I'm a neuroscientist who used to work with animals, and while I didn't focus on consciousness, I don't think it's a reasonable scientific perspective to start from the assumption that animals don't and require proof that they do. Clearly there's a spectrum of intelligence across species, but plenty of animals appear to have theory of mind, complex emotions, object permanence, tool use, long term memory, spatial navigation, some idea of the self, etc. Humans are better at language, and math, and destroying the planet, but that doesn't explain why our feeling of consciousness wouldn't be substantially similar to a great ape or an Australian shepherd.
I did. Obviously. Why would I retell what another philosopher said? That would be rather silly. If they want something to be known, they can let you know themselves.
> Which others disagree?
Whichever ones disagree. Again, they can speak for themselves.
> Some claim that Mathematics is the Queen of Sciences
In other words, not science?
> yet without which science is and has nothing
I am not sure you have made a convincing case that science is more than nothing. If that is what you are trying to convince us of, you are not making providing a compelling argument.
> So it's an opinion from your philosophy and not a universal absolute as you presented.
Wait. If it were a universal absolute, for what reason would I present it? A universal absolute offers no remaining opportunity for me to learn, and why would I enter into a discussion that provides no learning opportunity? That would be a pointless waste of time. Whichever philosopher gave you the idea that I would waste my time like that did not think things through and has severely misguided you.
> I guess we must conclude that science is nothing. Or maybe assume there's something to it <shrug>.
Either way. As feeble humans (or LLM bots), we are not science. We can make assumptions that may or may not have any basis in reality.
