Subjectivity is that which, generally speaking, pertains to the 1st person experience of an individual. I think science actually denies any such truth in its methodology: it necessarily approaches empirical knowledge from the perspective of 3rd person as a methodological approach.

The Christian tradition--which science participates in--uses subjectivity as the site of truth.

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.

Sometimes called inner experience, it is supposed to make the reality of humans unique, which other things in the universe do not have.

I think both more materialist and idealist minded people would agree to this. Even if one is reducible to the brain, that doesn't eliminate the real 1st person experience.

The error is that only humans can have or use intelligence. Thus intelligence is a function of the human mind and the subjective.

How is this a flaw? Ideally, what would constitute as "without flaw" then?

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.

First person, third person. Isomorphic. Back and forth, back and forth. Each concept depends on the other. — Jackson

Up-down, left-right, cold-warm, old-new, big-little, intriguing-boring, violent-peaceful.

Up-down, left-right, cold-warm, old-new, big-little, intriguing-boring, violent-peaceful. — Tate

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 metaphysics. Science needs to treat subjectivity as an opposite.

This is true of every metaphysics that even hints at any kind of "subject" / "object" divide. This has no specific reference to Christianity and science. Moreover, to perform scientific investigation, one must, at a minimum, adhere to methodological naturalism, which is not required for one to practice Christianity. Likewise, most scientists tend to be also ontological naturalists, which is incompatible with Christianity. The metaphysics is drastically different, but not necessarily mutually exclusive. In other words, their metaphysics (in totality) is not even remotely close.

First person, third person. Isomorphic. Back and forth, back and forth. Each concept depends on the other.

This did not originate nor is specific to Christianity, so I am not understanding why you are specifically comparing the two. Likewise, this doesn't entail that two metaphysics are equivocal in virtue of sharing some particular aspect. Science and Christianity do not depend on one another.

Yes. Notice the fruitless debate between science and religion. They need each other to protect their knowledge domains.

How so? Science and religion are not yin and yang. They are not the same as cold/hot. Yes science needs "subjectivity" to assert "objective facts", but that has nothing to do with religion. Religion is not the source of the concept of "subjectivity".

Why did Aristotle and the ancient Greeks never talk about self-consciousness?

Same reason the greeks didn't have such a thing as "mental illness", instead they attribute it to contact with a god: during their time the knowledge they had suggested no such thing as brain malfunctions. We are heavily influenced by the context of our era.

Was there some huge leap in evolution where the brain developed self-consciousness? I think not.

I am not sure what you are trying to imply in that question. They were self-conscious back then, but that has no bearing on whether such a term or any notion of it existed back then. Contextually to us, mentally ill people existed back then, even though it didn't "exist" for them (in their context, it was a god of some sort inflicting or supplementing the person). Nowadays you hear God, you are schizophrenic, back then it was divine experience. Nowadays a psychedelic trip is simply the manipulation of neurotransmitters, but for them you were meeting god(s).

Same reason the greeks didn't have such a thing as "mental illness" — Bob Ross

I think they did. They had doctors.

"Psychological and mental illnesses were viewed as the effect of nature on man and were treated like other diseases.Hippocrates argued that the brain is the organ responsible for mental illnesses and that intelligence and sensitivity reach the brain through the mouth by breathing. Hippocrates believed that mental illnesses can be treated more effectively if they are handled in a similar manner to physical medical conditions"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4263393/

The error is that only humans can have or use intelligence. — Jackson

This seems to be your anthropocentric "error".

Thus intelligence is a function of the human mind and the subjective.

Undefined words, thus an incoherent sentence.

Get lost.

I think subjectivity is everything. We have a special concept called objectivity that lets us reliably connect the dots between each of our own subjective experiences. Like ten people talking to each other in a room; trying to figure out who is the one hallucinating. Objectivity is arguably the most useful idea ever invented. But it is still an abstract idea. All we experience is the subjective. Even objectivity is just a skill being used inside our subjectivity.

All we experience is the subjective. — Bird-Up

I thing that is wrong or vague. That we have experience can be define as the subjective, but our experiences themselves are not merely subjective.

My point is that this notion of subjectivity reifies inner experience and makes it a form of epistemic solipsism.

but our experiences themselves are not merely subjective. — Jackson

No, you are right, something has to be said for the consistent nature of the objective world. It wouldn't be so reliable if there was nothing really out there. But we never get to actually see the objective world. We will always be limited to our subjective viewpoint. We spend our entire lives making a really-good approximation of what is real, but we never have the chance to prove it undeniably.

The metaphysics is drastically different, but not necessarily mutually exclusive. In other words, their metaphysics (in totality) is not even remotely close. — Bob Ross

Science claims only physical particles are real. Christianity claims the spirit is real. Thus science is the outer and Christianity is the inner. A dialectical relation.

But we never get to actually see the objective world. — Bird-Up

What is the objective world?

What is the objective world? — Jackson

A shared subjective account. :wink:

A shared subjective account. — Tom Storm

What Hume would call convention, or custom.

What some philosophers might call communities of intersubjective agreement.

What some philosophers might call communities of intersubjective agreement. — Tom Storm

Sure. Or social constructivism.

:up:

Thus science is the outer and Christianity is the inner. — Jackson

:lol:

Have you ever taken a philosophy class?

Every day.

Every day. — 180 Proof

Where?

Everywhere I am.

Everywhere I am. — 180 Proof

So, you never took a philosophy class. It shows.

It shows — Jackson

As does your lack of deductive skill. Apparently, your "philosophy classes" did nothing for you. :sweat:

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

The stuff we call "inner" they called divine. They thought the universe was alive with lust and arrogance.

We say those things only reside between our ears.

Who knows how our descendants will describe it.

The stuff we call "inner" they called divine. — Tate

No.

Ohhh yes.

Ohhh yes. — Tate

Example? And please don't cite Homer. We are talking philosophy.