Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Origin of the Mind/Mental States

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    Valid reasoning is grounded in logic based upon a true premise; a true premise requires verification. Without a true premise your argument cannot be a sound argument.
    Yes, but empirical verification is an odd sort of way to verify reasoning.

    How do you "prove the validity of reasoning"?
    I don't, it's a first principle, which, I might add, establishes the presence of the supernatural in the world. The naturalist view excludes any first principle of reasoning, and every endeavor to prove the validity of reasoning has to assume it at the outset.

    Best wishes,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
      No, what I'm assuming is the validity of an objective empirical reality upon which the validity of our reasoned conclusions are based. Even you need assume that, otherwise there is nothing for your distinct conscious mind to reason about.
      Here you are giving me reasons to trust the validity of reasoning! This is arguing in a circle, there is no way to prove the validity of reasoning.

      And I conclude that objective reality exists, the evidence of my senses and the responses to my actions confirms this for me, this does not need to be a first principle.

      Blessings,
      Lee
      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        Yes, but empirical verification is an odd sort of way to verify reasoning.
        Reasoning is the action of thinking about something in a logical way. In order to arrive at a logically true conclusion one must begin with a true premise otherwise you will not have a 'sound' argument...no matter how valid the argument may be. The best way of obtaining a certain "true premise" is via empirical verification.

        I don't, it's a first principle, which, I might add, establishes the presence of the supernatural in the world. The naturalist view excludes any first principle of reasoning, and every endeavor to prove the validity of reasoning has to assume it at the outset.
        If you ground your logical argument in a "supernatural premise' you have no means of verifying that premise to be 'true'. Your argument is based upon an unverifiable supernatural assumption and cannot be a 'sound' argument.
        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          Ah, but here you assume the validity of reasoning in order to explain our reasoning.

          Blessings,
          Lee
          Your selective circular argument concerning human reasoning is meaningless. How do demonstrate by reasoning your assumption above concerning human reasoning?

          I recommend you stay out of Alice's rabbit hole.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            But empirical verification is hardly a foundation for reasoning. What measurements can you take to verify your argument here?
            Empirical verification IS NOT the foundation for reasoning. The empirical verification reinforces the conclusions of human reasoning by providing objective verifiable evidence basis to confirm the conclusions for human reasoning.

            No, the validity of reasoning has to be a first principle. Call that an article of faith if you want, but you cannot prove the validity of reasoning.
            It is meaningless to attempt to 'prove' the validity of human reason, in part, because human reasoning of the 'mind only' is subjective in the degree of the validity of reasoning
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              The best way of obtaining a certain "true premise" is via empirical verification.
              In matters of empirical science, yes. But no thermometer is going to help you establish the validity of reasoning.

              If you ground your logical argument in a "supernatural premise' you have no means of verifying that premise to be 'true'. Your argument is based upon an unverifiable supernatural assumption and cannot be a 'sound' argument.
              Well, I certainly don't claim to have an argument proving the validity of reasoning! It has to be a first principle, and a first principle contradicting naturalism, therefore, reason is supernatural.

              Best wishes,
              Lee
              Last edited by lee_merrill; 12-10-2018, 08:11 PM.
              "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                How do demonstrate by reasoning your assumption above concerning human reasoning?
                I assume human reasoning is valid because the alternative is insanity.

                The empirical verification reinforces the conclusions of human reasoning by providing objective verifiable evidence basis to confirm the conclusions for human reasoning.
                All this assumes the validity of reasoning at the outset. There is no way around this! This is arguing in a circle.

                It is meaningless to attempt to 'prove' the validity of human reason, in part, because human reasoning of the 'mind only' is subjective in the degree of the validity of reasoning.
                But I meant reasoning in general, not any particular act of reasoning. If I'm understanding you correctly...

                Blessings,
                Lee
                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                  In matters of empirical science, yes. But no thermometer is going to help you establish the validity of reasoning.
                  Reasoning is valid only if based upon logical argument, for a logical argument to be sound it requires a demonstrably true premise. Empirical science is one way to establish a true premise to enable a sound argument, whereas basing a premise on a supernatural claim is not.

                  Well, I certainly don't claim to have an argument proving the validity of reasoning! It has to be a first principle, and a first principle contradicting naturalism, therefore, reason is supernatural.
                  In that case you have no means to exercise valid reasoning or establish a sound conclusion.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    Reasoning is valid only if based upon logical argument, for a logical argument to be sound it requires a demonstrably true premise. Empirical science is one way to establish a true premise to enable a sound argument, whereas basing a premise on a supernatural claim is not.



