Origin of the Mind/Mental States

[Sparko]

One cannot arrive at a true premise via reasoning from the armchair alone, through some sort of blend of intuition, pure reason and conceptual analysis.

Actually that is exactly what philosophy is, Tassman.

[lee_merrill]

Where did I ever claim reasoning a first principle?

I claim that it is a first principle, it must be. I don't know if you claim this, but if not, then there is no way to prove the validity of reasoning.

Still waiting for you to answer my question: What is your specific argument for what you consider is a sufficient first-principle?

But first principles are assumed as necessary and self-evident, they are not to be argued for.

The validity of reasoning cannot be determined by 'reasoning correctly from premise to a conclusion.'

Agreed.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

The "reasoning" is just the process of arguing correctly from premises to a conclusion. How do you obtain the premise from which you begin the process?

That's up to the one making the argument, it could be a conditional premise, one that might be true or false, or a first principle.

Best wishes,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Ah, but here you must assume the validity of reasoning in order to make this argument for the validity of reasoning. And making an argument means it is not a first principle.

Blessings,
Lee

Again, again,again and again no. You're dodging my question with constant cracked record circular reasoning.

I gave you the reasonable sources that explain First-Principles, and they are NOT reasoning in and of itself. Yes reasoning cannot justify, prove nor make an argument fro easoning, because that is circular reasoning that results in insanity, or on the other hand stubborn intransigent apologetics.

Still waiting . . .

[Tassman]

Actually that is exactly what philosophy is, Tassman.

Yes, that's is exactly what philosophy is. And for all its value in logical reasoning, a philosophical argument cannot arrive at a true conclusion unless it can be shown that its premise is true.

[Tassman]

That's up to the one making the argument, it could be a conditional premise, one that might be true or false, or a first principle.

A premise that "might be true or false" will result in a conclusion that "might be" true or false, i.e. merely a belief not a reliable fact.

[lee_merrill]

I gave you the reasonable sources that explain First-Principles, and they are NOT reasoning in and of itself.

Agreed.

Agreed again.

Still waiting . . .

But I'm not sure what your question is, I've tried to respond to all your points.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

A premise that "might be true or false" will result in a conclusion that "might be" true or false...

Agreed... I'm apparently being very agreeable.

Best wishes,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

A
But I'm not sure what your question is, I've tried to respond to all your points.

Blessings,
Lee

You have not responded to my question concerning your view of what is the 'first-principle' that is necessary. Your arguments concerning the 'first-premise' of reasoning are not meaningful, confusing, circular, and at best foggy.

[Tassman]

Agreed... I'm apparently being very agreeable.

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?

[Sparko]

Yes, that's is exactly what philosophy is. And for all its value in logical reasoning, a philosophical argument cannot arrive at a true conclusion unless it can be shown that its premise is true.

The very concept that you need to show a premise is true is an act of reasoning, Tassman.

[JimL]

The very concept that you need to show a premise is true is an act of reasoning, Tassman.

Yes, so what. Put another way, reasoning can not arrive at a true conclusion, unless it can first arrive at a true premise.

[Tassman]

The very concept that you need to show a premise is true is an act of reasoning, Tassman.

I'm not saying it isn't. But this was in the context of lee_merrill's "validity of reasoning" claims, wherein he seems to be erroneously conflating "valid argument" with "true argument.

[Sparko]

Yes, so what. Put another way, reasoning can not arrive at a true conclusion, unless it can first arrive at a true premise.

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.

[Sparko]

I'm not saying it isn't. But this was in the context of lee_merrill's "validity of reasoning" claims, wherein he seems to be erroneously conflating "valid argument" with "true argument.

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.