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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

What is known could be the foundation for trying to observe and know the unknown. What is unknown is possibility for knowing.

Biological body seeks for physical comfort and pleasure, and philosophical mind seeks truths and certainty. Hence Philosophy.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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:

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.

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.

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?

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.

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:

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.

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.

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" — RussellA

Isn't it a tautology? When you say P, it already implies you think P.

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?

I think so, yes. Because we're the ones calling them "oysters", they don't call themselves that. — Arcane Sandwich

I thought you were discussing about the identity of oysters, hence asked the question. I know what your saying, but questions still remains.

Identity means the owner of the identity claims who it is. They don't get given identity by some authorities like hey arcane sandwich this is your identity. But arcane sandwich applies for the identity to his local council or passport office, saying name is arcane sandwich, date of birth is 25 12 1985, place of birth Argentina. Marital Status: maybe, Job tittle: Professional Metaphysician ... etc etc.

But in oysters case, I am pretty sure they don't claim their identity details to anyone. They might have all the details for their identity, but maybe they don't see the point of applying for identity, or simply aren't able to due to lack of resources whatever.

They still get called as oysters, even if they don't know they are oysters, and that is fine, no problem with that. But when you said identity of oysters blah blah, I thought wait a minute here, something is not right, and did ask you the question.

Or this reasoned beauty simply a bit of a longer process with more active thinking? — Prometheus2

Some beauty can be reasoned out via our contemplation, reflection and analysis, and it is definitely reflective thought process which requires time and revisiting.

Don't both, reasoned and emotional beauty, require thinking or at very least the use of our brain? — Prometheus2

If you choose to reason, then I guess you could reason on anything even on the trivial passing feeling of a moment in daily life, as well as the works of Picasso, Dali or Van Gogh.

An oyster cannot know what it is, but that doesn't mean that it is not an oyster. — Arcane Sandwich

If oysters don't know they are oysters, then is it right to call them oysters?

In that case, I will offer a different example: I have never seen my own heart, but that doesn't mean that I don't have one. — Arcane Sandwich

It is an inductive statement with very high probability. You have never seen your heart, but from the empirical fact that all living humans have heart, therefore you must have one. No problem with that.

An oyster cannot know what it is, but that doesn't mean that it is not an oyster. — Arcane Sandwich

OK, it sounds valid. (Had to edit my initial comment)

I couldn’t really gel with your points in the middle of your comment asserting parentness and childness as simply terms of culture and not physical reality. It seems if we take that route we must then go on to throw out all viability of language and further philosophy — as all words are formed out of the culture that observes their respective objects. We have to at least accept that all of these words truly do have an external tether to real things that are distinct from the rest of reality. — Pretty

I didn't mean to say that parent child relation is only limited to the societal, cultural and linguistic nature. I was pointing out and explaining on one or two aspects of the relationship, which has little to do with the physical causal relationship.

Of course the relation has multitude of aspects such as physical, biological, psychological and legal aspects. That is why I feel limiting the relation into the causal relation seems to be unnecessary limitation and abstraction.

I don't know how many individual hairs I have on my head. That doesn't mean that I don't have hair. — Arcane Sandwich

If you managed to count them, you would know how many. It is not infinity for sure.

So why is it so perplexing that the oyster's identity is destroyed once you digest the oyster? — Arcane Sandwich

I am pretty sure that oysters don't know they are oysters.

Aristotle and say, since the whole is the cause of the part, that 2 may very well be the cause of 1, and following this, infinity is the fullest cause of all discrete numbers! — Pretty

I am not sure if 2 is the cause of 1. It is just an adjective word to say that there are 2 things. We were accustomed to the orders of the words, hence we habitually say 2 after 1, but there is no cause that we can perceive in that relation.

Infinity is just another concept to say, that it has no ending. There is nothing else to it. It is not number since it doesn't say how many things are there to count. It just says, there is no end. It is much like the concept of nothing. It just says there is no things to see or count.

Hence nothing is the same or similar concept as infinity. You cannot add or subtract any other numbers to infinity. You cannot divide any number with infinity. Why? Because infinity is not a number. It is a concept.

Can infinity be a cause for something? Can nothing be cause for something? No. I agree not.

Amazon has 'Quantum X Upright Water Filter Vacuum'. — PoeticUniverse

How does it relate to the entity that you claimed that we have i.e. "a Ground of Determination"?

When Spinoza declares substance to be the cause of its modes, or Aristotle when he considers the whole to be the cause of its parts, clearly these are also cases where the “cause” in question could not possibly exist in time without the effect in question also taking shape at the same exact point in time. So we can see that, in terms of historical discussion on causes, temporality was never too much of a concern for these thinkers. — Pretty

Ok, there seem to be a lot of interesting points to think about in your post. First of all,

1.  What does it mean when Spinoza says substance is the cause of mode?  Could you explain?  Do you agree with that statement?

2. Again what does it mean when Aristotle says the whole is the cause of the part?  Could you explain the statements perhaps with some examples?  Do you agree with the statement?

 Parent and child relationship itself seems to be saying enough.  It contains all the aspects of biological, societal, physical, psychological and legal relationship details.  But if it is described as a causal relationship, then it seems to reduce the relationship into a physical relation which says very little.    Would you not agree?