"A common symptom of covid is the experience of a smell of burning." This does not mean that spontaneous combustion tends to occur around covid sufferers. — unenlightened

Some cases of sensory disorder of few folks shouldn't change how the the external world objects look and smell in general. Should they? Of course, if you wear brown sunglasses, and look into the world, it will look brown. But you wouldn't say, now the whole world is brown, would you?

No, the color you experience depends on your sensory system, your eyes in this case, and how neurons are connected in your visual cortex. — MoK

There must be something which makes red roses look red in the roses. Would you not agree?

No, I have never meant that. — MoK

Well, your post "redness is constructed by our brain" sounded like, brains actually build the redness out of nothing, which gave impression that, brains can change and create the colours as they like.
Is your first language not English?

Do note the implementation of the scientific method. It is far more than just "a perspective" you have. — ssu

The question is not asking how do you know X sounds, smells or feels such and such.
When the question is how do you know X looks such and such, the most important factor for the answer is how X appears to your eyes and visions.

The aromatic hydrocarbons belong to the rose, but the smell belongs to the nose. The reflective and absorbent signature belongs to the petals, but the redness is in the eye of the beholder. — unenlightened

We don't say my experience looks red, or my nose smells nice. We say the roses are red, and the rose smells nice. It is the roses (objects) which provoke our sensation. Our sensations don't make roses look red or smell nice.

When Kant wrote the external objects excite our sensations via experience in CPR, he must have meant the above point.

Beauty and ugliness are reflective aesthetic properties we feel or judge on the objects after the perceptual experience. They are not intrinsic features of experience.

Or are they different "I think"? — Corvus

They are different. The additional word "therefore" changes the meaning of the full sentence exactly as you just described. — EricH

Ok, sounds reasonable. Does it mean "therefore" has some logical significance in the statement and all statements?

When you say, "I think therefore the Moon exists. ", doesn't sound quite logical or convincingly meaningful or true, than "I think therefore I am.". What do you make of this?

I could prove "the moon exists", as the moon exists external to me, but I couldn't prove that "I know I think the moon exists", as my knowing that I think exists internal to me. — RussellA

Fair point. When you say, "I know I think the Moon exists." sounds like just a monologue to yourself, which cannot make objective proof or verification. Or it could be a psychological statement telling yourself, that you believe that the Moon exists.

So it seems clear that "I think p" can be proved as true or false statement. But you could just have said "p", instead of "I think p". Because "p" sounds clear enough with no strings attached to its implications.
Whereas "I think p" sounds less clearer than "p", and has some points to clarify.

When you say "I think I think p", it sounds something is wrong and deeply wrong in the grammar and its meaning, and will be rejected for its dubious clarity.

When you say, "I know p", you will be expected to prove that you know p.
"I know I think p" is a psychological statement with no objective meaning to deliver apart from to yourself.

How? Seems you value them to be similar, that one isn't better than the other, at least theoretically to make a theoretical argument. And not knowing "their claims" doesn't free you of answering which one you believe to be true, actually, if the you think the World is flat or round. — ssu

To me, the both claims don't make sense. As I made clear that the shape of the Earth changes depending on where you are looking at it from.

That's not at all empiricism or being an empiricist. It's not just our sensory experience makes it true, it's also the empirical evidence that something is so. — ssu

How is it not? It is purely empirical for the fact that the knowledge is based on my observations on different locations on the Earth. How more could you get empirical, scientific and logical?

The earth is shaped roundly flat and flatly round is far more scientific in the sense that your claim, which comes from the popular media stories and your imagination disguised as reasoning, whereas my claim comes from the direct observations and apprehensions on the object.

No, the redness of the rose is constructed by your brain. The flower does not have any particular color at all so it is just the feature of your experience. — MoK

If the redness of the rose is constructed by your brain, can your brain construct the redness into pinkness or greenness?

Does it mean your brain can construct the colour of roses into any colour you want to construct? :chin:

You have the experience of a red rose when you are looking at one. The experience is gone if redness and other features of your Qualia are gone. — MoK

When I am looking at a red rose, I am looking at a red rose. I am not experiencing a red rose at that particular moment. After looking at a red rose, when I reflect on the red rose, I could describe the red rose as my perceptual experience.

The redness of the rose belongs to the rose, not to me or my experience. The redness of the rose is a conceptual image in my memory which was posited by the red rose. The redness is not the intrinsic feature of my memory or my experience.

Then for this topic, the important question here is: Just why some people, if they indeed are have thought about the issue, come to the conclusion that Earth is flat?

