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?

If we were to prevent parenthood in the first parent, and thus fully prevent parenthood as a real thing, then childhood too would be removed to the same degree. But we can see that this abstract level causality is actually eternal in some sense, because although the parent corporeally exists before the child does, as abstract concepts of parent and child they only ever come about at the same exact time, and yet the parent has a clear priority to the child that thus can’t be explained by means of time. Another way to say it is that the definition of parent has causality in its essence — it cannot itself exist without having some degree of the child in existence as well. — Pretty

Having revisited your points, I am still not sure if parent and child  relationship could be classed as cause-effect relationship.  Because cause and effect relationship means that when you observe the cause or the elements which constitutes the cause, you could predict the expected effect in all cases. For example, if I throw a stone to the window, I can predict the window will break. If it rains, the ground will be wet. If I release an apple from the height, it will fall onto the ground ... etc etc.

Hence if you created the conditions for cause, and apply the conditions, then you must get the expected results in the exact same state of results. This is a causal relation.

In a parent child relationship, you don't get anything like that.  To begin with, parents are not conditions themselves.  Parent is a societal name for someone who has a child, be it biologically had, or adopted.  One is called a parent by the society, when one has a child.

Parent doesn't exist as some matter or physical objects or events.  It is a name given by human culture and tradition.  It is like someone is called a teacher, when he / she has some students.  There is no causal relationship in that.  It is a kind of job title, when one has a duty to do something, the society will call you under the name.

Likewise child is a name for a person when he / she is in the early stage of life. The society call a person as child when they are before becoming an adult. Child doesn't exist as some events, state or motions or condition in reality. It is a linguistic name for an young person. Child was not caused by any event, conditions or process. Once the egg is combined with the sperm, the life starts grow biologically by the law of nature. It becomes a person of itself. The mother's body is just a shell for the child to develop until it comes out of the body. It is difficult to see the body of parents as some physical or any type of cause here. If it has to be some causal relationship, then you must also bring the physicians who actually pulled out the child from the mother's body and the midwifes who managed the birth, as part of the cause for the child, which becomes quite blurry in the relationship i.e. who is the real cause for the child?

Likewise Number 1 is not a cause for anything.  It is a descriptive word to describe an object in quantity or start of motion or event or stage of process.   From 1, one can count 1.1, 1.11, 1.111, 1.1111 ... never reaching 2 eternally.  It just depends on how one wants to use the number for his application.

Parent and child relationship is linked by one off event in one's life.  No one can predict, change or adjust it.  How could anyone have predicted Mary had Tim or Jane as her children before their births? And how could have anyone predicted how their faces and personalities would be like before the birth?

One can only talk about its necessity or factuality only after the birth of the child in the relationship.    If something cannot be predicted before its events, then can it be called a necessity or facts? Nope.

When you cannot predict the effect of the cause, it is not a causal relation at all.  That is why efficient cause seems outdated.  Just because A was ahead of B, or A produced B doesn't qualify as a cause and effect relationship between A and B.   In Causal relationship, the details of cause must offer predictions to its effects in exact degree, and the process of cause and effect relationship must be repeatable and predictable in all times in the universe.

So, I am still not convinced on your points that parent child relationship is a causal relationship which is based on necessity. If it is still not making sense, please let me know why it isn't. Thanks.

From here, I see ways that proper causality can be asserted for both. The latter is a little easier to start with — a parent is only understood *as* a parent, when the child is actually in some way existent. Edith, who we are trying to consider as simply a parent, still lived and existed many years without being a parent to Tim. The parent in her though, did not exist until the child was born. In this way, we can say that a parent, qua parent, is universally the cause of the child, qua child, insofar as they cannot exist separate from each other. — Pretty

Does this mean that the parent was caused by the non-parent? Because before the parent became a parent, they were not parent. The parent became parent because of the fact the parent had the child.
It seems a bit unclear here.

The parent had been caused by the not-parent, and the not parent must have been caused by the other parent, and so on. So who is the very first parent? Which comes first then, parent or not parent?

100%, that is a very good point. All that I would say is that in other senses, science is not like religion, because science is atheist (or at least agnostic). Individual scientists can be religious, but that is a private matter. Science, in the public sense, is not religious (it cannot be, by definition). — Arcane Sandwich

Of course Science is not religion. No one would argue about that. My point was, that the way that Science can mislead the ordinary folks' perception at times is the same as religion.

Yes, all we have is a Ground Of Determination - the Quantum 'vacuum'. — PoeticUniverse

I don't have it, sir. Where can I find one?

Agreed, but does that make to reason on content the same as to reason to emotion? — Mww

I am definitely aware of my emotions in most times. I can feel happiness when seeing the newly arrived parcels, and when I opened them, the contents inside of the parcel were what I was expecting and satisfactory in quality. I feel satisfied and happy about them. I go to the online store, and leave a positive feedback reflecting my satisfaction and happiness on the goods delivered. This whole process is based on my reflective reasoning.

But as you pointed out, whether the content of perception is identical with the emotion seems a bit unclear. And what would be the nature of the reasoning between those different mental events?
Could emotions be classed as a type of perception? Or are they different events altogether? If so, how different?

