The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[seeds]

Your common sense realist looks at a cat and says, "I see a cat." To which an idealist might reply that, yes there is a cat, but the fundamental constituents are sub atomic particles, and what are they made of? How does your common sense realist reply?

Will, apparently you could take "Clara" to Oz, show her what's behind the curtain, and she will still insist that the Wizard is real and that you have proven nothing to her.

As an alternate scenario,...

...you could cut the restraints and chains that force "Clara" to only be able to view the (oh so safe and familiar) shadows on the wall of Plato's Cave, and Clara would refuse your suggestion that she should turn around to view the source of the projected shadows.
_______

[seeds]

Seeds, you need to understand that dreaming consciousness is not waking consciousness, so the waking self/agent is not the same as the dreaming self/agent.

The "waking self/agent" and the "dreaming self/agent" are one and the same.

It's just that there is something in the physiological process of sleep that causes the "agent" to temporarily function at a "semi-conscious" (sometimes unconscious) level of awareness.

However, that does not mean that the agent (the "I Am-ness") that stands as the "living locus" (and owner) of the mind in which the dream is unfolding is not real and permanent.

In fact, the "I Am-ness" (agent/soul) is the only thing in this scenario that is actually real and permanent, as opposed to the ephemeral and illusory nature of dreams.

In other words, you (and Hume) have got everything backwards.

Forget lucid dreams---they are not the same neural events as dreams that include awareness of self/agent.

You are the one that (apparently unknowingly) alluded to lucid dreaming when you said this...

"...Some dreams lack the dreamer as an agent of what happens..."

...which clearly implies the existence of its opposite, in that it therefore suggests that some "other dreams" do not lack an agent (or controller) of what happens. And that is precisely what lucid dreaming is all about.

Indeed, just for funzies, I asked Google's AI Overview the following question...

Me:
Are lucid dreamers aware of their own self (or agency) within the context of a dream that they are controlling?

AI Overview:
Yes, during a lucid dream, a person is aware of their self (or agency) and knows they are dreaming, but this awareness is distinct from full waking self-awareness and may not equate to full control. Lucid dreaming involves being aware of one's dream state and can lead to influencing the dream, but the level of control varies among individuals and even within a single dream.

The point is that your insistence that lucid dreams are...

"...not the same neural events as dreams that include awareness of self/agent..."

...demonstrates that your understanding of the phenomenon of lucid dreaming needs some serious tweaking, for they (lucid dreams) are precisely the neural events that include awareness of the self/agent.

Dreaming consciousness often shifts between concerning an agent/self and passive onlooker. Dream do not require a stable self model.

I'm sorry, Belinda, but if you are going to hold to (and defend) Hume's model of reality, then as of this moment, you hereby forfeit the right to use the terms "agent" or "self" ever again.

In which case, the following is a suggestion of how you should reword the point you made above...

Dreaming consciousness often shifts between concerning a "bundle of perceptions" and passive "ideas." Dreams do not require a stable, again, "bundle of perceptions" model.

Sure, it's a little awkward, but I'm confident that the "bundle of perceptions" that goes by the identifying label of "Belinda," will come up with something better.

Really all this consciousness business is material for neuroscience not metaphysics.

Oh dear, how can someone as seemingly as intelligent as you, Belinda, be so utterly wrong about the question and nature of "consciousness"?

Point us to where neuroscience has definitively and irrefutably solved what has recently been called the "Hard Problem of Consciousness"?
_______

[Phil8659]

What would be the best book on Christianity for an atheist?

One with the valid proof that god does not exist.

Missing valid evidence for god's nonexistence is the atheist's Pain Point. For thousands of years, they have been arguing with theists about god's existence, but can't get past the word-against-word stalemate.

I have discovered the first valid evidence that god does NOT exist because that is not possible. In fact, in my new book series "It's Finally PROVEN! God Does NOT Exist The FIRST valid EVIDENCE in History", I present four pieces of evidence, scientific, logical, ontological, and experiential.

Read more about this breakthrough and game-changing book series on my webpage https://god-doesntexist.com/

P.S. I presented three objective pieces of evidence (the fourth one is subjective but fully supports and reinforces the first three) to multiple AIs - ChatGPT and Claude, and both acknowledged that they are logically irrefutable.

Wow! this beats the Amazing Kreskin!
Evidence of non-existence!
Wow! Now, if a person cannot spot a glaring oxymoron, what the fuck do they have to say to anyone?

