• How can one know the ultimate truth about reality?
    What is the difference between truth and the ultimate truth? What does it mean by the ultimate truth?
  • Beauty and ugliness are intrinsic features of our experiences
    Of course, any experience has a set of properties, so-called Qualia.MoK

    Nope. Qualia comes after experience as perceived qualities of the objects. Qualia is not part of experience.
  • p and "I think p"
    Therefore, in every act of thinking there are two aspects, I think p and I know I think p.RussellA

    If you know p, then you must be able to prove or verify you know p. How do you prove and verify that you know you think p?
  • Beauty and ugliness are intrinsic features of our experiences
    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
    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.

    Of course, experience has lots of features. How could recognize something is beautiful if your experience has no feature?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.
  • Beauty and ugliness are intrinsic features of our experiences
    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

    Beauty and ugliness are features of the objects in the universe. We perceive and judge them. They are not intrinsic features of our experience. Experience captures what is given to us by the universe. Experience is a blank sheet with no features.
  • p and "I think p"
    Let say p stands for "I am", then I think p becomes "I think I am".
    The familiar Cartesian statement is "I think therefore I am."

    "I think I am" sounds like I am guessing I exist. "I think therefore I am." indicates "I think" is the precondition or necessary foundation for "I exist".

    So how can the same "I think" imply guessing, and also the solid reasoned precondition for the existence? Or are they different "I think"?
  • p and "I think p"
    If your brain moves from the living room to the kitchen, does your mind remain in the living room?RussellA
    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.

    A tree has the form of a tree. What is the content of a tree? It can only be the tree itself.RussellA
    Tree has water and wood fibre in the content. Tree itself dies without water and the nutrients fed from the root.

    As with the tree example, the brain as form and mind as content cannot be separated.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.

    No. As I think of "I" as my thoughts, I think of my mind as my brain.RussellA
    It sounds like unnecessary over reduction of "I" into a physical organ.
  • p and "I think p"
    The mind is somehow part of the physical brain.RussellA
    The mind is part of the physical brain? Exactly which part in the brain?

    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
    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.

    How are these two aspects connected?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?
  • p and "I think p"
    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

    :ok: But how do you verify the "I think: P" for truth or falsity in formal logic?
  • p and "I think p"
    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

    But surely you are more than "the thought p", aren't you? I am guessing that you have a physical body, feelings, emotions, consciousness as well as the thoughts too with very high probability. Would you agree?
  • p and "I think p"
    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

    Would you say that the sentence "I think P", is actually two sentences?

    I think.
    P

    Could it be modified to,

    1) I think, and P
    2) I think therefore P
    3) I think, or P
    4) If I think, then P

    to any of the above sentences?
  • Consciousness, Time, and the Universe: An Interplay of Observation and Change
    1. Consciousness as Fundamental:
    Consciousness is not just an emergent phenomenon but a fundamental property of the universe.
    Ayush Jain

    What does this mean? Does it mean that the universe has consciousness?
  • p and "I think p"
    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

    Yes, fair enough.  It looks clear if it were written in a message, diary or report of some sort.  However I am not sure if it would be correct under the view of logical statement form.

     I have never seen statements or propositions  in colons and quotes in logical WFF.  So, if you meant to just communicate what you thought to other folks, maybe it would be ok.  But if you were trying to make up philosophical statements for analysis and debates, then those writings wouldn't be accepted as logical statements.

    They don't look WFF to start with, and you cannot use them in the proofs or axiomatization. Hence they wouldn't fit into P and I think P of the OP title. So, I wouldn't use them as philosophical statements or propositions for logical analysis or reasoning.

    As you indicated the 2) seems still ambiguous in what it is trying to suggest or mean.
    Let's try with different example statements.

    a) The Earth is round.
    b) I think the Earth is round.

