"But before calling it a "paradigm shift" you must show that you understand..."

*** No! ***

A paradigm is a paradigm is a paradigm! It does not matter what I understand or don't understand!

If I propose that gravitational attraction varies with the inverse cube rather than an inverse square, that is a theory, not a paradigm, that requires supportive evidence before it can even be published.

But if I propose that it is not a matter of gravitational fields, but a warp in space-time, that is a paradigm whether or not it is ever generally accepted, whether or not it is supported by the data, or whether or not it happens to be true! It is a paradigmatic hypothesis in any case because it does not just challenge the values of the parameters of the existing theory, (inverse square, inverse cube, whatever!) but challenges the foundational assumptions behind that theory, that the motions of heavenly bodies are explained by fields of force eminating from gravitating bodies.

Cold fusion was a paradigmatic proposal. It turned out to be wrong! But that does not make it any the less paradigmatic! And it was exactly because of its paradigmatic nature that it caused such a stir!

I'm not saying that all paradigmatic proposals should be published without review. But when there is an alternative paradigmatic formulation that accounts for essentially the same data (in this case the structure of conscious experience) as the existing theories (which in this case actually don't account for conscious experience) then that paradigm deserves to be released to the larger community to allow them to make their own judgement on the matter.

Yes my theory does indeed stand on the merits of its functional superiority to its rivals. The rival theories in this case are plain magic! They don't explain conscious experience, but explain it away as if it simply did not exist! They relegate it to a hidden universe that is beyond scientific scrutiny! But all I hear is that I am "begging the question" for having the temerity to challenge Dennett's absurd and totally unsubstantiated assumption that the neural vehicles need show no resemblance to their phenomenal contents! We will never solve the mind/brain problem by burying our heads in the sand and wishing the most difficult problems away!