Is the Filter Theory committing the ad hoc fallacy and is it unfalsifiable?

Also worth considering that "matter" is known by consciousness, and most (all?) the science-based manipulations of it have applicability at least in part [due to] mathematics which rests on proofs which are a mental endeavor.

In fact the brain we're talking about is a phenomenal brain, seen through the interface of our sensory experience. As the neuroscientist Smythies noted, "How can the brain be in the head when the head is in the brain?"

Just to look a bit further into this notion of the physical some essays from physicist Adam Frank:

The blind spot

Participatory realism is controversial. But it’s precisely this plurality of interpretations, with a variety of philosophical implications, that undermines the sober certainty of the materialist and reductionist position on nature. In short, there’s still no simple way to remove our experience as scientists from the characterisation of the physical world.

Minding matter

The closer you look, the more the materialist position in physics appears to rest on shaky metaphysical ground

It is in this sense that the unfinished business of quantum mechanics levels the playing field. The high ground of materialism deflates when followed to its quantum mechanical roots, because it then demands the acceptance of metaphysical possibilities that seem no more ‘reasonable’ than other alternatives. Some consciousness researchers might think that they are being hard-nosed and concrete when they appeal to the authority of physics. When pressed on this issue, though, we physicists are often left looking at our feet, smiling sheepishly and mumbling something about ‘it’s complicated’. We know that matter remains mysterious just as mind remains mysterious, and we don’t know what the connections between those mysteries should be. Classifying consciousness as a material problem is tantamount to saying that consciousness, too, remains fundamentally unexplained.

This isn't to say QM interpretations that favor consciousness as fundamental in some way are the correct ones. However to simply say the brain is "physical" doesn't really settle the issue because what is "physical" in physics doesn't yet exclude consciousness.

Just a quick heads-up: @Merle seems likely to be the author of the articles shared by @quirkybrainmeat in post #13 of this thread, given that the author of those articles (Merle Hertzler) shares the same name, and presumably joined our board after noticing that we'd linked to his articles. Those wishing to know his definition of "soul" then can find a good start in those articles.

In the first article, Merle defines the soul as "that something else [beyond the brain that some tell him] lives on even after the brain has disintegrated" and which "ultimately [...] is the seat of the mind. And so, even if the brain is gone, the mind can continue as a function of a soul that survives death." He elaborates that on this definition, "the soul is really in charge", that "thinking is done by the soul", and that "the brain is simply an interface to the body. It gathers information from the senses and feeds it to the soul" which "processes the incoming data, saves memories, and makes decisions. The soul then somehow directs the brain to drive the muscles of the body". He sums up that, "The soul is in charge, and the brain handles the interface with the body", helpfully adding an indication that on this definition, the soul is "immaterial".

In the second article, responding to Ian Wardell - our own @EyesShiningAngrily - he summarises his understanding of Ian's view of the soul:


I hope that this is of use...

If that's true, then I'm glad he went to discuss his point of view instead of casually dismissing dissenting opinions as "woomongers" like many skeptical people.

[Laird]

Seemed relevant ->

That was great stuff, especially in deconstructing the interaction problem.

If that's true, then I'm glad he went to discuss his point of view instead of casually dismissing dissenting opinions as "woomongers" like many skeptical people.

Yes, I am the guy from mindsetfree.blog, and yes, I would love to continue the discussion.  Currently I am busy on another thread. (https://iidb.org/threads/too-many-people.27312/ ) If I have time, I would like to get back to this thread.

If that's true, then I'm glad he went to discuss his point of view instead of casually dismissing dissenting opinions as "woomongers" like many skeptical people.

The same happens the other way around.  That's why the skeptics all left Psience quest and we now have no counter evidence to the evidence that is automatically taken as true by the "woomongers" because they prefer to blindly believe than to question and look for counter evidence.  Reality checking just isn't a thing on this forum anymore.  It's gone right downhill.

