But formal logic cannot tell you truth about the world...................For analysing truth of the world, you need to use material logic — Corvus

The problem is that Material Logic is an inductive logic, where the conclusion may be likely but not certain

Premise 1: The sun has risen every day for the past thousand years.
Conclusion: The sun will rise tomorrow.

Formal vs. Material Logic: A Comparative Analysis

Even Material Logic cannot tell us the truth about the world.

But what do we do about "To know something means consciously knowing something"? Which sense(s) of "thought" is being appealed to here? — J

No sense of thought is being appealed to.

I can only have knowledge of things inside my mind, such as pain. Everything outside my mind can only be a belief.

If my hand hurts, then I know my hand hurts. If I know my hand hurts, then I consciously know that my hand hurts. To know something means to consciously know something.

Present time

Let Think1 = I think "my hand hurts"
Let Think2 = I think my hand hurts

Think1 means that I am thinking about the proposition "my hand hurts". I can think about the proposition regardless of whether my hand is hurting or not. I can know that my hand hurts and think about the proposition "my hand hurts" at the same time, but my hand hurting does not require Think1. I have no propositional attitude towards the proposition.

In Think2, "I think" means "I believe". Therefore Think2 means "I believe my hand hurts". But this is not a valid expression, in that if my hand hurts, this is not a belief, it is knowledge.

If I know my hand hurts, no sense of thought is being appealed to.

Future time

At a future time, I can reflect on my past experience.

Let Think1 = I think "my hand hurt"
Let Think2 = I think my hand hurt

Think1 means that I am thinking about the proposition "my hand hurt". I can think about the proposition regardless of whether my hand hurt or not. I can know that my hand hurt and think about the proposition "my hand hurt" at the same time, but my hand hurting does not require Think1. I have no propositional attitude towards the proposition.

In Think2, "I think" means "I believe". Therefore Think2 means "I believe my hand hurt". But this is not a valid expression, in that if my hand hurt, this is not a belief, it is knowledge.

If I know my hand hurt, no sense of thought is being appealed to.

Whereas "I think p" sounds less clearer than "p", and has some points to clarify. — Corvus

Yes. If I said "I think the oak tree is shedding its leaves" I would sound more uncertain than if I had said "the oak tree is shedding its leaves".
===============================================================================

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

In ordinary language when chatting at the bus stop, I agree. But perhaps not on a philosophy forum.
===============================================================================

When you say, "I know p", you will be expected to prove that you know p. — Corvus

Agree
===============================================================================

"I know I think p" is a psychological statement with no objective meaning to deliver apart from to yourself. — Corvus

And hopefully to others on this thread about "p and "I think p""

I know my thoughts, as my thoughts are inside my mind.
I have the thought that the moon exists.
Therefore, I know my thought that the moon exists

I believe that the moon exists.
I can justify my belief that the moon exists.

A belief is true if it corresponds with what exists in a mind-independent world.
The insurmountable problem is how can the mind know about a world that is independent of the mind.
Therefore, truth about a mind-independent world is unknowable
Therefore, knowledge about a mind-independent world is impossible.

However, this is why we have axioms in logic, science and mathematics and hypotheses in general life.

For instance, do the statements, "Santa Claus exists." and "Barak Obama exists." hold the same level of uncertainty? — Harry Hindu

On the one hand I saw Santa Claus in person at Hamley's Regent Street store when I was very young, yet have never seen Barak Obama. On the other hand, many people have told me that Santa Claus is not real.

Do I believe what I have seen with my own eyes, or what people tell me?
===============================================================================

The world is all there is, included the ideas in your mind, and the book on the table that represent those ideas in Tolkien's mind that you can have knowledge of by reading the scribbles therein. — Harry Hindu

The Direct Realist believes that there is a book on the table. However, the Indirect Realist would disagree.
===============================================================================

I don't know what Kant means by unknowable things-in-themselves. — Harry Hindu

The problem is, how is it possible to know about something that exists in a mind-independent world when all we have is our minds.

From Wikipedia Thing-in-itself

In Kantian philosophy, the thing-in-itself (German: Ding an sich) is the status of objects as they are, independent of representation and observation.

===============================================================================

You can also depend on the process of causation in a deterministic universe as providing another level of certainty. — Harry Hindu

The same effect can have many different possible causes. I see a broken window, and even if I know that something caused the window to break, one particular effect can have many different causes. There is no certain means of knowing what the cause was, a stone the previous day, a rock the previous week, a seagull the previous week, a crow within the hour, a window cleaner, etc.