There are two types of identity, as every intelligent person knows, Arithmetic, i.e., literal, and Geometric, aka proportional, geometric, metaphorical.

One is perceptible, one is intelligible. Every school age child who paid attention in class knows that the perceptible deals what what exists, and the intelligible with that which does not, i.e. metaphor.

So, maybe you should try getting an education.

Here, I will explain God to you as Plato did.

We can learn grammar, because the Universe is binary. All we can do is process information, i.e., psychologically, speech. We treat everything as spoken, i.e., a product of speech.

Thus we treat the Universe, metaphorically, as spoken, i.e. God. Now to treat a metaphor, as a perceptible being, is the mind of a child, or an idiot.

To claim that God does not exist, metaphorically, i.e., the Universe as speech, is a self-referential fallacy.
Which you can take as proof, that you are babbling nonsense.

or in Biblical terms, Judgment is the only power a mind can possibly know.

Which is fact. To a functional mind, everything is the product of literacy. Or, from the words of a common grammar book, if it is not literal, it has to be metaphorical.

[Age]

What would be the best book on Christianity for an atheist?

One with the valid proof that god does not exist.

Missing valid evidence for god's nonexistence is the atheist's Pain Point. For thousands of years, they have been arguing with theists about god's existence, but can't get past the word-against-word stalemate.

I have discovered the first valid evidence that god does NOT exist because that is not possible. In fact, in my new book series "It's Finally PROVEN! God Does NOT Exist The FIRST valid EVIDENCE in History", I present four pieces of evidence, scientific, logical, ontological, and experiential.

Read more about this breakthrough and game-changing book series on my webpage https://god-doesntexist.com/

P.S. I presented three objective pieces of evidence (the fourth one is subjective but fully supports and reinforces the first three) to multiple AIs - ChatGPT and Claude, and both acknowledged that they are logically irrefutable.

Wow! this beats the Amazing Kreskin!
Evidence of non-existence!
Wow! Now, if a person cannot spot a glaring oxymoron, what the fuck do they have to say to anyone?

There are two types of identity, as every intelligent person knows, Arithmetic, i.e., literal, and Geometric, aka proportional, geometric, metaphorical.

One is perceptible, one is intelligible. Every school age child who paid attention in class knows that the perceptible deals what what exists, and the intelligible with that which does not, i.e. metaphor.

So, maybe you should try getting an education.

Here, I will explain God to you as Plato did.

We can learn grammar, because the Universe is binary. All we can do is process information, i.e., psychologically, speech. We treat everything as spoken, i.e., a product of speech.

Thus we treat the Universe, metaphorically, as spoken, i.e. God. Now to treat a metaphor, as a perceptible being, is the mind of a child, or an idiot.

To claim that God does not exist, metaphorically, i.e., the Universe as speech, is a self-referential fallacy.
Which you can take as proof, that you are babbling nonsense.

or in Biblical terms, Judgment is the only power a mind can possibly know.

Which is fact. To a functional mind, everything is the product of literacy. Or, from the words of a common grammar book, if it is not literal, it has to be metaphorical.

Do you think or believe anyone else understands you, "phil8659"?

[Phil8659]

What would be the best book on Christianity for an atheist?

One with the valid proof that god does not exist.

Missing valid evidence for god's nonexistence is the atheist's Pain Point. For thousands of years, they have been arguing with theists about god's existence, but can't get past the word-against-word stalemate.

I have discovered the first valid evidence that god does NOT exist because that is not possible. In fact, in my new book series "It's Finally PROVEN! God Does NOT Exist The FIRST valid EVIDENCE in History", I present four pieces of evidence, scientific, logical, ontological, and experiential.

Read more about this breakthrough and game-changing book series on my webpage https://god-doesntexist.com/

P.S. I presented three objective pieces of evidence (the fourth one is subjective but fully supports and reinforces the first three) to multiple AIs - ChatGPT and Claude, and both acknowledged that they are logically irrefutable.

Wow! this beats the Amazing Kreskin!
Evidence of non-existence!
Wow! Now, if a person cannot spot a glaring oxymoron, what the fuck do they have to say to anyone?

There are two types of identity, as every intelligent person knows, Arithmetic, i.e., literal, and Geometric, aka proportional, geometric, metaphorical.

One is perceptible, one is intelligible. Every school age child who paid attention in class knows that the perceptible deals what what exists, and the intelligible with that which does not, i.e. metaphor.