    Both a) and b) are not much different in the meanings they deliver.  So why add "I think"?  That was my point. 

    c) I think the Earth is round, because the scientists say so. This seems to deliver clearer meaning, if "I think" is used.
  • p and "I think p"
    Given the sentence "I think I think the Eiffel Tower is 400m tall"RussellA

    It seems to be an obscure sentence on its own. From the sentence only, we don't know whether,

    1) you are saying that you are not sure on what you are saying, or
    2) you mean that you are sure on what you are saying, or
    3) you mean you are reporting the fact based on your direct observation and apprehension, or
    4) you mean you have seen the object in your dream, and you are trying to recall the image
    etc etc.

    You would usually add supporting sentence(s) to clarify what your exact sentence means after a sentence starting with "I think" . Therefore adding "I think" to a statement seems to contribute in making the statement obscure in its exact meaning.
  • The Real Tautology
    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
    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.

    You are saying Eiffel tower is truth, because it is what is. No. Eiffel tower is an object. It is not a truth. Eiffel tower is in Paris. This statement is truth.

    Have a good day.Philosophim
    Thanks. You too.
  • The Real Tautology
    "1+1=2!" They don't know what they're talking about, but is what the kid said untrue?Philosophim

    You shouldn't expect kids with no education and no development in the intelligence to the adult level to be able to tell the analytic truth.
  • The Real Tautology
    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

    It seems to be getting more unclear. One thing clear with truth is, if one doesn't know what he is talking about, then he cannot be telling truth.
  • The Real Tautology
    Truth is 'what is', and 'what is' exists does not rely on our statements.Philosophim

    It sounds like a real tautology here. Saying truth is what is, doesn't say anything meaningful at all.
    Imagine when someone says to you, I am going to tell you a truth, but I have no idea what it is about.
    Or truth is truth. Truth is what it is. They are just empty words.

    Truth is about something concrete, and corresponds to the reality, which all intelligent folks can witness, verify, understand, share and agree in their minds.
  • The Real Tautology
    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

    You seemed to be confusing some mundane unobserved events with truth. Unobserved events or existence are not in the category of truth. They are just unobserved events or entities. Some folks happened to see the events or entities would take them as truths, but the other folks who have not been in the vicinity to see the events or existence would have no idea what they are about.

    Truth means statements or propositions which corresponds to the existence or events in reality.
  • The Real Tautology
    No. Truth is what simply is. Whether you know it or not is irrelevant.Philosophim

    What is the point of saying something is truth, when you don't know anything about it? Isn't it a senseless absurdity?
  • The Real Tautology

    Isn't truth property of our judgement on the world? We cannot call what was unknown as truth when it is hidden. Truth reveals itself aftermath of knowing. There is no meaning in truth unknown.

    Truth reveals in the dialectical manner. First it is unknown, then it is observed and verified. And lastly it becomes Truth with the verification. Existence without this dialectical process of Epistemology is not truth.
  • The Real Tautology
    What is known could be the foundation for trying to observe and know the unknown. What is unknown is possibility for knowing.
  • Why Philosophy?
    Biological body seeks for physical comfort and pleasure, and philosophical mind seeks truths and certainty. Hence Philosophy.
  • p and "I think p"
    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

    Sure. In that case, you would add the clarifying sentence "But I could be wrong" immediately after the main sentence.
  • p and "I think p"
    Metaphysically, what does "I think I think" mean. Can a thought think about itself.RussellA

    If you were to think about your thoughts from Metaphysical point of view, then you wouldn't need "P". You would just think about the thought itself i.e. how thought works, what is the relationship between thought and the other mental activities such as feeling, sensing, reasoning, inferring, guessing etc.
  • Do you consider logic a part of philosophy or its own separate field?
    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

    Logic and Philosophy are closely interlinked to each other, even if they are different subjects. Logic can analyze some philosophical concepts, statements and propositions and verify them for validity, truth and falsity.

