Origin of the Mind/Mental States

[JimL]

We can certainly confirm our reasoning objectively, but the point remains, you cannot prove the validity of reasoning with an argument, it has to be a first principle, and a principle outside of naturalism.

Could you explain what you mean by the "validity of reasoning? Do you mean to say that a conclusion derived of by reason and logic can't be proven to be valid? If so, could you give an example of a conclusion derived of by reason and logic that isn't proven valid?

[Tassman]

We can certainly confirm our reasoning objectively, but the point remains, you cannot prove the validity of reasoning with an argument,

A “valid” argument means simply observing the rules of validity in a logical argument. This does not necessarily mean that it is true. To arrive at a true conclusion you need to have a true premise and this can be obtained via objective verifiable evidence.

it has to be a first principle, and a principle outside of naturalism.

The only "first principle" you require is a true premise; it certainly doesn't have to be "outside of naturalism"..

https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

[Sparko]

A “valid” argument means simply observing the rules of validity in a logical argument. This does not necessarily mean that it is true. To arrive at a true conclusion you need to have a true premise and this can be obtained via objective verifiable evidence.



The only "first principle" you require is a true premise; it certainly doesn't have to be "outside of naturalism"..

https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

The very idea that "The only "first principle" you require is a true premise" requires correct reasoning to determine it is a valid statement. Try again.

[lee_merrill]

Could you explain what you mean by the "validity of reasoning? Do you mean to say that a conclusion derived of by reason and logic can't be proven to be valid? If so, could you give an example of a conclusion derived of by reason and logic that isn't proven valid?

I mean reasoning correctly from premises to a conclusion.

Blessings,
Lee

[Tassman]

The very idea that "The only "first principle" you require is a true premise" requires correct reasoning to determine it is a valid statement. Try again.

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.

[JimL]

I mean reasoning correctly from premises to a conclusion.

Okay, now could you give me an example, and then explain what you mean by the conclusion not being valid?

[shunyadragon]

We can certainly confirm our reasoning objectively, but the point remains, you cannot prove the validity of reasoning with an argument, it has to be a first principle, and a principle outside of naturalism.

Blessings,
Lee

No one tries to 'prove' validity of reasoning with an argument. That would mean the insanity you speak of Explain your first-principle.

Aristotle proposed first-principles, but even 'believing' in first-principles is no certainty, nor the foolish notion, that our reasoning is valid.

[shunyadragon]

No one tries to 'prove' validity of reasoning with an argument. That would mean the insanity you speak of Explain your first-principle.

Aristotle proposed first-principles, but even 'believing' in first-principles is no certainty, nor the foolish notion, that our reasoning is valid.

To add: Different philosophers and thinkers have used First-principles in useful practical was, but again nothing here proves the validity of our reasoning.

Source: https://jamesclear.com/first-principles

Defining First Principles Thinking

A first principle is a basic assumption that cannot be deduced any further. Over two thousand years ago, Aristotle defined a first principle as “the first basis from which a thing is known.”

First principles thinking is a fancy way of saying “think like a scientist.” Scientists don’t assume anything. They start with questions like, What are we absolutely sure is true? What has been [falsified] proven?

In theory, first principles thinking requires you to dig deeper and deeper until you are left with only the foundational truths of a situation. Rene Descartes, the French philosopher and scientist, embraced this approach with a method now called Cartesian Doubt in which he would “systematically doubt everything he could possibly doubt until he was left with what he saw as purely indubitable truths.”

In practice, you don't have to simplify every problem down to the atomic level to get the benefits of first principles thinking. You just need to go one or two levels deeper than most people. Different solutions present themselves at different layers of abstraction. John Boyd, the famous fighter pilot and military strategist, created the following thought experiment which showcases how to use first principles thinking in a practical way.

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

To add: Different philosophers and thinkers have used First-principles in useful practical was, but again nothing here proves the validity of our reasoning.

Source: https://jamesclear.com/first-principles

Defining First Principles Thinking

A first principle is a basic assumption that cannot be deduced any further. Over two thousand years ago, Aristotle defined a first principle as “the first basis from which a thing is known.”

First principles thinking is a fancy way of saying “think like a scientist.” Scientists don’t assume anything. They start with questions like, What are we absolutely sure is true? What has been [falsified] proven?

In theory, first principles thinking requires you to dig deeper and deeper until you are left with only the foundational truths of a situation. Rene Descartes, the French philosopher and scientist, embraced this approach with a method now called Cartesian Doubt in which he would “systematically doubt everything he could possibly doubt until he was left with what he saw as purely indubitable truths.”

In practice, you don't have to simplify every problem down to the atomic level to get the benefits of first principles thinking. You just need to go one or two levels deeper than most people. Different solutions present themselves at different layers of abstraction. John Boyd, the famous fighter pilot and military strategist, created the following thought experiment which showcases how to use first principles thinking in a practical way.

© Copyright Original Source

If you carry this to the quest for the ultimate first-principle it can take two roads. First, the objective verifiable evidence for our reasoning goes to Natural Laws and ultimately Natural foundation of our physical existence, and no Gods. Second, if you take it further based on the hypothetical with the belief in God. God becomes the First-Principle. Simply based on fallible human reasoning we could prove neither, and both work in our limited fallible view of reality.

[Tassman]

I mean reasoning correctly from premises to a conclusion.

Yes but that's not saying very much. A “valid” argument only refers to the form of the argument. The trick is to obtain a true premise otherwise you cannot arrive at a true conclusion

[lee_merrill]

Okay, now could you give me an example, and then explain what you mean by the conclusion not being valid?

There must be some misunderstanding here, could you quote my statement in question?

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

No one tries to 'prove' validity of reasoning with an argument. That would mean the insanity you speak of.

Agreed.

Explain your first-principle.

That reasoning can be valid.

Aristotle proposed first-principles, but even 'believing' in first-principles is no certainty, nor the foolish notion, that our reasoning is valid.

Well, not all arguments are valid, I agree.

If you carry this to the quest for the ultimate first-principle it can take two roads. First, the objective verifiable evidence for our reasoning goes to Natural Laws and ultimately Natural foundation of our physical existence, and no Gods.

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

[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 and again and again and again . . .

No one is assuming the validity of reasoning in order to make this argument for the validity of reasoning. This makes all assumptions in this case subjective and not remotely a first principle.

Where did I ever claim reasoning a first principle?

Where are you going with this other than another trip on the hamster wheel and insanity?

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

[shunyadragon]

I mean reasoning correctly from premises to a conclusion.

Blessings,
Lee

Reasoning correctly?!?!?! circular at best.

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

[Tassman]

I mean reasoning correctly from premises to a conclusion.

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?