The cause may determine the effect, but the affect could have been determined by many different possible causes.
===============================================================================

You're contradicting yourself again. First you define knowledge as "justified true belief". You then say that you can justify your belief, but then say you cannot know things-in-themselves. — Harry Hindu

From SEP The analysis of knowledge

The tripartite analysis of knowledge is often abbreviated as the “JTB” analysis, for “justified true belief”.Much of the twentieth-century literature on the analysis of knowledge took the JTB analysis as its starting-point.

From Wikipedia Thing-in-itself

In Kantian philosophy, the thing-in-itself (German: Ding an sich) is the status of objects as they are, independent of representation and observation.

===============================================================================

All knowledge stems from both observation and reason. — Harry Hindu

A Direct Realist believes that they directly observe things in a mind-independent world. The Indirect Realist disagrees.
===============================================================================

Are our senses and reason useful? — Harry Hindu

That is my point. What is important are our senses and our reason. What exists the other side of our sense is open to debate.
===============================================================================

Now how is it that you can get to the thing-in-itself - other people's ideas - by seeing scribbles on your computer screen if not by taking what you know from prior experiences and using that to predict how the scribbles appeared on your screen and what they refer to? — Harry Hindu

How to get from what we experience in our senses to what exists the other side of our senses, and whether it is even possible, has no agreed solution.

From Wikipedia Phenomenology (philosophy)

Phenomenology is a philosophical study and movement largely associated with the early 20th century that seeks to objectively investigate the nature of subjective, conscious experience. It attempts to describe the universal features of consciousness while avoiding assumptions about the external world, aiming to describe phenomena as they appear to the subject, and to explore the meaning and significance of the lived experiences.

The “mental event” sense of “think” could be shown as “I think: ‛p’ ”. The propositional sense could be shown as “I think that p” or just “I think p”. Or we can just attach numbers to discriminate them: thought1 vs. thought2, think1 vs. think2. — J

"I think" and "p"
If we want to distinguish between the mental event and the propositional sense, between the act of thinking and the something being thought about, perhaps what is being distinguished is "I think" and "p".

In which case thought1 = "I think" and thought2 = "p".

Let p = the oak tree is shedding its leaves.

Frege and Rodl agree that thought1 cannot exist in the absence of thought2

Frege argues that thought2 can exist in the absence of thought1. The content of a thought can be objective, independent and accessible to any rational being.

Rodl argues that thought2 cannot exist in the absence of thought1. In opposition to Frege's anti-psychologism, this leaves no space for the psychological concept of judgement.

"I think "p"" and "I think p"
I think "p" = I think "the oak tree is shedding its leaves". I am not making any judgement about p. I have no propositional attitude towards p.

I think p = I think the oak tree is shedding its leaves. I am making a judgement about p. I have a propositional attitude towards p.

Mental events
For Frege, a thought is truth apt, which seems sensible. (The force and content of judgement by Rodl)

I know my hand hurts is not truth apt, therefore a mental event need not be a thought.

Knowing and consciousness
When I know that my hand hurts, I am conscious that my hand hurts.

When I think that the oak tree is shedding its leaves, I know that this is my thought rather than Pat's thought, for example. I am conscious that this is my thought.

To know something means consciously knowing something

1st person and 3rd person
In the 1st person, I think that the oak tree is shedding its leaves
In the 3rd person, I think about my thought that the oak tree is shedding its leaves.

See The force and content of judgement by Sebastian Rodl 2020 referring to van der Schaar.

In the 1st person, I am conscious that my hand hurts
In the 3rd person, I am conscious that I am conscious that my hand hurts.

In the 1st person, I think about something external to me.
In the 3rd person, I think about myself as if I was external to myself.

Being conscious about myself as if I were external to myself is easier to understand than self-consciousness.

That would be a simple task in proof. — Corvus

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.

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? — Corvus

I know my hand hurts. In the absence of telepathy, it is impossible for me to either prove or verify to you that my hand hurts.

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

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.

Is someone expressing an opinion or fact when stating, "The oak tree is shedding its leaves"? — Harry Hindu

If I hear someone saying "the oak tree is shedding its leaves", as it is impossible to know what is in someone else's mind, I cannot know whether they believe in what they are saying, are lying, are certain in what they say or uncertain in what they say.

Even if they said "I am certain that the oak tree is shedding its leaves", they could be lying.
===============================================================================

Just because it wasn't about the world doesn't mean it isn't part of the world. Does the Lord of the Rings book not exist in the world even though it isn't about the world?.............................You misinterpreting a sound causes you to behave a certain way in the world. How can there be a causal relation between some thought you have and an action in the world if those thoughts are not in the world? — Harry Hindu

As an Indirect Realist, I believe that the Lord of the Rings exists in the world, but this world exist in my mind. What exist in a mind-independent world is, as Kant said, unknowable things-in-themselves.