So, maybe you should try getting an education.

Here, I will explain God to you as Plato did.

We can learn grammar, because the Universe is binary. All we can do is process information, i.e., psychologically, speech. We treat everything as spoken, i.e., a product of speech.

Thus we treat the Universe, metaphorically, as spoken, i.e. God. Now to treat a metaphor, as a perceptible being, is the mind of a child, or an idiot.

To claim that God does not exist, metaphorically, i.e., the Universe as speech, is a self-referential fallacy.
Which you can take as proof, that you are babbling nonsense.

or in Biblical terms, Judgment is the only power a mind can possibly know.

Which is fact. To a functional mind, everything is the product of literacy. Or, from the words of a common grammar book, if it is not literal, it has to be metaphorical.

Do you think or believe anyone else understands you, "phil8659"?

Certainly not you, as I said before, you cannot read the back of a cereal box. I mostly ignore you.

[Age]

Wow! this beats the Amazing Kreskin!
Evidence of non-existence!
Wow! Now, if a person cannot spot a glaring oxymoron, what the fuck do they have to say to anyone?

There are two types of identity, as every intelligent person knows, Arithmetic, i.e., literal, and Geometric, aka proportional, geometric, metaphorical.

One is perceptible, one is intelligible. Every school age child who paid attention in class knows that the perceptible deals what what exists, and the intelligible with that which does not, i.e. metaphor.

So, maybe you should try getting an education.

Here, I will explain God to you as Plato did.

We can learn grammar, because the Universe is binary. All we can do is process information, i.e., psychologically, speech. We treat everything as spoken, i.e., a product of speech.

Thus we treat the Universe, metaphorically, as spoken, i.e. God. Now to treat a metaphor, as a perceptible being, is the mind of a child, or an idiot.

To claim that God does not exist, metaphorically, i.e., the Universe as speech, is a self-referential fallacy.
Which you can take as proof, that you are babbling nonsense.

or in Biblical terms, Judgment is the only power a mind can possibly know.

Which is fact. To a functional mind, everything is the product of literacy. Or, from the words of a common grammar book, if it is not literal, it has to be metaphorical.

Do you think or believe anyone else understands you, "phil8659"?

Certainly not you, as I said before, you cannot read the back of a cereal box. I mostly ignore you.

Once again, 'we' have this "illiterate', here, who is not able to just comprehend the actual words put before it.

it obviously ha never been able to answer one actual question that I have posed, and presented to it.

[Will Bouwman]

Your common sense realist looks at a cat and says, "I see a cat." To which an idealist might reply that, yes there is a cat, but the fundamental constituents are sub atomic particles, and what are they made of? How does your common sense realist reply?

Oh, that's very easy.

It is if you don't understand the question. What does your common sense realist think sub atomic particles are made of?

Using exactly the same evidence, Copernicus also created a way to predict planetary movements.

This isn't the case. Galileo selected DIFFERENT evidence, ADDITIONAL evidence.

Here's what I said:

Prior to Galileo pointing his telescope upwards, there were competing theories for how the universe worked. By studying the movement of celestial bodies, Ptolemy worked out a way to predict the future positions of the Sun, Moon and planets very accurately. Using exactly the same evidence, Copernicus also created a way to predict planetary movements.

The models created by Ptolemy and Copernicus were based on the same evidence and were empirically equivalent. So yes, what I wrote is the case and it is looking more likely that the reason you cannot understand underdetermination is that you are at least a careless reader and probably too stupid.

[Fairy]

Your common sense realist looks at a cat and says, "I see a cat." To which an idealist might reply that, yes there is a cat, but the fundamental constituents are sub atomic particles, and what are they made of? How does your common sense realist reply?

Oh, that's very easy.

It is if you don't understand the question. What does your common sense realist think sub atomic particles are made of?

Using exactly the same evidence, Copernicus also created a way to predict planetary movements.

This isn't the case. Galileo selected DIFFERENT evidence, ADDITIONAL evidence.

Here's what I said:

Prior to Galileo pointing his telescope upwards, there were competing theories for how the universe worked. By studying the movement of celestial bodies, Ptolemy worked out a way to predict the future positions of the Sun, Moon and planets very accurately. Using exactly the same evidence, Copernicus also created a way to predict planetary movements.

The models created by Ptolemy and Copernicus were based on the same evidence and were empirically equivalent. So yes, what I wrote is the case and it is looking more likely that the reason you cannot understand underdetermination is that you are at least a careless reader and probably too stupid.