                    In that case you have no means to exercise valid reasoning or establish a sound conclusion.
                    Logic IS Reasoning, Tass. It is the language of reasoning. You have to accept it as true before you can even begin to use it. That logic corresponds to reality is self-evident. Therefore the concept of reasoning is self evident. You have to use it to even realize it it true. To even have the idea that empirical science can test the truth of something requires reasoning.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      Logic IS Reasoning, Tass. It is the language of reasoning. You have to accept it as true before you can even begin to use it. That logic corresponds to reality is self-evident. Therefore the concept of reasoning is self evident. You have to use it to even realize it it true. To even have the idea that empirical science can test the truth of something requires reasoning.
                      “Logic” is a process of reasoning conducted according to the principles of validity; it is not “true” in and of itself. If you want a valid argument to be a ‘sound’ argument it must be based upon a premise which can be shown to be true. Empirical verification is one way of arriving at a true or rationally justified premise.
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        “Logic” is a process of reasoning conducted according to the principles of validity; it is not “true” in and of itself. If you want a valid argument to be a ‘sound’ argument it must be based upon a premise which can be shown to be true. Empirical verification is one way of arriving at a true or rationally justified premise.
                        I said logic is reasoning. It is a precise language used to reason with. The language of reason. You have to use reason to use logic. Therefore you have to accept that reasoning is a valid way to come to the truth of a matter as a self-evident truth. Because you have to use it to even come to that truth.


                        So what is logic? Briefly speaking, we might define logic as the study of the principles of correct reasoning.

                        ...
                        A second feature of the principles of logic is that they are non-contingent, in the sense that they do not depend on any particular accidental features of the world. Physics and the other empirical sciences investigate the way the world actually is. Physicists might tell us that no signal can travel faster than the speed of light, but if the laws of physics have been different, then perhaps this would not have been true. Similarly, biologists might study how dolphins communicate with each other, but if the course of evolution had been different, then perhaps dolphins might not have existed. So the theories in the empirical sciences are contingent in the sense that they could have been otherwise. The principles of logic, on the other hand, are derived using reasoning only, and their validity does not depend on any contingent features of the world.

                        For example, logic tells us that any statement of the form "If P then P." is necessarily true. This is a principle of the second kind that logician study. This principle tells us that a statement such as "if it is raining, then it is raining" must be true. We can easily see that this is indeed the case, whether or not it is actually raining. Furthermore, even if the laws of physics or weather patterns were to change, this statement will remain true. Thus we say that scientific truths (mathematics aside) are contingent whereas logical truths are necessary. Again this shows how logic is different from the empirical sciences like physics, chemistry or biology.




                        https://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/whatislogic.php

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          I said logic is reasoning. It is a precise language used to reason with. The language of reason. You have to use reason to use logic. Therefore you have to accept that reasoning is a valid way to come to the truth of a matter as a self-evident truth. Because you have to use it to even come to that truth.
                          Correct as far as it goes. As your link states: "So what is logic? Briefly speaking, we might define logic as the study of the principles of correct reasoning". I.e. it is a method of examining or thinking about ideas. Reasoning is conducted or assessed according to correct principles of validity. Although, a valid argument, even if it follows all the rules, is not necessarily a true argument. For it to be "true" as wel as "valid", you need to be able to show the premise to be true.
                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            I assume human reasoning is valid because the alternative is insanity.

                            All this assumes the validity of reasoning at the outset. There is no way around this! This is arguing in a circle.
                            No, it is not circular, no more than without reasoning there would be insanity. With objective verifiable evidence you have INDEPENDENT confirmation from reasoning. Without objective verification you simply have the subjective mind justifying the subjective mind which is insanity.

                            But I meant reasoning in general, not any particular act of reasoning. If I'm understanding you correctly.
                            Reasoning in any particular act cannot be separated from reasoning in general.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              Correct as far as it goes. As your link states: "So what is logic? Briefly speaking, we might define logic as the study of the principles of correct reasoning". I.e. it is a method of examining or thinking about ideas. Reasoning is conducted or assessed according to correct principles of validity. Although, a valid argument, even if it follows all the rules, is not necessarily a true argument. For it to be "true" as wel as "valid", you need to be able to show the premise to be true.
                              sigh. Tassman, go back to school or something. Validity is only known by way of reasoning. You have to have the idea in your head that "something is valid if it is true" and that my friend, is correct reasoning and logic. It is self-evident. You are merely arguing in circles.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                No, it is not circular, no more than without reasoning there would be insanity. With objective verifiable evidence you have INDEPENDENT confirmation from reasoning.
                                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
                                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                510 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X