A Direct Realist would have a different opinion to mine.

I believe that there is something in this mind-independent world that caused me to perceive a sound, caused me to have a thought, but I can never know what that something outside my mind is.

I hear a sound that I perceive as thundering, but I cannot know what in the a mind-independent world caused me to hear this sound. For convenience, I name the unknown cause "thundering". I name the unknown cause after the known effect, such that when I perceive something as thundering I imagine the cause as thundering.

I can imagine a mind-independent world, but such a world has derived from the world inside my mind.
===============================================================================

What is the difference between a "belief", "think", and "knowledge" for you? — Harry Hindu

For me, knowledge is justified true belief.

Truth is the relation between the mind and a mind-independent world.

As a 1st person experience, I hear a thundering sound. As a 3rd person experience, I can think about this thundering sound.

My belief is that it was caused by a motor bike and I can justify my belief.

However, as I can never know whether my belief is true, because as Kant said, in a mind-independent world are unknowable things-in-themselves.
===============================================================================

Ok, would you say that the structure of your thoughts is more like watching the movie or reading the book? If scribbles in the book invoke the images from the movie, would you say that the scribbles in the book refer to the actions and things in the movie? Could it ever be the other way around? If so, provide an example. — Harry Hindu

If I recognise a word, I imagine an image. Some images I recognise as words. In Hume's terms, there is a constant conjunction between some words and some images.

You had a previous question about meaning.



The pictogram of a plough has no meaning in itself. It must refer to something else to have meaning, such as a plough. The plough has no meaning in itself. It must must refer to something else in order to have meaning, such as the ability to grow food. Even the physical plough is a symbol for something else.

The “I think” accompanies all our thoughts, says Kant. Sebastian Rödl, in Self-Consciousness and Objectivity, agrees with this but points out that “this cannot be put by saying that, in every act of thinking, two things are thought: p and I think p.” — J

Tree has water and wood fibre in the content. Tree itself dies without water and the nutrients fed from the root. — Corvus

Photograph of a tree
I see a photograph. I see particular shapes and colours which I recognise as a tree. There is the form of a particular tree that exists in the photograph and there is the content of the form, which exists in my mind as the concept of a tree.

For Frege there is a separation between force and content, where the assertoric force is a propositional attitude towards a content. In this instance, that I judge that the particular shapes and colours represent a tree.

Rodl rejects Frege's separation between force and content. For Rodl the original form of judgment is the opposition of p and non-p, and it is not possible to make any judgment whether particular shapes and colours represent p or non-p in the absence of any content p. In other words, I cannot judge whether these particular shapes represent a tree or not without having prior knowledge of a tree.

Thinking of the tree
I see a photograph of an oak tree, which is a representation of an oak tree. When I think of an oak tree, I am not thinking about a representation of an oak tree, as this would lead into the infinite regress homunculus problem. It would mean that I was thinking of a representation of a representation.

As Kant wrote in CPR B132

The I think must be able to accompany all my representations; for otherwise something would be represented in me that could not be thought at all, which is as much as to say that the representation would either be impossible or else at least would be nothing for me.

As Kant wrote, in order for me to think about an oak tree, accompanying my thought must be a representation of an oak tree, otherwise there would be nothing for me to think about. The "I think that there is an oak tree" cannot be external to the representation of an oak tree, otherwise the oak tree could not be thought about at all. The representation of the oak tree must be internal to the "I think that there is an oak tree".

Rodl, for a similar reason, in The Force and the content of judgement, rejected Frege's distinction between force and content. If content was external to force, any propositional attitude towards the content would be impossible, and there could be no judgement that the oak tree is shedding its leaves. Content must be internal to the force, where the judgement that the oak tree is shedding its leaves is no more than the articulation that the oak tree is shedding its leaves.

Knowing is not thinking
When I think of an oak tree, as a 1st person experience, I know that the thought is mine, rather than Pat's for example. I don't need to think about my thought in order to know that it is my thought. Therefore in every act of thinking there are two aspects, I think about the oak tree and I know that it is me who is thinking about the oak tree.

However, perhaps later, as a 3rd person experience, I may consciously think about my thought of an oak tree.

Knowing is not the same as thinking, in that I can know a pain in my hand without needing to think that I have a pain in my hand. For Frege a thought is either true or false. That I know a pain in my hand is not truth apt.

Rodl said "This cannot be put by saying that, in every act of thinking, two things are thought: p and I think p."

Therefore, in every act of thinking there are two aspects, I think p and I know I think p.