“It is if you don't understand the question. What does your common sense realist think sub atomic particles are made of?”

————

They are made of you, since you are the one asking the question.

You are creating yourself. What is the self? ( insert any concept ) that’s it.

[Belinda]

Seeds, you need to understand that dreaming consciousness is not waking consciousness, so the waking self/agent is not the same as the dreaming self/agent.

The "waking self/agent" and the "dreaming self/agent" are one and the same.

It's just that there is something in the physiological process of sleep that causes the "agent" to temporarily function at a "semi-conscious" (sometimes unconscious) level of awareness.

However, that does not mean that the agent (the "I Am-ness") that stands as the "living locus" (and owner) of the mind in which the dream is unfolding is not real and permanent.

In fact, the "I Am-ness" (agent/soul) is the only thing in this scenario that is actually real and permanent, as opposed to the ephemeral and illusory nature of dreams.

In other words, you (and Hume) have got everything backwards.

Forget lucid dreams---they are not the same neural events as dreams that include awareness of self/agent.

You are the one that (apparently unknowingly) alluded to lucid dreaming when you said this...

"...Some dreams lack the dreamer as an agent of what happens..."

...which clearly implies the existence of its opposite, in that it therefore suggests that some "other dreams" do not lack an agent (or controller) of what happens. And that is precisely what lucid dreaming is all about.

Indeed, just for funzies, I asked Google's AI Overview the following question...

Me:
Are lucid dreamers aware of their own self (or agency) within the context of a dream that they are controlling?

AI Overview:
Yes, during a lucid dream, a person is aware of their self (or agency) and knows they are dreaming, but this awareness is distinct from full waking self-awareness and may not equate to full control. Lucid dreaming involves being aware of one's dream state and can lead to influencing the dream, but the level of control varies among individuals and even within a single dream.

The point is that your insistence that lucid dreams are...

"...not the same neural events as dreams that include awareness of self/agent..."

...demonstrates that your understanding of the phenomenon of lucid dreaming needs some serious tweaking, for they (lucid dreams) are precisely the neural events that include awareness of the self/agent.

Dreaming consciousness often shifts between concerning an agent/self and passive onlooker. Dream do not require a stable self model.

I'm sorry, Belinda, but if you are going to hold to (and defend) Hume's model of reality, then as of this moment, you hereby forfeit the right to use the terms "agent" or "self" ever again.

In which case, the following is a suggestion of how you should reword the point you made above...

Dreaming consciousness often shifts between concerning a "bundle of perceptions" and passive "ideas." Dreams do not require a stable, again, "bundle of perceptions" model.

Sure, it's a little awkward, but I'm confident that the "bundle of perceptions" that goes by the identifying label of "Belinda," will come up with something better.

Really all this consciousness business is material for neuroscience not metaphysics.

Oh dear, how can someone as seemingly as intelligent as you, Belinda, be so utterly wrong about the question and nature of "consciousness"?

Point us to where neuroscience has definitively and irrefutably solved what has recently been called the "Hard Problem of Consciousness"?
_______

Terminal Feedback Theory: Why Consciousness Arises Where Sensory Feedback Ends

It’s often said that the brain is “just another organ,” yet there’s a crucial asymmetry that might explain consciousness itself: unlike the rest of the body, the brain receives no sensory feedback about itself. If you injure your leg, your brain registers the location and quality of pain — but if you injure your brain, there’s no equivalent feeling of brain pain (the tissue has no nociceptors).

This absence of self-sensation could be more than an anatomical curiosity. It might mark the point where the chain of feedback terminates — where the system can no longer model itself as an object. Consciousness, then, could arise precisely because the brain has no external or higher-order feedback: it is forced to model itself as subject, not as body part.

In this view — call it Terminal Feedback Theory — subjective experience emerges not from complexity or information integration alone, but from the structural absence of sensory return. The brain, unlike other organs, is a transparent processor: it represents everything except itself.

This aligns with Thomas Metzinger’s notion of the “transparent self-model,” Sartre’s idea of non-positional consciousness, and Maturana & Varela’s cybernetic closure — but adds a physiological grounding: the brain’s own insensate nature.

So the proposal is simple:

Consciousness appears at the point where feedback loops end — where the system must simulate itself without direct sensation.

