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

I am aware of the controversy over the Libet experiment. As I mention in the first link, it is hard to know exactly when a brain begins the process of acting and when a person is aware of choosing. The second link provides references to various variations of the Libet experiment, with the evidence in general confirming Libet.

It's hard for the non-expert to put this all together. As I see it, the evidence is certainly consistent with the brain initiating acts before the person is aware of it, and the evidence probably even favors this conclusion.

Regarding Dennett's views, I understand him to be saying that the mind consists of actions done by the brain. He refers to the sum of his brain as "I". So when he says "I" am free to choose what I want, he means that the self created by the brain is free to do what the self created by the brain wants. And since the self is made up of the molecules of the body, those molecules "want" to do what the laws of physics dictate.

Sam Harris, on the other hand, says that since the laws of physics dictate what the molecules do, the brain is not free.

I think it is just two different ways of saying the same thing. One says the molecules of me do what physics dictate, so I am not free. The other equates the molecules in me to the self, so the self (that is, the molecules) do what the self (that is, the molecules) "choose" to do.

I am fond of the idea of x and not-x being one and the same and it seems to pan out in so many subjects.  My issue philosophically is consciousness itself and how it is possible for matter to experience "want" at all.  We have, however, discussed that in so many other threads already.  I am not in the least scientifically literate but at the end of the day, the results of these experiments seem highly interpretable and although I have no PHDs, I might have enough intelligence to be able to give my own interpretation, or to choose not to on the grounds that this is a big grey area, unsolvable by physical observation.

To my thinking, the brain acts perhaps as something closer to a "limiter", in that it restricts the memories and experiences that the mind may have access to. Like the "filter" analogy, it is imperfect and incomplete, because it does not and cannot really explain entirely how the brain functions. But it explains some aspects.

I agree that this is the type of thing that one would expect to observe if the brain is just a device that transmits information to the soul.

I keep using the illustration of my grandmother, who had had a stroke, forgetting that I had come to visit her. The filter theory says her eyes and ears sensed my presence and transmitted data to her brain. The brain somehow manipulated that into information that the soul could understand. Had the brain been functioning normally, the essence of the message could be described as:

Brain to soul: There is a guy here that looks like your grandson. He says, "Hi, how are you doing." Over.

If the filter theory is true, then one might expect grandma's soul to hear something like:

Brain to soul: [static] a guy [static] that looks like someb...[static] er uh [static] Hi are [static] doing [static]

And grandma, that is, her soul, would still be grandma, still alert, and would be trying to figure out the garbled messages coming from the brain. All of that is consistent with the filter theory.

But what actually happens could be illustrated as:

Brain to soul: There is a guy here that looks like your grandson. He says, "Hi, how are you doing." This message will self-destruct in 30 seconds.....[pffft!].

That is the part that makes no sense from the filter theory. Altering the message that got to grandma would be expected. But adding in that self-destructing aspect of the message, that simply makes no sense.

If we say that a damaged brain can indeed generate such a message, that is indeed an ad hoc fallacy. It is simply making up that brains can make their messages to the soul become self destructing. There is no way dualism or idealism predicts this. It is simply an ad hoc explanation thrown in there to explain what is observed.

That is the part that makes no sense from the filter theory. Altering the message that got to grandma would be expected. But adding in that self-destructing aspect of the message, that simply makes no sense.

What does 'makes no sense' even mean in this context?  In this discussion?

1,000 years ago the idea of wireless communication would have 'made no sense' to the men/women of the day.

Its fine to doubt or question, but to try and apply your own woefully limited 'logic' to determine a firm stance on a theory is just shoddy thinking.  Better to leave it an open possibility, perhaps even one you strongly doubt but still leave the door cracked.

Ironically, you don't seem to struggle in the least with the huge explanatory gaps that remain in the materialist explanation for these phenomenon.

Its bias at the end of the day; something we're all guilty of for certain.

The question is, if somebody says humans need to have a soul in order to have will and memories, what else requires a soul? Do monkeys need souls? Toads? Ants? Jelly Fish? Sunflowers? Where do you draw the line?

Yes, both brains and computers can do mental tasks.

I hope this is taken as kindness.  I try to keep it definitional and to the science.