The mind is part of the physical brain? Exactly which part in the brain? — Corvus

If your brain moves from the living room to the kitchen, does your mind remain in the living room?

A tree has the form of a tree. What is the content of a tree? It can only be the tree itself.

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

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. — Corvus

If "I" was not thought p, how could "I" ever know about thought p?
===============================================================================

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? — Corvus

No. As I think of "I" as my thoughts, I think of my mind as my brain.

So "I believe" wouldn't be a separate fact that could appear in a predication? Just asking . . . I think this is pretty close to Rödl, yes. — J

As an Indirect Realist, I believe that both "I believe" and "the postbox is red" only exist in the mind.

For someone who believes that "I have thought x", where "I" and "thought x" are separate, then "thought x" is predicated of "I". For example, a table may be made of wood, meaning that "wood" can be predicated of "a table".

For someone who believes that "I am thought x", where "I" is "thought x", then "thought x" cannot be predicated of "I". For example, a wooden table is made of wood, meaning that "wood" cannot be predicated of "a wooden table".

Saying "I am the thought p." sounds even more unclear, mysterious and even spooky. — Corvus

A thought of a tree
There is the physical body of which the physical brain is a part. The mind is somehow part of the physical 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.

How are these two aspects connected?

A photograph of a tree
What is the connection between a photograph representing a tree and the representation of a tree.

Take away the photograph that represents a tree, and there will be no representation of a tree. Take away the representation of a tree and there will be no photograph that represents the tree.

Rather than the photograph representing a tree, perhaps the photograph IS the representation of a tree.

Rather than "I" thinking of a tree, perhaps the "I" IS the thought of a tree.

Are you not more capable of learning about friendship by having friends in reality? — Harry Hindu

Yes, but they may have have the same sophistication of thought about friendship as Tolkein.
===============================================================================

Yes, but you are saying that thinking is expressing uncertainty. — Harry Hindu

If someone told me that they knew without doubt that something was true, I would be very doubtful about their opinion.
===============================================================================

I need to understand why you think that thoughts are not part of the world when they are about the world like language is...If you thinking something is exhibiting some form of uncertainty doesn't that mean that you have a sense that your thoughts might be false? — Harry Hindu

I hear a sound and immediately think that the sound came from a motor car, but in fact it actually came from a motor bike.

I have the sense that my thought may be false, so am uncertain about it

Being a thought that was false, my thought was not about the world. It was not a part of the world.
===============================================================================

The question now is, what form does knowledge take in your mind? — Harry Hindu

As an Indirect Realist, I only have knowledge of what I perceive in my five senses. If I hear a sound, I have the knowledge that I have heard a sound. I may believe that the sound was caused by a motor bike, and I can find reasons to justify my belief that the sound was caused by a motor bike, but I can never know that the sound was not caused by a motor car.
===============================================================================

For instance, when reading the Lord of the Rings and reading a description of the characters, does the visual of Frodo and Gandalf take the shape of more scribbles and sounds, or a visual of what these characters look like? — Harry Hindu

When I read the word "Gandalf", I picture in my mind "Gandalf" from the movie.

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

Yes, "I think p" has several different meanings.

For Frege, "I think" is the force of judgement and "p" is the content judged.

Sebastian Rodl rejects Frege's distinction between force and content.

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".

The problem with "I have the thought p" is that this leads into the infinite regress homuncules problem.

If it is the case that "I am the thought p", then this agrees with Rodl's rejection of Frege's distinction between force and content.

I would add 5) I think and I am p.

He's really saying judgment shouldn't be called a propositional attitude, despite what all the traditional sources maintain. The entire separation of force (judgment, attitude) and content is off base, according to him. That's why it's kind of an outrageous viewpoint on the face of it. — J

As an Indirect Realist, I would probably agree with Rodl.

Consider the sentence "I believe that the postbox is red". This illustrates a propositional attitude, a mental state towards a proposition, namely, my mental state of believing that the postbox is red.

Frege distinguishes the force of the judgement, I believe, from the content judged, the postbox is red.

However, for Bertrand Russell, it is not the case that redness is predicated of the postbox, but rather there is something that is both a postbox and red, where the postbox is predicated of something and redness is predicated of the same something.

For Russell, existence is a second order concept, such that the existence of being a postbox and the existence of being red are concepts that exist in the mind rather than the world.

For Kant, the something in the world is an unknown thing-in-itself that we only know through the phenomenological predicates "being a postbox" and being red", which are concepts which exist in the mind.

Speaking as an Indirect Realist, the content of the sentence "I believe that the postbox is red" is "the postbox is red". However, "the postbox is red", as Russell shows, means that there is something that is a postbox and is red, where the predicates "is a postbox" and "is" red are second order concepts that exist in the mind. As Kant showed, the something is an unknowable thing-in-itself.

