Yes, so the elliptical orbit of the earth around the sun is the starting point for measurement. The small corrections of solar parallax – two parts in 63,241 or 0.003% per light year, are small but real corrections to geocentric observations. The small corrections of parallax support a frame of reference – a geosolar topology - which combines both geocentric and heliocentric factors determining the perceived position of the stars.

When Venus transited the sun in 2004 I learned that Captain James Cook observed the 1769 transit in Tahiti partly to solve this problem of quantifying solar parallax, as it is so small as to be almost undetectable. Previous efforts using Mars had produced a value for the astronomical unit of about 140 million kilometres, about 10 million short, and Cook, before opening his secret instruction to find the south land, diligently sought to measure the transit for this scientific purpose. Quite a tough experimental method to quantify the parallax error of geocentric observation.
And yet the above described geosolar topology is the reference frame we use to observe the universe, and so I suggest is privileged as a systematic effort to map reality – the only such effort yet detected. There may be no privileged reference frame for cosmology, but there is for terrestrial observations.
My ‘circular statement’ drew a distinction between ‘reflecting’ and ‘representing as concept’, terms which you seem to suggest are synonyms. The comparison between a tree and the sun can help to explain the distinction. Leaves are a physical product of the tree, growing and dying by natural process. Similarly, thought is a physical product of the solar system, emerging in its most complex site but physically evolved as a result of the whole system, which is 99.8% sun. The leaves of a tree ‘reflect’ the ecological niche in which they have evolved through cumulative adaptation, but they do not represent this niche as concept. Thought, as a similarly though more complex physical product of evolution, also naturally reflects its environment. Where thought is unique among material systems is that it alone seeks to explain this silent reflection of its environment by representation as concept. The path from the sun to a thought is more complex than the path of a photon, but equally material.

The leap from ‘to the extent’ to ‘all’ was intended to mean that much more thought is geocentric than you would think from just focusing on mainstream astronomy. For example everything to do with days and seasons comes from a geocentric perspective, because these events are pure products of the earth in its relation to the sun. My objective argument for using thought as a parameter is that it is a highly unusual thing in the universe, and we can recognize thought as necessary to produce the focal points from which the universe is measured. If other places have thought they will also be largely place-centric. My understanding of the parameters of thought, following Rare Earth by Ward and Brownlee, indicates that we cannot imagine it existing in the vast galaxies without metal, or near the radiation of globular clusters, so we can consider rich complex sites like earth as the only possible points of thought. If these sites have thought and sky maps, they too are focal points for the universe.
Yes, I am sure the constellations have changed a lot, as the earth has orbited the galaxy about fifteen times since life began here. As noted above, the parallax error is less than one part in a thousand.

Maybe if we did try to do the thinking for the earth we would be much better off.

Thanks for this. You are right that my wording did not originally recognise the parallax. I have responded on this point above in reply to Van Rijn, noting parallax is a very minor factor in measurement from the geosolar frame of reference.