoning, therefore it is supernatural.

I described this to some extent in a previous post of two views of 'first-principles,' Natural 'first principles' of natural knowledge, and the belief in 'first principles' as from God or supernatural.

lee_merrill is arguing for Norman Geisler’s argument for the necessity of basic first principles of reality as the basis of his logical argument for God.

The alternative goes back to Aristotle, and other philosophers the first principles are simply underlying basic principles for our reasoning and knowledge, which are the basis our knowledge of our physical existence.

[Tassman]

Yeah. But you were arguing that you can't accept reasoning as a valid method of finding the truth without the scientific method. And that is false. Reasoning is prima facie a valid method of finding the truth. It is a first principal. You can't even come up with the scientific method without first using reasoning.

You are confusing a “valid argument” with a “sound argument”. The latter requires a true premise in order to arrive at a true conclusion...scientific methodology is one way to obtain a true premise. Whereas, a deductive argument is “valid” (not necessarily true) if its conclusion logically follows from its premise(s)...the validity of the argument is merely dependent on following correct process.

[Sparko]

lee_merrill stated that reasoning itself is not the first-principle for the validity of reason, and requires the first-principle as supernatural.

Which is why you need to accept reasoning as a first-principal, unless you want to accept "God" as who makes reasoning valid. Because there is no way to TEST for it, because any testing would require reasoning to determine the outcome of the test.

[Sparko]

You are confusing a “valid argument” with a “sound argument”. The latter requires a true premise in order to arrive at a true conclusion...scientific methodology is one way to obtain a true premise. Whereas, a deductive argument is “valid” (not necessarily true) if its conclusion logically follows from its premise(s)...the validity of the argument is merely dependent on following correct process.

Was that reasoning you used there Tassman?

[seer]

Was that reasoning you used there Tassman?

No, no it wasn't...