On the other hand, I can see here I might reason to an emotion I’ve already felt, given a cause I’ve already experienced. But this is mediated emotion, rather than immediate affectation, so in these cases, I’d be less inclined to question the idea. — Mww

Yes, this is it. We can reflect and reason the felt emotions after the experience of emotion. Hence it looks like our emotions could be the subject matter for reason. According to Kant, reason can even reason about reason itself, which is then pure reason. In that case, why couldn't reason reason on the emotions or the content of emotions?

When emotional experience has gone through the analytic investigation of reason, it can be looked as in "the content" of reason, because then we can describe it in linguistic form.

Anyway….thanks. — Mww

Anytime Mww. Thank you.

Gracias por tus amables palabras, amigo.

We cannot eat oysters as they are in themselves. That is true. I only wish the premises were true as well. — Arcane Sandwich

Could it be because they are the Kantian oysters? Oysters in themselves are in noumenon. They are not available in the physical world. You can only eat the oysters in phenomenon, which are are brought under the physiological and chemical conditions

I don't think art, which we analyse, necessarily 'pleases' our brain, but rather that, through thorough reflection about it and contemplation on the object itself, we reach a (reasoned) conclusion regarding its' qualities, like that it is beautiful. — Prometheus2

You could be right. Reasoned beauties cannot please our brains like the bodily sensory beauties please our bodily organs. Could it be because of the fact, brain is located inside body under the skin and skull hidden away from the external stimulation?

I still believe that brain feels and knows everything which is fed via the sensory organs, as the centre of the mental events where all mental operations take place. But maybe the way brain feels pleasure of reasoned beauty might be different from the way our eyes or ears feel pleasures from the sensations? In what what would it be different? Or does it have anything to do with the reasoned beauty at all?

On “reasoned beauty”:

Do you think we reason to an aesthetically pleasing emotion? — Mww

I think we can reason on all the contents of our perception no matter how trivial they are. When you are asked "What does it feel like?", you explain the nature of the feeling using your reason reflectively. e.g. "It feels like coming home." or "Unbelievably interesting".

But in the case of aesthetically pleasing emotion, reason could offer a lot more explanation on the object in analytic and critical way. Most of the art critique essays are in the form of explanation based on reasoning.

Hmm... So what you mean to say is that...perhaps beauty is something purely contingent and subjective, and if it were not, there would have to be some kind of consistent, determinable pattern behind its' occurrence or emergence? — Prometheus2

I have thought about this concept again, and it seem to me that beauty could be very much closely related to bodily sensory perceptions, which cause aesthetically pleasing emotions in us.

When we see beautiful scenery, person or flowers, they pleases our eyes via the visual sensations and perception. When we hear beautiful music or songs, they please our ears or hearing.

Likewise, smells, tastes and touches could be described as beautiful, if they give us pleasing sensations.

You may ask, what about the reasoned beauty from the works of Picasso, Van Gogh, the famous Mona Lisa by Da Vinci,..etc? We may say, they please our brains.

Therefore we may conclude that beauty is an aesthetically pleasing emotions arising from our bodily sense organs in perceiving the objects or situations? Not sure if you would agree, or see the point. I would be interested to hear about your opinions on the point.

Philosophers have some very complicated things to say about existence, and they don't agree with each other on that point. — Arcane Sandwich

Yes, this is true. Existence is an interesting topic. We could further analyse and discuss on the nature of Existence. If you would open an OP, I would follow, read and try to contribute if I have any relating ideas cropping up in my head.

Hmmm... that's a really good point. You seem to be a very good metaphysician. — Arcane Sandwich

Thank you sir. I am grateful to be able to discuss these topics with the renowned professional Metaphysician. :pray:

Sure. But then I can talk about how those people talked about those objects. And how do I do that? First, I study what they said, then I study what those objects are. — Arcane Sandwich

Sure interesting point. You will find different people have different ideas on what being alive means. You have claimed that having the biological body cells, DNA and RNA in the body is the condition of being alive. But the ancient people must have thought that the dead are as alive as the living.
After physical death, soul travels from the mundane world to the heaven or hell or the world of idea, if they were platonians.

Most of them believed in Gods, Demons and Ghosts for sure. So physical bodies were not the only existence.

The moderns rejected souls, Gods, demons and dragons as unfounded superstitions due to lack of evidence on the claims and beliefs. But then there are many claims made by Science with little or no evidence. People tend to believe anything no matter how superstitious it may sound.

If the claims were under the name of science, then they would believe them blindly. So there is no much difference between scientific or religious claims in their superstitious nature.

DNA RNA are only meaningful for those who works in the labs with the white gowns. They mean nothing me. No matter how closely I inspect my hand and fingers I cannot find a trace of DNA or RNA.
For me being alive means being able to eat, drink, sleep well, and enjoy the pleasures from the daily routine.

You think? I'm not so sure myself. Calling someone "ignorant" is just rude. Maybe I should retire that word from my personal vocabulary, but I'm not sure. What do you think about that? Is the word "ignorant" somehow insulting? I think it is, but I could be wrong. — Arcane Sandwich

It can be insulting to someone, but the ancients are all dead, and the deads won't mind being called "ignorant". Or maybe they might mind, but they won't know that you called them "ignorant". :D