Personally I don't see sensory experience is a reasoned conclusion.
I suppose if you want to show how every sensory experience is produced by using the rules of inference to derive a conclusion from a set of premises, that might be mildly entertaining. But as I said, let's say, arguendo, that reasoning is simply assumed.
'Sensory experience' still reasoning - you don’t just ‘see’ reasoning works. You interpret, judge, trust it’s consistent, all using logic (B)
Which premise is it that you disagree with?
'Reasoning works'.
I’m not fighting the conditional. I’m saying A has no foundation. You trust ‘reasoning works’ by reasoning, which needs logic (B) reliable first, not as a deduction, but to even judge A.
Same could also be said about 'I observe it' or 'it's consistent' or any other number of pragmatic conclusions.
It doesn't assume B. It assumes A. The fact that reasoning 'leans on logic to even start' just means that the first premise is true. A is dependent on B to even start, so if A is true, B must also be true.
So if reasoning works, the fact the the laws of logic are true can be deduced through reason, rather than simply assumed.
It does assume B, like objectively. You're treating A as a pristine fact with no baggage and I don't grant you that.
Premise 1 is not just magically true - A’s truth already assumes B’s reliability to be assessed (via observation, consistency, whatever). You're not deducing B from an independent A, you're using B to prop up A, then acting like B’s a surprise. Before the syllogism even begins your assumption of A smuggles in B.
Direct existential experience, along with loads of empirical confirmation through predictive utility., we can just say arguendo that A is simply assumed as the foundational assumption of the model.
I'm curious how long we'll go back and forth before you understand I'm NOT asking you how A feels, I'm asking how you
know it's true, epistemically. Reason necessarily isn't a self-sufficient foundation since you've been unable to prove that it isn't dependent on other universals. A foundation has to stand alone and cohere the worldview, if the foundation leans (or requires) on other universals to even function, it's not ground them - it's riding them. That is incoherent.
But if you want to make the somewhat bizarre claim that direct existential experience can only be achieved working it out through some kind of reasoning process
I think you're intelligent enough to know that I'm not saying you're consciously running a syllogism every time you feel the sun hit your face, which is why I think you're being insincere. "direct existential experience" isn’t raw or unmediated, it’s
understood and
trusted through assumptions baked into reasoning, like logic and consistency.
...i should run this cartoon more; Cartoon man is welcomed into heaven.......forever
,,,the Toaster looks rather depressing to me. what will you give in exchange for yur soul?
www.physicsforums.com