    Philosophy can look into the some of the problems residing in the Logical concepts such as validity, truth i.e. what is validity, what is truth, how does the logical proofs work etc, and establish the definitions and explain the rational process and grounds for the subject.

    There are many different types of Logic in use by different subjects. Some folks just rely on the classic propositional logic and formal logic, but they cannot deal with all the problems in the world.

    For example, when you say, Today is Thursday. It is only true one day a week. Tomorrow it will be Friday, and the statement will be false on tomorrow and the rest of the week until Thursday returns. Hence you need tense, or temporal logic.

    Also the formal propositional logic cannot deal with the epistemic and metaphysical problems such as knowledge, beliefs, inference, reasoning and probability. You need to use Epistemic Logic which uses "K" function for "knows" or "is aware of". Probability Logic uses P for Probability e.g. P(A/B) i.e probability of A given B.

    For more flexibility and practicality, high order logic, which can quantify all the elements in the statements (not just the pronouns) with modality which deals with possibility and necessity and probability would be more useful.
  • p and "I think p"
    OK. How about Pat's problem, which presumably is a metaphysical rather than linguistic problem.RussellA

    I am not quite sure what you mean by a metaphysical problem. I asked you about it already, but didn't get replies on that point. What is a metaphysical problem, and why is it a metaphysical problem?
  • The Real Tautology
    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

    We are not saying reality only exists when we observe it. But we are saying we have the parts of the universe we can observe and know them as existing. But there are also the parts we cannot see or observe, which we don't know if existing or not.

    To say, everything exists, and everything is consistent and the world works perfectly sounds misleading. Because it doesn't. Some parts seems it does, but some parts are in chaos and uncertain.

    We need to say that there are parts of the universe which we don't know for certain, and there are parts we do know because we can observe and experience. This is the truth.
  • p and "I think p"
    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

    Being conscious and having the concept of "I" is the precondition of all mental activities i.e. they are already there as base of your thinking.

    When you are saying, the oak tree is standing there, you already have "I", and you already have thought about it, so you could have made up the statement and uttered it or wrote it.

    You are only saying that you think about your thinking that the oak tree is standing there, because you are reflecting your thoughts, which had already taken place, not because you are thinking about your thoughts.

    You can write about anything linguistically of course, without thinking or knowing, some gibberish such as the oak tree is 100 pages long, and you could say you think the oak tree is 100 pages long , and you think you think you think you think ... the oak tree is 100 pages long . But it doesn't sound intelligible.

    When you say, the oak tree is standing there, the other party will know that you think the oak tree is standing there, and you are conscious of what you said, also you are claiming that you exist as a perceiver who apprehended the existence of the oak tree standing there across from you with the other party both witnessing and perceiving the existence of the oak tree standing.

    Adding that you are conscious of the oak tree is standing there, and also you as a being exists, on the statement that the oak tree is standing there would be unnecessary information for the communication in logical and linguistic point of view.

    There doesn't seem to be difference between saying,

    1) The oak tree is standing there. and
    2) You think that the oak tree is standing there.

    You would only say 2), when you are asked why you said 1).
  • p and "I think p"
    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 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.

    Or are the sensations inbuilt in our senses rather than in the objects? When you feel cold, the coldness is not in the air, but your body is feeling cold. When you smell perfume, the sensation of feminine richness is in your nose rather than in the perfume .. etc? Could this be the case? I am guessing here.

    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:
  • p and "I think p"
    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

    When I think, I am thinking in either sentences or images.  I cannot think without either of these two elements.  When I make statements or propositions, I express the contents of my thoughts in language.
    But if I try to think about my thoughts,  I don't have any content but the thought is my object of thought.  Because the contents of the thought is either shielded by the thought, or is empty.  

    I am supposed to think about my thinking, but I am not sure what it is about.  You may say well I am thinking that I am thinking about the oak tree.

