Origin of the Mind/Mental States

[JimL]

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.

Wrong, the empirical facts concerning the nature of world, such as the physical laws, would be the first principle, not some imagined entity. We use reason and logic with respect to empirical facts.

[Sparko]

Wrong, the empirical facts concerning the nature of world, such as the physical laws, would be the first principle, not some imagined entity. We use reason and logic with respect to empirical facts.

How do you know that empirical facts are the first principles, JimL?

[JimL]

How do you know that empirical facts are the first principles, JimL?

Because we begin to reason from what we know to be true, and what we know to be true are the empirical facts pertaining to the world.

[Sparko]

Because we begin to reason from what we know to be true, and what we know to be true are the empirical facts pertaining to the world.

How do you know something is true?

[JimL]

How do you know something is true?

Empirical evidence. How do you know the moon exists?

[Sparko]

Empirical evidence. How do you know the moon exists?

Wait you said you know empirical facts are true because you reason from what you know to be true. And you know it to be true because of empirical evidence. You are arguing in a circle.

How do you know what empirical evidence or facts even means? Or what "true" means?

[JimL]

Wait you said you know empirical facts are true because you reason from what you know to be true.

No, I didn't say that, I said empirical facts are the first principles to which we apply reason and logic.

And you know it to be true because of empirical evidence. You are arguing in a circle.

And that we know them to be true because we can observe (empirical) them to be true. How do you know the moon exists?

How do you know what empirical evidence or facts even means?

You can find its definition in the dictionary.

Or what "true" means?

How do you know anything? How do you know the moon exists?

[JonathanL]

No, I didn't say that, I said empirical facts are the first principles to which we apply reason and logic.


And that we know them to be true because we can observe (empirical) them to be true. How do you know the moon exists?

You can find its definition in the dictionary.

How do you know anything? How do you know the moon exists?

How do you know what you observe corresponds to reality?

[Sparko]

No, I didn't say that, I said empirical facts are the first principles to which we apply reason and logic.


And that we know them to be true because we can observe (empirical) them to be true. How do you know the moon exists?

You can find its definition in the dictionary.

How do you know anything? How do you know the moon exists?

I know because I use....wait for it.....REASON.

You can't know anything without reason. You can't know what empirical facts are, what truth is, what first principles are, nothing without reason. And you have to trust that correct reasoning corresponds with reality and truth. You can't do an empirical test to find out if reasoning works because you need to use reason to even come up with that idea or evaluate it, JimL.

derp.

[shunyadragon]

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.

Again reasoning is not described as a first-principle by lee_merrill nor Norman Geisler as cited.. The first-principles are what validate reasoning in their view, and of course, I do not agree.

[JimL]

I know because I use....wait for it.....REASON.

Wrong, without existing empirical facts, there is nothing to reason about. Empirical facts such as the physical laws ,come first. What we come to know about those facts is due to our use of reason, not vice versa.

You can't know anything without reason. You can't know what empirical facts are, what truth is, what first principles are, nothing without reason. And you have to trust that correct reasoning corresponds with reality and truth. You can't do an empirical test to find out if reasoning works because you need to use reason to even come up with that idea or evaluate it, JimL.

You can't know anything by reason without there first being something presented to our senses to know.

[Tassman]

I know because I use....wait for it.....REASON.

Not so. You know the moon exists based upon observation, not "reason" The reasoning follows on from the observation. And such reasoning can lead to conclusions which can be multiply tested and empirically verified.

[shunyadragon]

How do you know what you observe corresponds to reality?

Are proposing a Vedic question concerning the illusion of reality? If reality is an illusion it is a very interesting, painful, fantastic, interesting, beautiful, magnificent illusion.

How do you know what you observe corresponds to reality?

[JonathanL]

Are proposing a Vedic question concerning the illusion of reality? If reality is an illusion it is a very interesting, painful, fantastic, interesting, beautiful, magnificent illusion.

How do you know what you observe corresponds to reality?

I don't know that my observations correspond to reality. I simply have faith that it does.

[shunyadragon]

I don't know that my observations correspond to reality. I simply have faith that it does.

You apparently have no problem getting on an airplane and flying at thousands of feet and hundreds of miles per hour per hour. This is not a meaningful line of reasoning, and a gross misuse of the concept of faith to justify an illusive agenda.

You know well as any other human that ever lived, except for the mentally ill that our observations conform to reality. If not than professional help may be in order.