| Re: With all the erudition of a drunken 15 year old......
The fundamental flaw in your line of reasoning is that you are arguing, correct me if i'm wrong, that there is 'no objective reality' and we make our own reality as we move through it ergo ALL is subjective, however, you are backing this up through science which requires an objective reality. The two positions are contradictory. You can't say 'there exists ONLY consciousness' then back it up with neuroanatomy and neuroscience which are dependent on principles (from physics, through chemistry to cellular physiology) that require as their fundamental assumption that there exists, to quote the physicist Alan Sokal, "an external world, that there exist objective truths about that world". All science is based on that assumption and it's an assumption I happen to agree with.
Anyway, give me a few hours, until tomorrow at the most, on your other points because yours was a lengthy post. I've got the framework of my counter-argument sorted but I'd like to do a little research first, back myself up and articulate myself as best I can.
First of all though, the 'official line' politically and the 'official line' scientifically are not comparable. For example, it doesn't matter to a scientist what he/she discovers ONLY that it is discovered, if that makes sense. It is impossible to read every single paper on every single scientific study but there is a rigorous system in place to make sure nonsense and bad research gets into neither journals nor textbooks, if you trust that system (and I do) then you can confidently accept the facts without knowing exactly how the study was done. I'm not going to be so naive as to suggest that research is never repressed or pushed for economic reasons, of course this happens and it's wrong but it doesn't alter the fundamental, objective facts - it only affects their social emphasis.
So, give me some time on the rest....... | 
