Child-onset schizophrenics lose 10% of their brains ( this has been known since the 1920's, so doctors rejecting that it is brain-injury, & remaining adamant that it is "illness of mind" of the child, has been gaslighting the subjects/patients for an entire century, and I'd found a PubMed paper which admitted that it had been known since the 1920's, so it isn't just Google Scholar that said such is the case ).
A researcher named Thompson, iirc, did mapping of the brain-loss process, showing where the cortex loses 20%, where it loses 15%, etc, down to 5%, vs where no tissue-loss appeared.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.201243998
He said it took 5y for the wave of brain-loss to go through, & it looked like a slow-motion "forest fire".
It may simply be that people born-blind have more spare-brain to repurpose, so they don't get the mental-illness symptom from the brain-loss wave.
Whereas kids with all their brain being at-its-limit, and then being brain-decimated, they are psychically-butchered.
Notice that recently somebody published that living with cats doubles the child-onset schizophrenia-rate, so toxoplasmosis is implicated in the brain-injury/brain-loss, too.
Interesting angle..
Thank you for posting this, eh?
_ /\ _
Obviously, it depends on how one defines science:
IF science is defined partly by declaring that awareness isn't real, then it has already divorced reality.
Awareness produces effects, like cities, and couldn't do-so if it weren't real.
Awareness is immaterial, so physicalism prohibits/contempts it being real, but physicalism must also prohibit/contempt entanglement being real, because it isn't physical, either.
Etc.
IF one draws the lines so that ALL the phenomena in Universe that cause results get included, THEN yes, science can discover absolute truth about some aspects of Universe.
However, if one draws the lines so that ideology/prejudice decides what is real, then no, nothing can make that work right.
The most important understanding is in Hofstadter's "Godel Escher Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid", where he hammers it into one, how self-consistent-formal-systems are mind-blind to ALL outside them.
That is a feature of the things, as Godel's Theorem of Incompleteness proved.
All who don't understand that ( & much/most of Western Philosophy rejects it, as "Slight of Mind" is one, of many many many, examples demonstrating ) simply aren't competent in the Philosophy they're believing they're doing.
( seriously: read GEB, then try reading Slight of Mind, which contradicts/ignores/denies GEB, & ask yourself which is truer: the math, or the ideology which rejects the math )
_ /\ _