The brain might be conscious precisely because it can’t feel itself. Unlike other organs, it has no nociceptors and receives no direct sensory feedback, so it must model itself as subject, not object. Antonio Damasio shows that consciousness arises from mapping bodily states, not monitoring the brain itself, and explicitly links this to Spinoza, who saw mind and body as two aspects of the same reality. Perhaps it is the brain’s “insensate” nature that makes subjective experience possible.

Damasio writes as an active clinician and psychiatrist with deep knowledge of anatomy and physiology of the brain.

[Immanuel Can]

Your common sense realist looks at a cat and says, "I see a cat." To which an idealist might reply that, yes there is a cat, but the fundamental constituents are sub atomic particles, and what are they made of? How does your common sense realist reply?

Oh, that's very easy.

It is if you don't understand the question. What does your common sense realist think sub atomic particles are made of?

Sub-atomic particles are not known by way of Common Sense Realism; but neither are they known by way of Idealism. They are known by science, which is something your apparent supposition that all hypotheses explain the same evidence would make impossible.

So it's hard to see how recourse to sub-atomic theory would help your case. But if can show it gives us reason to believe Idealism, I'll listen to your argument for that.

...you cannot understand underdetermination...

No, I understand it fully. But it's based on a fallacy, and I can see that, too. Give yourself time and thought, and I'm sure you'll see it as well, because it's quite ostensible.

But back to the main matter: I see nothing in your appeal to Idealism that constitutes an objection to the infinite regress argument. In fact, I see nothing in it that helps your case at all in it. And apparently, neither do you, since I've yet to see you lay out how that argument would work. However, if you can, please do. It's certainly not obvious.

Finally, I don't see what relevance personal insults have to the winning of a discussion that depends on logic. It seems to me they rather stultify conversation, rather than illuminating the subject. So perhaps we can go without them. I'm not that interested in snappish repartee, although I know how to engage in it and can do so as ably as many here, especially since it never has anything to do with the subject in hand. The immature don't know that, the impulsive forget it, and the trollish know it but prefer it to relevant dialogue. My hope is that you and I are not any of these sad creatures.

[Will Bouwman]

Oh, that's very easy.

It is if you don't understand the question. What does your common sense realist think sub atomic particles are made of?

Sub-atomic particles are not known by way of Common Sense Realism; but neither are they known by way of Idealism. They are known by science, which is something your apparent supposition that all hypotheses explain the same evidence would make impossible.

It would be refreshing to proceed without having to correct you as to what I have actually written. This cannot have escaped your attention:

Well, clearly it hasn't sunk in that the evidence for two or more underdetermined hypotheses is exactly the same.

Can you explain why you think I therefore suppose "all hypotheses explain the same evidence "?

Finally, I don't see what relevance personal insults have to the winning of a discussion that depends on logic.

Well, it is very difficult not to become frustrated when you misrepresent much of what I say. It comes across at best as lazy, or worse, disrespectful.

[seeds]

Terminal Feedback Theory: Why Consciousness Arises Where Sensory Feedback Ends

It’s often said that the brain is “just another organ,” yet there’s a crucial asymmetry that might explain consciousness itself: unlike the rest of the body, the brain receives no sensory feedback about itself. If you injure your leg, your brain registers the location and quality of pain — but if you injure your brain, there’s no equivalent feeling of brain pain (the tissue has no nociceptors).

This absence of self-sensation could be more than an anatomical curiosity. It might mark the point where the chain of feedback terminates — where the system can no longer model itself as an object. Consciousness, then, could arise precisely because the brain has no external or higher-order feedback: it is forced to model itself as subject, not as body part.

I could not help but notice the author's use of the words "might"...

(as in "...there’s a crucial asymmetry that might explain consciousness itself...")

...and "could"...

(as in "...This absence of self-sensation could be more than an anatomical curiosity..."

In other words, the author of the above claim (Antonio Damasio) offers absolutely nothing other than the equivalent of "educated guesses" that provide not the slightest clue as to how consciousness could have emerged from the non-conscious constituents that form the structural matter of the brain.

All he is showing is how the ubiquitous network of the body's nervous system of which the nociceptors are a part of...

(a network that allows the consciousness of the "I Am-ness" to extend outward from itself and into the fabric of the body in order to take control of the body's musculature, while at the same time allowing the "I Am-ness" [not the brain] to sense the overall well-being of the body)

...simply doesn't extend into the material fabric of the brain itself.

To which I say: "so what?"

Again, none of that offers any irrefutable explanation as to how consciousness emerges from non-conscious matter.