Therefore, the content of the sentence "I believe that the postbox is red" is an unknowable something in the world that can only be known as predicated concepts that exist in the mind as phenomenological experiences.

The content of the sentence is not knowable in the world but is only knowable in the mind as a belief.

In other words, the content of the sentence "is" the force of judgement by the thinker, where "is" is used to signify identity.

As Rodl says, for me as an Indirect Realist, there is no separation of force from content.

Therefore adding "I think" to a statement seems to contribute in making the statement obscure in its exact meaning. — Corvus

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

In what ways does some work of fiction shed light on reality that some work of non-fiction does not? — Harry Hindu

As The Lord of the Rings is one of the best-selling books ever written, with over 150 million copies sold, more people have learnt about the nature of friendship and struggle from the Lord of the Rings than the relatively small number of people who read books on sociobiology and psychology.
===============================================================================

Right, so Pat is making a statement about their uncertainty, not about the actual state of some oak tree. — Harry Hindu

No, She is making a statement about her uncertainty about a fact.
===============================================================================

It is only useful if I'm not there looking at the same tree Pat is, or if I'm interested in what Pat is thinking, not what the oak tree is doing. — Harry Hindu

Most of what we hear and read is about things we were never present, whether about Caesar or events in Alaska.
==============================================================================

Which thought bears more truth, a visual of an oak tree shedding its leaves, or scribbles of your own voice in your head saying, "I think the oak tree shedding its leaves." — Harry Hindu

Truth is about the relationship between language and the world, such that language in the absence of a world can be neither true nor false, and the world in the absence of language can be neither true nor false.

We can think about the meaning of words such as "the oak tree is shedding its leaves", and we can think about what we see, such as the oak tree is shedding its leaves.

Language is useful in that most of language refers to things and events we could never be present for, such as Kant's thoughts, the moon landing or Caesar's march into Rome

There is no truth or falsity in my seeing an oak tree shedding its leaves. There is no truth or falsity in the sentence "I think the oak tree is shedding its leaves".

There is only truth if the sentence is "the oak tree is shedding its leaves" and I see the oak tree shedding its leaves.
===============================================================================

How do you determine if some string of scribbles bears truth? — Harry Hindu

"The oak tree is shedding its leaves" is true IFF the oak tree is shedding its leaves.

"x" in language is true IFF x in the world

The problem is in knowing what exists in the world.

For Kant, what exists in the world are things-in-themselves which are unknowable, meaning that truth as a correspondence between language and the world is unknowable.

For Wittgenstein, there is language and the world, but he never specifies where this world exists, inside or outside the mind. Wittgenstein can be read both as an Idealist and a Realist. Therefore, for Wittgenstein truth is a vague concept.

Consider "the postbox is red" is true IFF the postbox is red. For the Indirect Realist, the objective colour red in the world is no more than a projection of the subjective colour red onto the world. The colour red only exists in the mind and not the world, meaning that truth becomes a relation between a language that exists in the mind and a thought that also exists in the mind.

If truth is a relation between language in the mind and a mind-independent world, the fundamental problem is how a mind can know about something that is mind-independent.

This quote is from Rödl's response — J

I reject the idea that judgment is a propositional attitude.

From Wikipedia - propositional Attitude

a propositional attitude is a mental state towards a proposition, such as "Sally believed that she had won"

From the Merriam Webster, the word "judge" includes: to hold as an opinion : guess, think
"I judge she knew what she was doing"

From this it seems that the word "judge" can be a mental state towards a proposition, and could be a propositional attitude.

But is Rodl using the word "judge" in a particular way?

If the only thing Pat can be certain of is that they have thoughts, then what use is communicating those thoughts if what she thinks she experiences might not be the case, which would be just as true for other human beings as it is for shedding oak trees? — Harry Hindu

Of what use is it for Pat to say "I think the oak tree is shedding its leaves" if she thinks that there is a possibility that it may not be the case that the oak tree is shedding its leaves.

Even if the oak tree is not shedding its leaves, Pat is nevertheless still communicating a lot of worthwhile information

i) Pat thinks
ii) Oak trees have leaves
iii) Oak trees may or may not shed their leaves
iv) There are things such as oak trees
v) Pat is asking a question she is hoping will be answered
vi) Pat is an English speaker
vii) Pat probably lives in the UK, Canada, Australia or the USA
===============================================================================

Why learn language at all if all you have access to is your thoughts? — Harry Hindu

Suppose all that existed was my mind. Would I still learn a language. Probably I would, as language enables me to have more complex thoughts than I could otherwise have without language. The ability to have more complex thoughts would be an end in itself.

