Hobbes' Choice wrote:Greta wrote:Hobbes' Choice wrote:
My definition of subjectivity is sound; it implies objective, obviously, else there would be no need for such a word.
So - since you love to use the word "subjectivity", perhaps you would like to define it for yourself? And share.
"The real world and the subject" does not make sense unless you are assuming that the subject is living in an unreal world.
Subjectivity is a sense of being.
It means nothing unless it stands in opposition to the objective.
If I needed another term for
consciousness, then there are a few already available without confusing it with subjectivity.
ie you are still wrong.
Of course the subjective and objective are complementary. I was just noting your mistaken notion that there's a real world "out there" and a non real world "in here". That's the basis of dualist thought and seems to be a perspective effect.
Let's return to the main issue - your deeply held and immovable beliefs about consciousness. A hypothetical: if society survives this century and continues progression for another million years, do you think our successors will have roughly the same conception of consciousness as today's current ideas and models?
If the answer is "probably not" (which seems by most likely), then you admit that you have made the same mistake in this thread as every generation before you - assuming the knowledge of the day to be final. It's a useful attitude for confidently getting things done, passing on genes etc, but it is not actual reality. This isn't a case for mysterianism, as you appear to suspect; it's a case for patience and humility.
No wonder so many scientists don't care for philosophy. Many confident claims based on insufficient evidence. Why not leave that kind of logical bungling to theists and new agers and try using qualifiers like "may", "could", "possible", "probable" and so forth in stating your speculative views?