Of course, any experience has a set of properties, so-called Qualia. — MoK
Therefore, in every act of thinking there are two aspects, I think p and I know I think p. — RussellA
Ideas are subjective thoughts. You say ideas are good or bad. You don't say ideas are beautiful or ugly. All arts are objects. Music is the songs and musical instruments performing coming to your ears in the form of the physical wave vibrations.Yes, and no. Although beauty and ugliness are features of objects, things like ideas, arts (music for example that is not an object), etc. could also be beautiful or ugly. That is why I used experience instead of object since a beautiful object seems beautiful but beauty is not the feature of the objects only. — MoK
Again it is a bit odd to hear someone saying beautiful experience or ugly experience unless it is said in some metaphorical way. You always experience something, and the content of your experience could be beautiful or ugly. Experience itself has no properties.Of course, experience has lots of features. How could recognize something is beautiful if your experience has no feature? — MoK
If beauty and ugliness are not intrinsic features of our experience, then we are biased and things are not beautiful or ugly in themselves. — MoK
My brain never moves alone from the livingroom to the kitchen. The brain moves with the body located in the head physically altogether. So your premise "If your brain moves" is not accepted, hence your argument is invalid.If your brain moves from the living room to the kitchen, does your mind remain in the living room? — RussellA
Tree has water and wood fibre in the content. Tree itself dies without water and the nutrients fed from the root.A tree has the form of a tree. What is the content of a tree? It can only be the tree itself. — RussellA
Mind as content sounds vacuous. Mind is a function of the brain and body. It feels, senses, perceives, believes, reasons, remembers and thinks. Mind itself is not content. Mind has contents.As with the tree example, the brain as form and mind as content cannot be separated. — RussellA
It sounds like unnecessary over reduction of "I" into a physical organ.No. As I think of "I" as my thoughts, I think of my mind as my brain. — RussellA
The mind is part of the physical brain? Exactly which part in the brain?The mind is somehow part of the physical brain. — RussellA
So when you say that you are the thought of p, you seem to be reducing yourself to only one aspect of the mind leaving out the rest of the mind and physical body.One aspect is what the mind is, such as the self, consciousness, the "I". Another aspect is what the mind does, such as has thoughts, ideas, feelings and emotions. — RussellA
I understand mind as a function of the brain and sensory organs of the body. You sound like a dualist i.e. mind and body as separate entities - mind residing in the brain somewhere. Would it be the case?How are these two aspects connected? — RussellA
Agreed. That was what I intended with my statement a), which I said was unproblematic. If I'm just mentioning a thought as something "I had" -- an event -- then its content doesn't affect the logical status of the report. — J
My personal belief is that rather than it being the case that "I have the thought p", it is more the case that "I am the thought p". — RussellA
Yes, which is the problem when Pat says:
When I look out the window and say to myself, ‛That oak tree is shedding its leaves,’ I am not aware of also, and simultaneously, thinking anything along the lines of ‛I think that the oak tree is shedding its leaves.’ — J — RussellA
1. Consciousness as Fundamental:
Consciousness is not just an emergent phenomenon but a fundamental property of the universe. — Ayush Jain
I agree. In the context of this thread, the relevant rephrasings are probably:
a) I think: "The Eiffel Tower is 400m tall".
