This is based on a few odd YouTube comments I'd seen on one of those
Closer to Truth YT videos, as well as a pretty shoddy video criticising someone on a
Closer to Truth video. The criticism video can he found
here if you're interested. Scrolling down, there are a handful of comments that criticise the YouTuber that I kinda liked, but then again, these are YouTube comments.
These commenters claim that the Filter Theory is committing the ad hoc fallacy and is used as an 'excuse' to explain the effects of alcohol, drugs and brain damage on consciousness in a non-materialist manner. They also claim it is unfalsifiable, but I get the feeling that's not the case given the topics discussed on this site.
This got me thinking. Is the Filter Theory of consciousness really an ad hoc 'excuse'? Is it also unfalsifiable?
Quote:Disclaimer:
As noted here there's a good reason to reject this is proof materialism/physicalism is true, given these skeptical parties that continue to doubt the physicalist/materialist faith.
Additionally, whatever is shown by parapsychology or neuroscience, here are four good reasons to reject the religion of physicalism/materialism.
Personally I've always considered the filter theory to be an analogy or comparison. For example, if we say the sun is like an orange, that is not saying the sun actually is an orange. Whenever I hear the filter theory described, it tends to not impact me as being factually correct, but is a way of expressing an idea.
It seems to me that whether the filter model is entirely correct or not, the production model does not account for all the data that suggests consciousness is something separate or separable from the brain.
I guess it depends on what, exactly is being filtered?
I'd have to review the history of the filter/transmitter theory, but IIRC it came about - in its modern incarnation at least - as a result of looking at Psi evidence. So it was a theory meant to account for evidence, not made to get around evidence.
I think this idea of the brain as Filter/Transmitter needs to be refined, for reasons I've recently posted elsewhere, but I don't think it is committing the ad hoc fallacy.
Personally I find the explanations put forth by the materialist evangelicals on how matter with no mentality leads to mind to be woven out of whole cloth...
(2020-07-04, 09:15 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]I guess it depends on what, exactly is being filtered?
I'd have to review the history of the filter/transmitter theory, but IIRC it came about - in its modern incarnation at least - as a result of looking at Psi evidence. So it was a theory meant to account for evidence, not made to get around evidence.
I think this idea of the brain as Filter/Transmitter needs to be refined, for reasons I've recently posted elsewhere, but I don't think it is committing the ad hoc fallacy.
Personally I find the explanations put forth by the materialist evangelicals on how matter with no mentality leads to mind to be woven out of whole cloth...
Aldous Huxley had a variation of the filter with his reduction valve metaphor. Might that work better as an adjusted filter theory?
(2020-07-04, 09:28 PM)Silver Wrote: [ -> ]Aldous Huxley had a variation of the filter with his reduction valve metaphor. Might that work better as an adjusted filter theory?
Hi Silver
As a matter of interest, difference do you think it would make?
Not sure honestly, I just remember seeing the reduction valve idea talked about a lot in relation to the filter theory. I guess the reduction valve idea would help explain scenarios where brain damage results in an expansion of consciousness when usually the damage to the filter would directly result in issues to how consciousness interacts with the brain. Bit simplistic I guess but figured I’d mention it.
(2020-07-04, 09:37 PM)Silver Wrote: [ -> ]Not sure honestly, I just remember seeing the reduction valve idea talked about a lot in relation to the filter theory. I guess the reduction valve idea would help explain scenarios where brain damage results in an expansion of consciousness when usually the damage to the filter would directly result in issues to how consciousness interacts with the brain. Bit simplistic I guess but figured I’d mention it.
Ah yes. It was worth mentioning imho. I guess it’s perhaps what one might predict if the filter model was correct: sometimes damaging the filter appears to reduce the expression of consciousness and sometimes it actually increases the expression by removing the natural restriction.
(2020-07-04, 09:28 PM)Silver Wrote: [ -> ]Aldous Huxley had a variation of the filter with his reduction valve metaphor. Might that work better as an adjusted filter theory?
I just think we need to account for the world impacting the mind -> Diets and Depression, Alcohol, Psychedelics, etc.
A reduction valve, to me, gets us in the right direction but like many analogies I think it isn't quite up to describing what is happening.
(2020-07-04, 10:13 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]I just think we need to account for the world impacting the mind -> Diets and Depression, Alcohol, Psychedelics, etc.
A reduction valve, to me, gets us in the right direction but like many analogies I think it isn't quite up to describing what is happening.
I kinda feel like no analogy will ever be able to completely explain everything. It seems like there will always be something just out of reach. Though obviously finding the best analogy we can is still a good idea.