    But that is absurd, because I don't need to think that I think about the oak tree.  I just think about the oak tree.  So, when I say the oak tree is shedding the leaves, I already have thought about the oak tree shedding the leaves.  Why do I have to say I think the oak tree is shedding the leaves?  I just say the oak tree is shedding the leaves.

    If you asked me, why did I say that the oak tree is shedding the leaves, then I would say, well I think that the oak tree is shedding the leaves to make clear that my statement was based on my thinking.  But before that I don't need to make clear on that fact, because it is already implied in my statement that I think the oak tree is shedding the leaves.

    When I think about I am thinking the oak tree shedding the leaves, I am not thinking anymore.  At that moment, I am reasoning or reflecting on my thought that the oak tree was shedding the leaves, or why was I thinking that I was thinking the oak tree was shedding the leaves.
  • The Real Tautology
    I believe that reality does not exist independently of our observation, or else nothing makes sense.Arne

    :up:

    Maybe it does or doesn't, but it is meaningless to say it does, when there is no knowledge available about the reality.
  • p and "I think p"
    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

    I don't think you can think about your thinking. Thinking has objects and it is about something. When you say when you think about your thinking, which is already thinking, it sounds vague and meaningless, why one would think about thinking, when one is already thinking. But most of all, I am not sure if thought can think about thinking itself.

    Reason can reason about itself because reason has capability of reflection. But does thinking has ability to reflect into itself? The only example of thought thinks about itself could be asking why one is thinking about something. But then at the state, thought becomes reasoning looking for ground for the reason why one was thinking something.

    Yes, when you are thinking about your think about something, at that stage, your thinking becomes reasoning, not thinking anymore. I am not sure if this makes sense. Perhaps you could comment on the point?

    And if so, what does this metaphysically mean?RussellA
    What do you mean by metaphysically here?
  • Mathematical platonism
    I don't accept Pansychism either. I don't believe inanimate objects have minds. I don't believe oysters have minds and can experience suffering.

    So, it's complicated.Arcane Sandwich
    It is, which makes Philosophical discussions and readings fun.
  • Mathematical platonism
    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

    :ok: :fire:
  • p and "I think p"
    It becomes difficult to separate metaphysics from ordinary language.RussellA

    If language is expression of thought, then every statement and proposition you make must be based on "I think" even if you didn't say it out loud.
  • Mathematical platonism
    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

    Great explanation. I see your point. Yes, I was talking about the identity which identifies an individual or an entity as denoting or naming. You must have been talking about identity as the principle of identity A=A or ∀x(x=x).

    I still don't get it, because you don't say oysters are identical to oysters or oyster groups, or stones are identical to stones or stone groups. You just say, oysters are a specie of fish, or stone belongs to the non-metallic mineral type material.

    You never say humans are identical to the human group. The word human already has meaning for the entity belongs to human specie.

    Hence, I am not sure if it makes sense to say oyster has identity to mean oysters are identical to the other oysters or oyster group.
  • Mathematical platonism
    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

    I agree oysters have properties and essence for being oyster. Likewise stones and golds do too.
    But I am not sure if oysters have identity. Having identity sounds like the owner of the identity has some sort of idea of self e.g. arcane sandwich identifies himself as an Argentinian, and also a professional metaphysician. Before arcane sandwich identified himself with the property, no one in the universe knew the identify apart from arcane sandwich himself and the ones who knew him already.

    Hence when you say oyster has identity seems to imply that the oysters are self conscious, and know who they are, and also let the world know they are the oysters.

    But from empirical observation on oysters, that looks a highly unlikely case. Here lies a contradiction which could be clarified. :)
  • p and "I think p"
    p and "I think p"RussellA

    Isn't it a tautology? When you say P, it already implies you think P.
  • The Real Tautology
    I believe that reality exists independently of our observation, or else nothing makes sense.Brendan Golledge

    Can something be reality if you don't know what that something is about? Can something be claimed as existence if no one knows what the something is about?
×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.