b) I think: "I think the Eiffel Tower is 400m tall". — J
Given the sentence "I think I think the Eiffel Tower is 400m tall" — RussellA
I don't agree. My point is that you seem to be confusing, claiming that facts and existence are identical to truths. They are not truths themselves. Truth is our judgement from reasoning on the facts, existence and events, and also statements and propositions regarding those entities.But if you're starting to avoid direct answers and coming up with odd asides, we've probably reached the end of a decent conversation. — Philosophim
Thanks. You too.Have a good day. — Philosophim
"1+1=2!" They don't know what they're talking about, but is what the kid said untrue? — Philosophim
Let me refine this as well. What is true may not necessarily be intelligible. Generally we call these statements "Knowledge". What is known is that which all intelligible can witness, verify, understand, share, and agree in their minds. Even then, there are some things such as subjective experience which can only be known to the individual. — Philosophim
Truth is 'what is', and 'what is' exists does not rely on our statements. — Philosophim
Throw a ball in the air, and it returns to the Earth. Knowing gravity is irrelevant. Knowing some languages call it 'a ball' is irrelevant. Believing it won't come back to Earth is irrelevant. Reality, or truth, is that the ball comes back to Earth. It doesn't matter if you're there to witness it or not. Truth is what is, and it is what is regardless of what you know or believe. — Philosophim
No. Truth is what simply is. Whether you know it or not is irrelevant. — Philosophim
To my way of thinking these are very different things. #2 implies that the speaker is not certain. I.e., there is an implied "But I could be wrong" that follows #2. — EricH
Metaphysically, what does "I think I think" mean. Can a thought think about itself. — RussellA
I suppose the question I'm asking digs into the question of what philosophy actually is and how to define (personally, I subscribe to the definition laid out by Deleuze and Guattari in 'What Is Philosophy'), but I'd like to hear the insight of the forum on this. — Dorrian
OK. How about Pat's problem, which presumably is a metaphysical rather than linguistic problem. — RussellA
If you say that reality exists only when we observe it, isn't that like saying that we're living in a video game where the map is loaded only whenever we try to look at it? It seems bizarre. Everything is so consistent in nature, and it behaves as if it's much older than humanity. It would seem to be very strange if it worked that way. — Brendan Golledge
In other words, not only thinking about the oak tree but also thinking about the "I" that is thinking about the oak tree.
IE, not only thinking but also thinking about thinking. — RussellA
I suppose smell, touch and taste are more difficult to think about than sounds or images. We can remember and think about them, but it would be difficult to express them in linguistic form accurately. Could it be due to their abstract nature of the entities? i.e. they tend to be temporally passing ephemeral fleeting transit sensations with no physical forms.But with the other three senses (aroma, taste, tactile sensations) it is much more difficult, at least in my case. I can remember aromas, for example how a rose smells. I can also remember what a lemon tastes like. And I can remember what the sensation of cold water feels like. But these three senses are somehow "less memorable" than the senses of sight and sound, it is easier for me to remember the latter instead of the former. — Arcane Sandwich
I agree. :up:But these three senses are somehow "less memorable" than the senses of sight and sound, it is easier for me to remember the latter instead of the former. — Arcane Sandwich
Linguistically
Linguistically, I can think about my thinking. For example, I can think about my thought that Paris is always crowded. A thought must be about something, even if that something is my thought that Paris is always crowded. — RussellA
I believe that reality does not exist independently of our observation, or else nothing makes sense. — Arne
When I say "I think", does this also infer that I must think that I think?
And if so, what does this metaphysically mean? — RussellA
What do you mean by metaphysically here?And if so, what does this metaphysically mean? — RussellA
It is, which makes Philosophical discussions and readings fun.So, it's complicated. — Arcane Sandwich
The very word "essence" is a very loaded word, and scientists usually avoid it. But I see no reason to avoid it, other than the fact that it has some religious and metaphysical connotations. But if you remove those connotations, it's actually quite a practical term. — Arcane Sandwich
It becomes difficult to separate metaphysics from ordinary language. — RussellA
So, oysters in general, as a group, probably have something that makes them unique and different, and that is what you may call the oyster's essence, essential property, or even identity. — Arcane Sandwich
I think that one might coherently say that oysters have an identity, sure. They have something that makes them oysters and not stones, for example. Perhaps everything does. For example, one might suggest, as Kripke does, that the essence or identity of gold is having one or more atoms that each have 79 protons in its nucleus. I'm sure that oysters have a distinguishing property, we can call that essence, identity, essential property, etc. And they have that property independently of humans and their languages. — Arcane Sandwich
p and "I think p" — RussellA
I believe that reality exists independently of our observation, or else nothing makes sense. — Brendan Golledge