Perhaps this is perhaps why people learn unusual languages such as Latin, even though they are not able to use it in everyday life. It is an personal intellectual exercise rather than being of practical use.
===============================================================================

Isn't you learning a language and then using it to communicate with others exhibiting a degree of certainty that there are things that exist (like other human beings) independent of your thoughts? — Harry Hindu

I am pretty certain that a world exists independent of my mind, but am not certain beyond a shadow of a doubt. As Kant argued, what knowledge can we ever have of things-in-themselves. However, my working hypothesis is that there is a mind independent world out there, and I may as well continue under my hypothesis unless it is shown to be wrong.

What does The Lord of the Rings tell us about reality?...................The difference between reality and fiction is their relative locations. — Harry Hindu

The article Ralph Waldo Emerson: Fiction reveals truth that reality obscures explains it better than I could:

The quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Fiction reveals truth that reality obscures," encapsulates the notion that fiction has the unique ability to uncover hidden truths that may be misunderstood or even obscured by reality. In a straightforward interpretation, this quote suggests that the stories we create in fiction offer a deeper understanding of human nature, societal dynamics, and the complexities of life. Fiction has the power to shine a light on truths often overshadowed or ignored in the hustle and bustle of everyday life. It allows us to explore different perspectives, question assumptions, and delve into the depths of human experience. Through narrative and imagination, fiction becomes a vehicle through which reality's intricacies can be unraveled and its truths made visible.

I agree when you say that trying to separate the body from the environment is an impossible feat, in that trying to separate the subjective from the objective is a fundamental problem within philosophy.

A view is information structured in a way to inform an organism of the state of the environment relative to the state of its body. A view is always relative and the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity lies in trying to separate the body from the environment - an impossible feat. — Harry Hindu

For example, I have the subjective experience of perceiving the colour red. But does the colour red have an objective existence in the world independent of any observer? Is the colour red part of a subjective fiction or part of an objective reality?

Calling them "realities" would be a misuse of words. They are fictional stories, and I don't see any relevance between the words, "fiction" and "reality". — Harry Hindu

Wolfgang Iser in The Reality of Fiction: A Functionalist Approach to Literature makes the point that fiction and reality are often very difficult to separate, as we can see in today's mainstream media.

If fiction and reality are to be linked, it must be in terms not of opposition but of communication, for the one is not the mere opposite of the other - fiction is a means of telling us something about reality.

Going from "The oak tree is shedding its leaves" to "I think the oak tree is shedding its leaves" is going from thinking in the visual of an oak tree shedding its leaves to thinking in the auditory experience of hearing the words (you talking to yourself) "I think the oak tree is shedding its leaves". — Harry Hindu

It's also going from certainty to uncertainty

We only need language to relay information, not to create reality. Only language that relays relevant information is useful, else it's the ramblings of a madman or philosophy gone wild. — Harry Hindu

Does that include the realities created by To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, 1984 by Orwell, The Lord of the Rings by Tolkein, The Great Gatsby by Fitzgerald, Anna Karenina by Tolstoy, etc.

I often wonder, what makes a person interested in philosophy? — Rob J Kennedy

The main reason I became interested in philosophy was because of my interest in art.

How is it possible to create art without knowing what art is?

What art is is a philosophical problem.

What our present goal is determines what we try to point to with language. — Harry Hindu

I've been assuming that this thread is about the philosophical implications of "thought", rather than how "thought" is used in language, though it is true that ambiguities in language make the task of philosophy more difficult.

Language use is not a requirement for thinking. — Harry Hindu

True, but it would be difficult to know Kant's and Frege's insights about thoughts without language.

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? — Corvus

Given the sentence "I think I think the Eiffel Tower is 400m tall"

Linguistically it could mean "I think the Eiffel Tower is 400m tall, but I'm not sure"

Metaphysically, what does "I think I think" mean. Can a thought think about itself. If it can, does this infer free-will, where a thought causes itself to come into existence, an example of spontaneous self-causation. Or what about the infinite regress homuncules problem used against Direct Realism. Where do thoughts exist in the physical brain. Do thoughts exist, or are they just illusions. Things like that.

p and I think p — J

I am assuming that Pat's problem is metaphysical rather than linguistic. Pat said:

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.’

1) I think that the oak tree is shedding its leaves
2) I am thinking the thought that the oak tree is shedding its leaves

Consider "I think x", where x = the oak tree is shedding its leaves. All three words are important within the sentence.

