Origin of the Mind/Mental States

[JimL]

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

Except that you can observe this natural reality that you only have faith in, you can't observe the solely faith based reality that you call god. Big difference! The notion that you can't trust your senses with respect to the former, without the existence of the latter, which I think is the point of the OP, is silliness.

[JonathanL]

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.

Yes, I have no problems getting on an airplane and flying at thousands of feet and hundreds of miles per hour BECAUSE I HAVE FAITH in the stability of the construction of the airplane, and the skill and conscentiousness of the pilot. Faith in the meaning of trust permeates every. single. thing of human existence, it's not just an aspect of religious belief.

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.

I have faith(trust) that my senses are giving me reliable information about the outside world. I think I'm justified in believing that the information I'm getting from my senses are reliable, but there's no way what so ever for me to conclusively prove that belief.

[lee_merrill]

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

Actually, what I believe is that the validity of reasoning is a first principle, and that this goes against naturalism, and is therefore supernatural.

Blessings,
Lee

[JimL]

Actually, what I believe is that the validity of reasoning is a first principle, and that this goes against naturalism, and is therefore supernatural.

Blessings,
Lee

And why in your opinion does the "validity of reasoning" go against naturalism?

[lee_merrill]

And why in your opinion does the "validity of reasoning" go against naturalism?

Because if all my thoughts and choices are predetermined by non-rational causes, then that invalidates reason.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Yes, I have no problems getting on an airplane and flying at thousands of feet and hundreds of miles per hour BECAUSE I HAVE FAITH in the stability of the construction of the airplane, and the skill and conscentiousness of the pilot. Faith in the meaning of trust permeates every. single. thing of human existence, it's not just an aspect of religious belief.

The question of first-principle as lee-merrill and Geisler proposes involves a different definition of faith. What you describe above is the anecdotal faith the, ie planes fly, and not remotely how it applies to this thread. IT IS CENTRAL to the SUBJECT of the thread concerning the roll of reasoning and different views of what is first-principle. The anecdotal use of faith in the trust of objective evidence as the first-principle as a basis of validating reasoning is faith the airplane will fly

I have faith(trust) that my senses are giving me reliable information about the outside world. I think I'm justified in believing that the information I'm getting from my senses are reliable, but there's no way what so ever for me to conclusively prove that belief.

Than you support objective evidence as sufficient first-principles to validate reasoning. lee-merrill and Geisler propose that the first-principle of the Divine supernatural is required to validate reasoning.

[shunyadragon]

Actually, what I believe is that the validity of reasoning is a first principle, and that this goes against naturalism, and is therefore supernatural.

Blessings,
Lee

Your just rewording your previous posts that, like Geisler, considers the underlying supernatural first-principles to validate reasoning. The above contradicts your previous post I cited.

[Tassman]

I have faith(trust) that my senses are giving me reliable information about the outside world. I think I'm justified in believing that the information I'm getting from my senses are reliable, but there's no way what so ever for me to conclusively prove that belief.

Yes you are justified in trusting that the information you get from your senses is reliable. And whilst there is no way to conclusively prove that belief, validating it by reinforcing your sense-based information with that of others can confirm it. Also, scientific methodology can lead to conclusions that have been validated to such a degree that we can reasonably act as if they are true. E.g. we don't operate on the basis that the speed of light is in doubt; it is overwhelmingly probable that the speed of light, as multiply tested and measured, is true.

[JimL]

Because if all my thoughts and choices are predetermined by non-rational causes, then that invalidates reason.

Blessings,
Lee

Unless I missed it, I don't believe that you previously mentioned anything about predetermination with respect to this argument. It might have been helpful. Anyways, being predetermined wouldn't invalidate the reasoning process any more than would free thought validate it. It isn't the nature of reason that would validate or invaidate the reasoning process, its the rationale, the logic or the illogic of the conclusions that would. You can't be predetermined to believe that 2+2=3, because it just isn't so, it doesn't make sense, it's not logical. The world is what it is and reason can only validate the reality of the world, whether predetermined or not.

[Tassman]

Because if all my thoughts and choices are predetermined by non-rational causes, then that invalidates reason.

Most of your "thoughts and choices" are predetermined whether you like it or not, by your subconscious thoughts and memories dating back to infancy and the processes of cultural socialisation throughout your entire life.

[shunyadragon]

Most of your "thoughts and choices" are predetermined whether you like it or not, by your subconscious thoughts and memories dating back to infancy and the processes of cultural socialisation throughout your entire life.

I go with a version compatabilism (?) where our ability to make choices is very limited based on a deterministic world.

Yes,lee_merrill's response's are problematic and adds to the fog index concerning first principles and reasoning.

[lee_merrill]

Your just rewording your previous posts that, like Geisler, considers the underlying supernatural first-principles to validate reasoning. The above contradicts your previous post I cited.

But what post did you quote? What you have said here is not my view...

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

The world is what it is and reason can only validate the reality of the world, whether predetermined or not.

I agree, I only say that if our process of reasoning is predetermined, then we cannot trust that we will reason correctly, and come up with a valid argument, that corresponds to the reality of the world.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Most of your "thoughts and choices" are predetermined whether you like it or not, by your subconscious thoughts and memories dating back to infancy and the processes of cultural socialisation throughout your entire life.

That's fine, I only reserve that my reasoning is not totally predetermined!

Best wishes,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

But what post did you quote? What you have said here is not my view...

Blessings,
Lee

First, to believe the validity of reasoning is the first-principle for the validity of reasoning is a problem. like begging the question, more to follow.

You present a very confusing incoherent dialogue. In other words you do not make sense.