Origin of the Mind/Mental States

[shunyadragon]

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

Blessings,
Lee

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

Agreed.

Yes reasoning cannot justify, prove nor make an argument for reasoning, because that is circular reasoning . . .

Agreed again.

The validity of reasoning cannot justify itself as the first-principle.

[JimL]

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.

I don't think that makes a whole lot of sense lee. Can you give me an example.

[Tassman]

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

To acknowledge that your reasoning is partially determined you cannot then logically claim to hold the position of Libertarian Free Will, whereby metaphysically and morally you are a totally autonomous being in every respect.

[Tassman]

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.

You will reason validly if you correctly follow the logical form of a deductive argument; it's conclusion will only be true if the premise is true. The tricky bit is to obtain a true premise.

[Sparko]

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.

how do you know that observing the moon or anything else means it exists without using reason?

[shunyadragon]

how do you know that observing the moon or anything else means it exists without using reason?

You use objective verifiable evidence to determine the moon exists. Without the objective verifiable evidence the reasoning is subjective, personal preference, and the moon becomes green cheese.

I go with Aristotle's concept of first-principles and human reasoning. He was the first to develop the concept.

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

In every systematic inquiry (methodos) where there are first principles, or causes, or elements, knowledge and science result from acquiring knowledge of these; for we think we know something just in case we acquire knowledge of the primary causes, the primary first principles, all the way to the elements. It is clear, then, that in the science of nature as elsewhere, we should try first to determine questions about the first principles.

The naturally proper direction of our road is from things better known and clearer to us, to things that are clearer and better known by nature; for the things known to us are not the same as the things known unconditionally (haplôs). Hence it is necessary for us to progress, following this procedure, from the things that are less clear by nature, but clearer to us, towards things that are clearer and better known by nature. (Phys. 184a10–21)

© Copyright Original Source

[lee_merrill]

The validity of reasoning cannot justify itself as the first-principle.

Well, it has to be a first principle, since (as you said) you cannot prove the validity of reasoning.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

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.

I don't think that makes a whole lot of sense lee. Can you give me an example.

Well, if my posts on Tweb are determined solely by the atoms in my head, then there is no reason I should not post gibberish tomorrow.

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. Now some would say I post gibberish all the time!

[lee_merrill]

To acknowledge that your reasoning is partially determined you cannot then logically claim to hold the position of Libertarian Free Will, whereby metaphysically and morally you are a totally autonomous being in every respect.

Correct, I do not hold to LFW.

You will reason validly if you correctly follow the logical form of a deductive argument; it's conclusion will only be true if the premise is true. The tricky bit is to obtain a true premise.

Yes, but I don't know that I will be able to produce a valid argument, if my thoughts are all predetermined.

Best wishes,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Well, it has to be a first principle, since (as you said) you cannot prove the validity of reasoning.

Blessings,
Lee

No the reasoning here is too circular to be meaningful

[shunyadragon]

Well, if my posts on Tweb are determined solely by the atoms in my head, then there is no reason I should not post gibberish tomorrow.

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. Now some would say I post gibberish all the time!

So far your on a roll, and you can continue with the gibberish tomorrow.

[JimL]

Correct, I do not hold to LFW.


Yes, but I don't know that I will be able to produce a valid argument, if my thoughts are all predetermined.

Best wishes,
Lee

Whether or not your argument is valid has nothing to do with whether or not your reasoning is determined.

[Tassman]

Correct, I do not hold to LFW.

In that case you are, to a greater or lesser degree, deterministic.

Yes, but I don't know that I will be able to produce a valid argument, if my thoughts are all predetermined.

Determinism does not mean that all events will happen no matter what we decide to do. So long as our mental states are themselves part of the deterministic process, they contribute in determining what will happen.

[lee_merrill]

Whether or not your argument is valid has nothing to do with whether or not your reasoning is determined.

Certainly, but I don't know that I will be able to produce a valid argument, if my thoughts are all predetermined. This is a different idea than the question of whether an argument is in fact, valid.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

In that case you are, to a greater or lesser degree, deterministic.

Yes, but not wholly!

Determinism does not mean that all events will happen no matter what we decide to do. So long as our mental states are themselves part of the deterministic process, they contribute in determining what will happen.

But determinism means our decisions are determined, our mental states are determined as well as everything else around us.

Best wishes,
Lee