The same happens the other way around.  That's why the skeptics all left Psience quest and we now have no counter evidence to the evidence that is automatically taken as true by the "woomongers" because they prefer to blindly believe than to question and look for counter evidence.  Reality checking just isn't a thing on this forum anymore.  It's gone right downhill.

I check interventionist ID all the time, and there are recent skeptical posts regarding remote viewing. Merle has a bunch of stuff on his site about how miracles are false history, maybe he will post about that later.

A few others have made recent comments critical about ID.

Max has noted issues with Radin's research, I've recently mentioned issues with Bengson's work and Eben Alexander's credibility...a lot of people had criticisms of the telepathy in autistic children research in the Skeptiko days...

I just have to admit I find a lot of skeptical talking points pretty uninteresting. Chris's interventions when he was a member here made me pretty distrustful of certain pseudo-skeptic claims about research data, and beyond that not even sure what skeptics could add.

We can all add a caveat to our posts that something may not be true, but at this point I'd rather talk to proponents about what they believe rather than see the new cut & past[e] strategy from skeptics. For example why I just said at the outset of the Super Psi vs Survival thread I wasn't going to dig into every case as settling between the two was more interesting to me. [I did have skeptical notes where I'm doubtful anything supernatural happened to Joe Fisher who wrote The Siren Cry of Hungry Ghosts.]

All to say it seems there's enough skepticism left, but feel free to provide some counter claims to specific cases.

The same happens the other way around.  That's why the skeptics all left Psience quest and we now have no counter evidence to the evidence that is automatically taken as true by the "woomongers" because they prefer to blindly believe than to question and look for counter evidence.  Reality checking just isn't a thing on this forum anymore.  It's gone right downhill.

Sheesh Brian.  That's a hard take and certainly not my experience.  So, would have been worthwhile (and smart) to caveat your statements as not absolute but rather you're perspective.

Again, I've been around several places both proponents and skeptics at the core.  This is the most 'tolerant to challenge' community I've found online.

The same happens the other way around.  That's why the skeptics all left Psience quest and we now have no counter evidence to the evidence that is automatically taken as true by the "woomongers" because they prefer to blindly believe than to question and look for counter evidence.  Reality checking just isn't a thing on this forum anymore.  It's gone right downhill.

I'd say there is a fair amount of effort to explore potential counter-evidence. For example, if AI is real - i.e. if we can construct machines that are conscious (or maybe we already have) then that seems to rule out psi, at least for me.

Some time back I commented that if AI ever gets good enough to create completely driverless cars that work in all the conditions we drive in, then I'd have to become a materialist. I'm glad to say that hasn't happened, and I don't think it is likely to do so. The reason I said that, is that driving seems to involve an open-ended awareness of the world.

Maybe the other thing to say, is don't you think this is a debate that can complete in some sense. I don't want to call it 'winning' because that seems to trivialise it, but honestly I'd say the weight of evidence points towards 'woo'.

David

Some time back I commented that if AI ever gets good enough to create completely driverless cars that work in all the conditions we drive in, then I'd have to become a materialist. I'm glad to say that hasn't happened, and I don't think it is likely to do so. The reason I said that, is that driving seems to involve an open-ended awareness of the world.

Maybe the other thing to say, is don't you think this is a debate that can complete in some sense. I don't want to call it 'winning' because that seems to trivialise it, but honestly I'd say the weight of evidence points towards 'woo'.

Hmm that's an odd requirement to me because I think driverless cars are all but inevitable...just not via the current strategy of machine "learning".

But yes, I do think [belief] in the paranormal is ultimately due to win out over the faith of atheist-materialism and the other more theistic religious factions.

I'd say there is a fair amount of effort to explore potential counter-evidence. For example, if AI is real - i.e. if we can construct machines that are conscious (or maybe we already have) then that seems to rule out psi, at least for me.

That particular avenue seems to depend on a very particular definition of consciousness. For example, what if a primary requirement of consciousness was the ability to at least occasionally demonstrate psi?

Certainly for me, one of the big kick-starts in the exploration of consciousness as distinct from either material or cold mathematical logic was the observation in my own life of events which were neither.