The sentence cannot be "I think"
A thought must be about something. For Frege a thought has a content, in this case that the oak tree is shedding its leaves.

The sentence cannot be "I x"
There must be a relation between "I" and x. For Frege there must be an act, whether I am standing next to x or I am thinking about x.

The sentence cannot be "think x"
There must be a subject, whether "Patachon thinks x" or "I think x".

I can only say "I think x", if I am aware that the "I" refers to me, and it is me that is doing the thinking, rather than someone else, such as Patachon.

When I say "I think the oak tree is shedding its leaves", I am aware that I am thinking the thought rather than Patachon, for example.

Pat and her belief
Pat is mistaken in her belief.

In order for Pat to say to herself "that oak tree is shedding its leaves", Pat must be aware that she is thinking the thought, rather than someone else, such as Patachon.

The reply to Pat should be response 1, "“I think” must accompany all our thoughts"

If we didn't know who was thinking our thoughts, our identity as a person would no longer exist.

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). — Corvus

OK. How about Pat's problem, which presumably is a metaphysical rather than linguistic problem.

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

1) Pat says "the oak tree is standing there"
2) Pat says "I think that the oak tree is standing there"

Linguistically these are different, but metaphysically the same.

What about the metaphysical problem?
3) Pat is thinking about her thinking that the oak tree is standing there.

When I think, I am thinking in either sentences or images...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. — Corvus

The equivalence of thinking and being consciously aware

When I think of an oak tree, I am consciously aware of an oak tree.

Rather than say "I am thinking of an oak tree", I can equally say "I am consciously aware of an oak tree".

I don't say "consciously aware of an oak tree", which would be ungrammatical, because I am consciously aware that it is "I" that is looking at an oak tree.

Therefore, I am consciously aware of two things, consciously aware not only of the oak tree but also it is "I" that is consciously aware of the oak tree.

But thinking is equivalent to being consciously aware

So I can also say, I am thinking of two things, thinking not only of the oak tree but also thinking about the "I" that is thinking about the oak tree.

This is why the "I" is included in the proposition "I am thinking of an oak tree", rather than just "thinking of an oak tree".

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.

I don't think you can think about your thinking. — Corvus

It hinges on the ambiguity of the word "thought". We commonly use the word to mean two distinct things: a mental event occurring at a particular place and time, and the content or import of said event ("proposition," in Fregean terms). — J

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.

The problem
Pat says that when she has the thought that the oak tree is shedding its leaves, she is not simultaneously thinking that she has the thought that the oak tree is shedding its leaves. IE, when I think, am I simultaneously thinking that I think?

Metaphysically, what are thoughts
The act of thinking is inseparable to what is being thought about. As we cannot have an act of thinking without an object of thought, we cannot have an object of thought without the act of thinking. The act of thinking is the object of thought.

In the same way, the subjective act of thinking about the colour red cannot be seperated from the objective red that is being thought about

When stung by a bee, I am immediately conscious of pain. Subsequently, I can have the thought "bees sting". A thought may be regarded as a proposition that is potentially shareable as an objective fact, such as "bees sting", rather than a subjective feeling that is unshareable, such as pain (Britannica - Thoughts and Propositions).

The relation between "I" and thoughts
"The oak tree is shedding its leaves" is a valid proposition but not a thought. "Think the oak tree is shedding it leaves" is not a valid proposition, as it doesn't indicate who is having the thought. "I think the oak tree is shedding its leaves", "they think the oak tree is shedding its leaves" and "he thinks the oak tree is shedding its leaves" are valid propositions expressing thoughts.

A thought cannot be had without someone having that thought.

It is the case that "I am my thoughts", rather than I have thoughts. If it were the case that "I have thoughts", not only would lead into the infinite regress homuncules problem but also would lead into the problem of how the "I" could have a thought that was external to it.

The relation between thoughts and consciousness
If I were not conscious I would have no thoughts, and if I had no thoughts I would not be conscious.

The relation between "I" and consciousness
If I was not conscious there would be no "I", and if there was no "I" there would be no consciousness.

The relation between "I", consciousness and thoughts
Therefore, "I", being conscious and thoughts are all aspects of the same thing. "I" cannot exist without being conscious or having thoughts. Being conscious wouldn't be possible without an "I" and thoughts. Having thoughts would not be possible without an "I" and being conscious.

Conscious beings are able to think, and self-conscious beings are able to think that they think
When stung by a bee, I am my immediate consciousness of pain, such that I am the pain. When subsequently I have a propositional thought, such as "bees sting", I am the propositional thought "bees sting".

As I am both conscious of pains and thoughts, but at the same time I am these pains and thoughts, I am a self-conscious being.

