I agree, but I would add that even if everyone claimed to see it, this doesn’t represent objective evidence, it is still the same bare claim, just more of them, an a bare appeal to numbers is fallacious.
Ta dah, and this demonstrates the difference between objective evidnece, and the subjective unfalsifiable and untestable claims @JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU is peddling, and tacking the word evidence onto all the time, when he has none.
Exactly, like trying to quantify pain, this can only be subjectively inferred by looking for objective markers or indicators in behaviour, clinicians the world over are taught to watch for addicts pretending to be in pain, to get a hit. Now can of course remove some subjective bias, by testing what we perceive, or claim to perceive against objective reality, but not for any ideas that are unfalsifiable of course, which makes them pretty useless, at least for those seeking objectively true or correct claims.
Bingo, evolution and natural selection, might have “selected” traits that were at odds with objectively reality, if they provided a sufficient survival advantage, like for example, a penchant for pretending there’s a warm fuzzy friendly sky wizard, where we all go and be happy together when we die, rather than topping ourselves at the sheer horror of the emotional pain of some events.
Since panpsychism has again reared its ugly head I found this article.
“This is bogus for several reasons, and I’m quite puzzled why anyone takes it seriously. It is not an explanation of consciousness, but rather fobs the problem of consciousness onto molecules. How are they conscious? How can combining the rudimentary consciousness of constituents lead to “higher level” consciousness in organisms like us? This is a “turtles-all-the-way-down” theory.”
"Further, you cannot test the “theory”—it is an assertion that is not at present available for empirical assessment. Although in his article in this issue (see below) Christof Koch claims that Integrated Information Theory, a panpsychic “theory” does make testable predictions, I haven’t seen any (I’ve read some of the theory), nor does Koch give any.
Finally, as Sean Carroll has emphasized repeatedly, panpsychism, with its attribution of a new property (rudimentary consciousness) to atoms and particles, violates the laws of physics subsumed under the “Standard Model”. Goff simply has no rebuttal to Carroll’s criticisms (see the article and video here)."
That’s a slam dunk for that and of course it wouldn’t evidence a deity anyway.
if anyone wants to see @JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU’s original thread (now closed) and his arguments and claims thoroughly destroyed, you read it here.