The Christian tradition--which science participates in--uses subjectivity as the site of truth.
Sometimes called inner experience, it is supposed to make the reality of humans unique, which other things in the universe do not have.
The error is that only humans can have or use intelligence. Thus intelligence is a function of the human mind and the subjective.
I am not sure how science participates in (1) christian tradition or (2) subjectivity: with respect to the latter, it tries to eliminate it into 3rd person light and with respect to the former I see no relevance whatsoever. — Bob Ross
Same metaphysics. Science needs to treat subjectivity as an opposite.
First person, third person. Isomorphic. Back and forth, back and forth. Each concept depends on the other.
Yes. Notice the fruitless debate between science and religion. They need each other to protect their knowledge domains.
Why did Aristotle and the ancient Greeks never talk about self-consciousness?
Was there some huge leap in evolution where the brain developed self-consciousness? I think not.
Same reason the greeks didn't have such a thing as "mental illness" — Bob Ross
All we experience is the subjective. — Bird-Up
but our experiences themselves are not merely subjective. — Jackson
The metaphysics is drastically different, but not necessarily mutually exclusive. In other words, their metaphysics (in totality) is not even remotely close. — Bob Ross
Why did Aristotle and the ancient Greeks never talk about self-consciousness? Was there some huge leap in evolution where the brain developed self-consciousness? I think not. — Jackson
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.