Yes computers and brains preform informational tasks that are measured objectively.  In my humble opinion, no - computers don't do mental tasks, the same as as preformed by the bio-informatic processing by living things.  To me this is important disambiguation, sorting what is electronic symbols manipulation and what is organic intent.  (There is some electronic-like manipulation that presents as symbol manipulation in the brain.)

Could human information processes be what people have meant by "soul" or personality and character, apart from revelation?  Not my fight here for revelation.

-- Monkeys, toads, jelly fish, and sunflowers exhibit outcomes from biological information processing by using will, understanding and memories.  Monkeys seem pretty self-aware, they rest are using them as instinct and sub-conscious mental activity.

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...

Not to drift off-topic, but I'd be curious to know your issues with Alexander. It's been a while since I looked into his story, but I do recall finding the issues of his conduct as a surgeon worrying while the attempted hole-poking at his experience unconvincing.

Not to drift off-topic, but I'd be curious to know your issues with Alexander. It's been a while since I looked into his story, but I do recall finding the issues of his conduct as a surgeon worrying while the attempted hole-poking at his experience unconvincing.

I went and saw speak Alexander live.  He came across as sincere about a life changing experience.

However, my experience in the real world gave me the impression of sales and marketing, rather than quiet inner assurance.

He went big on reincarnation.  Not my cup of tea.

...................................................

No need to smuggle in consciousness. The brain matches the patterns, and suggestions to talk about Paris come to mind. And as the thought of talking of Paris comes to mind, the brain puts together the story that it is consciously comparing the scene in front of it to Paris. The consciousness is not doing the computations. The consciousness is simply a state that the brain creates that says it is consciously aware of this.

...................................................

Here you directly claim that the physical brain neurons actually create consciousness. You apparently are defining consciousness (the immaterial subjective sense of being "Me") as just another property of the physical neurons, as weight, size, chemical composition, detailed anatomy, electrochemical processes, etc. etc. are properties of these cells.

This is extremely problematic. For instance, the notion of a "property" in the physical world amounts to a physically measurable parameter. This supposed "consciousness" parameter peculiar to neurons is totally unmeasurable in itself, as witness the troubles of the Turing test. Might as well claim that the neurons create invisible "pixie dust". So the claim's premise is completely unscientific at the least since science necessarily requires experimental measureability for something to be declared real.

Your claim is as much a miracle as the water into wine one. As I mentioned before, your conception appears to be a form of panpsychism, and like panpsychism it doesn't in any way actually explain the mystery of consciousness - it just unscientifically assumes it as an elementary property of matter.

What does 'makes no sense' even mean in this context?  In this discussion?

It means that it simply is not expected on the soul hypothesis that, when a brain in certain conditions sends a status to the soul, that status message somehow makes the soul forget what was sent.

If the evidence strongly differs with what your hypothesis predicts, and strongly matches what a competing hypothesis predicts, then that is evidence for the competing hypothesis.

Antegrade amnesia is so unexpected on dualism, one needs to resort to ad hoc reasoning to explain it. See the title of this thread.

 In my humble opinion, no - computers don't do mental tasks, the same as as preformed by the bio-informatic processing by living things. 

Yes, of course. The mental tasks done by computers are very different from the mental tasks done by living things.

-- Monkeys, toads, jelly fish, and sunflowers exhibit outcomes from biological information processing by using will, understanding and memories.  Monkeys seem pretty self-aware, they rest are using them as instinct and sub-conscious mental activity.

That doesn't answer my question: "if somebody says humans need to have a soul in order to have will and memories, what else requires a soul? Do monkeys need souls? Toads? Ants? Jelly Fish? Sunflowers? Where do you draw the line?"

Anyway, I say that material brains can have memories, have thoughts and can make decisions. We see this happening in many animals. So no, monkeys and toads and ants don't have souls. They do just fine using their gray matter to think.

You apparently are defining consciousness (the immaterial subjective sense of being "Me") as just another property of the physical neurons, as weight, size, chemical composition, detailed anatomy, electrochemical processes, etc. etc. are properties of these cells.

I don't see consciousness as a property. Consciousness is the state of being aware.