Why is there https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php ? Why do they have the mission of: — ssu

I am not familiar with either Flat Earthers or Round Earthers claims. But my point is rather, it is interesting to infer how they arrived their knowledge, as I have made out in the post above.

From my own point of view, I am not a Flat Earther, and I am not a Round Earther either. I am an empiricist. Whether the Earth is flat or round depends on what location you are seeing the Earth from.

If you are in the spacecraft outside of the Earth in the space, it will appear round. If you stand on the football stadium in London, the Earth will appear flat. How it appears to your vision, that's what matters.

So, the Earth is flatly round, and at the same time roundly flat would be the answer.

And I've been in Australia and New Zealand and noticed the a totally different star constellations that I've never seen in Finland. So you tell me how all that is possible with in the flat Earth world? — ssu

My point was that methodologies of arriving at the knowledge is as important as the knowledge itself. Never said, the Earth is flat, round, flatly round or roundly flat.

I know my hand hurts regardless of whether I can prove or verify it to someone else. — RussellA

That would be a self knowledge with no possibilities of proof. Would it be correct?

I know that I think the moon exists regardless of whether I can prove or verify that I know that I think the moon exists. — RussellA

That would be a simple task in proof. You go out to the garden at night when the Moon is shining, you point to the Moon and say, I know the Moon exists. There is the Moon.

Problem is, your proof is true when the Moon shines, but it is false, when the Moon is not visible.

When you say, "I know", it raises a case for verification and proof, which judges your claim "I know" as sound and true, or unfounded and false.

Trying to troll me exactly the way I said that Flat Earthers troll us? Or are you really serious? :smirk: — ssu

It is meaningless to continue any kind of conversation with someone who are obsessed with trolling, and brand anyone asking questions or suggesting other ideas.

I hope that you are not the type of folks. :D What would anyone get from trolling the people with the obsession? That would be a total waste of one's life and time.

Well, if you read my post carefully, you would notice that I have not said whether the Earth is flat or round. I have just pointed out the ways they have acquired their knowledge.

Perhaps you were lucky enough to be able to travel all those different countries, and be able to reason and experiment from different part of the world. But there are the majority of the Earth population who have not gone out the place they were born, and seen the Earth only from where they stand. To these folks their own observations and apprehension is the only criteria they could draw their knowledge on the shape of the Earth.

If you accept the fact that philosophy is more than just believing everything you read and see on youtube, internet, and what is told in the classroom, then you would open your mind and listen to the other folks different ideas and methodologies in arriving their own beliefs and claims.

If you don't agree with the other folks ideas, then just use your reasoning and arguments to make your point, and prove your point is right, if you think it is enough worthwhile doing so.
Claiming someone is trolling out of the blue without concrete evidence is not a philosophical statement. Good luck.

Experience and Qualia are inseparable. It is not correct to say that the experience comes first and the Qualia comes after. — MoK

Could you demonstrate the point with some real life examples? Thanks.

Just no. Could you have any experience without Qualia? — MoK

No I can't. I do need experience first, before having qualia. Qualia comes after the end of experience. Qualia is also contingent. It is not necessary. It can come, it can never come.

Flat Eartherism is perhaps something similar: if we believe that people are so ignorant and dumb to believe that the Earth is flat, what does that tell of our attitude toward others? — ssu

Whether the Earth is flat or round is not really a good question. You will see the Earth round, if you see it from the space. But if you see the Earth from the ground standing in the street of NY or Tokyo, it will appear flat. Hence it depends on where you are seeing the Earth from.

The real point of the question is, how the knowledge of the flat Earth and round Earth came from.
The Flat Earther's knowledge must have come from their own senses i.e. living and working on the Earth, looking at it directly with their own eyes, apprehending and observing it. It appears undoubtedly and conclusively flat.

The Round Earther's knowledge must have come from the Science class, books and media i.e. it is based on the authority of the institution. It is doubtful many of the Round Earthers have gone to the space in person, and peeked into the Earth and making the comments that the Earth is round. There must be only a handful of the rich or astronautical folks who actually have gone to the space and seen the Earth. Why should one trust those handful of folks claims?

Hence the Flat Earthers' knowledge is based on their own experience and observation rather than relying on the popular beliefs based on the authoritarian inculcation and propaganda.

Therefore the Flat Earther's beliefs are more scientific than the Round Earthers?

What is the difference between truth and the ultimate truth? What does it mean by the ultimate truth?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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"?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.