As a conscious being I think, but as a self-conscious being I think I think.

However, when you say "I think Paris is crowded," you can be saying either of two things. — J

The first could be an Illocutionary Act, perhaps "expressive of doubt" (Wikipedia - Illocutionary Act)

The second could be an Illocutionary Force, with the intention that the listener doesn't take their next holiday in Paris.

Both these are linguistic aspects.

Can you say why this next level of reflexivity is needed to make the situation clear? — J

I would put my money on:

p = Pat thinks that the oak tree is shedding its leaves
I think p = Pat thinks about her thought that the oak tree is shedding its leaves

Pat thinks about her thought has two meanings:

Meaning one = linguistic, which makes sense.

Meaning two = metaphysical, which gets philosophical. How can one thought think about another thought?

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. — Corvus

As you say, when I say "Paris is crowded", this infers that I must think that Paris is crowded.

The problem arises with the word "think".

When I say "I think", does this also infer that I must think that I think?

And if so, what does this metaphysically mean?

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

Nearly.

Let "p" = "I think that the Eiffel Tower is 400m tall"

When I say p, when I say "I think that the Eiffel Tower is 400m tall", this means that "I think that the Eiffel Tower is 400m tall."

When I think p, when I think "I think that the Eiffel Tower is 400m tall", this has two different meanings.

Meaning one = "I think that the Eiffel Tower is 400m tall". A tautology, as you say.

Meaning two = "I think about my thought that the Eiffel Tower is 400m tall."

In ordinary language, "I think about my thought that the Eiffel Tower is 400m tall" means "I think that the Eiffel Tower is 400m tall, but I am not sure"

In metaphysics, "I think about my thought leads to an infinite regress, so cannot be valid.

It becomes difficult to separate metaphysics from ordinary language.

So with these recent posts, we’re going a bit deeper into the question of “I think p” and its relation to p. — J

p and "I think p"

An interesting post, but I am getting unclear about the meaning of p.

Suppose p = "the oak tree is shedding its leaves".

From page 1, Pat said "I think p and am not aware of thinking "I think p""

Therefore, the relation must be between "I think p" and "I think "I think p"", not the relation between "I think p" and p.

The relation between "I think p" and p is the relation between "I think the oak tree is shedding its leaves" and "the oak tree is shedding its leaves", which is not what the OP is about.

Am I right in thinking that p = "the oak tree is shedding its leaves"?

p and I think p. — J

Let p = the thought that "the oak tree is shedding its leaves".

When I think, it must be about something, as all thoughts must be about something.

"I think" necessitates a self that is conscious of thinking. "I" is synonymous with the self.

Possibility one = p is external to the self, internal to the self but not a part of the self or accompanies the self. If this were the case, the self would have no way of knowing about p.

Possibility two = p is part of the self. If this were the case, the self is the thoughts it has.

In other words, I am my thoughts. This solution avoids the infinite regress of the Homunculus problem.

Am I able to think of these two entirely unrelated things at the same time? I would think so — Patterner

:100:

Am I thinking about leaves falling from the tree and the height of the Empire State Building when I say, 'The leaves are falling from the tree, and, when you include the antenna, the Empire State Building is 1,454 feet (443.2 m) tall"? — Patterner

Possibly yes.

When thinking about "The leaves are falling from the tree" you are thinking about two things connected by the common thought of leaves, allowing you to think about them both at the same time.

When thinking about "the leaves are falling from the tree and the Empire States Building is 443.2 m tall", you are thinking about two things connected by the common thought of height, also allowing you to think about them both at the same time.

There are many different things we can think about at the same time, such as the speed of my car and how many pedestrians are on the road, the price of a restaurant meal and when I was last paid, writing a post knowing that dinner is waiting on the table, etc.

And you pointed out that it is (what might be called?) a compound lower level thought. — Patterner

The question was whether it is possible to think about two things at the same time.

So then is the question "Can you think A and B at the same time?" — Patterner

The compound lower level thought "the oak tree is shedding its leaves" shows that it is possible to think about two things at the same time, "the oak tree" and "is shedding its leaves"

Do the quotes around "I" mean that there is literally no self without thoughts, or only that the "I" of philosophy, so to speak -- the self-conscious cogito -- is constructed from our thoughts? — J

As I see it, there could be no self without thoughts. The self doesn't have thoughts, the self is the thoughts that the self has.

If you had no thoughts, would it be possible for you to have a self?

How could you express your self without thoughts?

As regards the word "constructed", in the same way that a wooden table is constructed of wood, the self is constructed of thoughts. The self is neither external to, internal to or accompanies thoughts, but rather the self is the thoughts that the self has.