And that, my dear Belinda, is where we cross over into the territory where looms the unresolved conjecture and mystery surrounding what is known as "strong emergence" of which consciousness seems to be a product of, as opposed to the less mysterious "weak emergence."

With another one of those "mights" included in his claim, Damasio goes on to say...

The brain might be conscious precisely because it can’t feel itself.

Well, there you go.... case closed!

By that reasoning you are conscious because your nervous system does not extend into the tree outside your window or into the core of the sun.

I realize that I too am just guessing when it comes to these mysterious matters, and I will never deny the possibility of my guesses being wrong.

Nevertheless, one of my strongest guesses is that it is the mind's "I Am-ness" that is conscious, not the brain.

Again, you and Hume...

(and now this "active clinician and psychiatrist" [Antonio Damasio] you've cited in this recent post)

...have got things backwards.
_______

[Immanuel Can]

This cannot have escaped your attention:

Well, clearly it hasn't sunk in that the evidence for two or more underdetermined hypotheses is exactly the same.

Can you explain why you think I therefore suppose "all hypotheses explain the same evidence "?

I'll tell you what induced me to suppose that. You can't even name the evidence that you think counts for Idealism. Therefore, it looks as if you don't think evidence is "evidence for" Idealism. You must suppose all "evidence" relevant to the case is simply ambiguous, therefore.

Now, if you think otherwise, and if I've jumped to an unfair conclusion, then just inform me as to what the "evidence" is that is "evidence for" Idealism being preferable to Common Sense Realism, and I'll be justly rebuked. But if you can, then your earlier claim about "exactly the same" evidence will also be exposed as untrue. So either way, it seems to me you're in a bit of a logical pickle: you can't provide any evidence, in which case, Idealism fails to be any serious challenge to anything, but if you do provide evidence, that action will also thereby refute your claim about the evidence being equivalent.

If you can resolve that "catch 22," I'd be interested in seeing how you manage it.

[Age]

That's not evidence for Idealism. You keep saying there is some...

No, I keep saying:

Well, clearly it hasn't sunk in that the evidence for two or more underdetermined hypotheses is exactly the same.

Idealism and realism are different ways of interpreting the same evidence, all evidence.

Again, if it's ALL evidence, and none of it is BETTER for any hypothesis, then there is no "evidence." It doesn't relate to the proving of any particular thing, so it's not what we call "evidence," nor can we have any way to recognize it AS "evidence." The only way we know a thing is "evidence" is if it tends us toward a particular hypothesis rather than some other.

That's definitional. You can't avoid it. You can't make sense of the idea of "evidence" that is not FOR any particular conclusion.

Your common sense realist looks at a cat and says, "I see a cat." To which an idealist might reply that, yes there is a cat, but the fundamental constituents are sub atomic particles, and what are they made of? How does your common sense realist reply?

Oh, that's very easy. Your senses are giving you prima facie evidence of a cat. Your natural default is to say, "There's a cat." So the burden is on the person who says to you, "That's not a cat; it's just an idea." It's they who would have to provide the reasons for you to disbelieve your eyes.

This is what I mean about Idealism: it's not intuitive, natural or the default. We all begin as Common Sense Realists, so it's up to the Idealist to disprove what our eyes testify.

Using exactly the same evidence, Copernicus also created a way to predict planetary movements.

This isn't the case. Galileo selected DIFFERENT evidence, ADDITIONAL evidence. Copernicus got things started, but he didn't actually have everything Galileo had.

The geocentric and heliocentric models were empirically equivalent;

They were not. And as it turned out, both models were flawed. The reason flawed models persisted for any amount of time was that the RIGHT evidence was not yet being taken into account. You see this both in the Galileo-Copernicus pairing, and in later cosmological models that took into account things like the configuration of the milky way. And each subsequent model not only included NEW evidence, but also better explained the EXISTING evidence; which is precisely why the new models were to be preferred.

You're just dead wrong about that. Sorry.

Those different scientists are not privy to some data that is denied others;

Yes, they are. They are not being "denied" by anybody; they're simply selecting what evidence they will regard AS evidence, or which evidence they will prioritize. But if there's no means of arbitration among hypotheses, then there is never going to be even one hypothesis that is more scientific or more tenable than any other. And that's clearly not the case, and has never been.

Your supposition is throughly anti-scientific, you must realize. If all hypotheses are equivalent, then there can never be any truth to the claim that any one hypothesis is more or less "scientific" than any other. You would incline us to the belief that the hypothesis that disease is caused by bacteria is no better than the belief that disease is caused by fairies. And if that's where we end up, then science becomes nothing important at all.

Imagine being the one who believes, and claims, that a fairy, or a thing, with a penis created the whole Universe all at once, of which there is absolutely no 'evidence' for at all, scientifically, and then saying and claiming what 'this one' just did, here.

One thing that is certain is that common sense realism isn't much help

Well, Common Sense Realism is not necessary to mathematics, because mathematics is not empirical. But you're trying to invoke Idealism as a way of doubting the infinite regress problem,

But, there is no actual 'infinite regress problem'.

'This one' is just showing and proving, here, that some people are not open to 'look at' any thing different to what they hold.

a proof which is mathematically demonstrable as well as empirically demonstrable.

'This one' could not be more closed, and thus could not be more stupid, here.

My conclusion has to be that you don't have evidence that Idealism is capable of being any serious challenge -- or even being plausible at all. Your word, "underdetermined," in this context, means no more than "speculative and devoid of particular evidence." And that means it's just not up to the task of being a challenge to anything.

And, once again, what 'we' can very clearly see, here, is two people bickering and fighting 'over words' because they, still, have not gained any understanding of what the 'other one' is actually saying, and meaning.

This phenomena, which can be very clearly seen play out throughout this forum, was being played out nearly always in 'day-to-day' life, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

[Belinda]

Terminal Feedback Theory: Why Consciousness Arises Where Sensory Feedback Ends

It’s often said that the brain is “just another organ,” yet there’s a crucial asymmetry that might explain consciousness itself: unlike the rest of the body, the brain receives no sensory feedback about itself. If you injure your leg, your brain registers the location and quality of pain — but if you injure your brain, there’s no equivalent feeling of brain pain (the tissue has no nociceptors).

This absence of self-sensation could be more than an anatomical curiosity. It might mark the point where the chain of feedback terminates — where the system can no longer model itself as an object. Consciousness, then, could arise precisely because the brain has no external or higher-order feedback: it is forced to model itself as subject, not as body part.

I could not help but notice the author's use of the words "might"...

(as in "...there’s a crucial asymmetry that might explain consciousness itself...")

...and "could"...

(as in "...This absence of self-sensation could be more than an anatomical curiosity..."

In other words, the author of the above claim (Antonio Damasio) offers absolutely nothing other than the equivalent of "educated guesses" that provide not the slightest clue as to how consciousness could have emerged from the non-conscious constituents that form the structural matter of the brain.

All he is showing is how the ubiquitous network of the body's nervous system of which the nociceptors are a part of...

(a network that allows the consciousness of the "I Am-ness" to extend outward from itself and into the fabric of the body in order to take control of the body's musculature, while at the same time allowing the "I Am-ness" [not the brain] to sense the overall well-being of the body)

...simply doesn't extend into the material fabric of the brain itself.

To which I say: "so what?"

Again, none of that offers any irrefutable explanation as to how consciousness emerges from non-conscious matter.

And that, my dear Belinda, is where we cross over into the territory where looms the unresolved conjecture and mystery surrounding what is known as "strong emergence" of which consciousness seems to be a product of, as opposed to the less mysterious "weak emergence."

With another one of those "mights" included in his claim, Damasio goes on to say...

The brain might be conscious precisely because it can’t feel itself.

Well, there you go.... case closed!

By that reasoning you are conscious because your nervous system does not extend into the tree outside your window or into the core of the sun.

I realize that I too am just guessing when it comes to these mysterious matters, and I will never deny the possibility of my guesses being wrong.

Nevertheless, one of my strongest guesses is that it is the mind's "I Am-ness" that is conscious, not the brain.

Again, you and Hume...

(and now this "active clinician and psychiatrist" [Antonio Damasio] you've cited in this recent post)

...have got things backwards.
_______

No theory is 100% proved to be true. A theory supported by neuroscience is more probable than a theory supported by metaphysical suppositions.
(Seeds. you do realise in rebutting both David Hume and Antonio Damasio et al you have hard nut to crack?)

Compared with our resident evangelical whose reasoning is unhistorical, your reasoning is unscientific.

The theory I tried to explain to you is not strong or weak emergence , i.e. the mind emerging from extended matter.
The theory I tried to explain to you is one of mind and extension as aspects of the same which we call brainmind.