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

[Laird]

I don't think consciousness is simply a phenomenon. It is a key part of the life of intelligent creatures. Without it, the neurons would not have a unified purpose. But consciousness, as I see it, is a construct of the brain that builds the highlights of all our mental activities, and builds the model such that the self is in charge of all this. That constructed self feeds back into the rest of the brain as a conscious self, and influences future decisions, which then become part of the modeled self. Thus, the consciousness is aware of its own reported consciousness.

From that, it seems that you're an interactionist of some sort (presumably, some sort of "emergentist" interactionist), and that you thus reject the causal closure of the physical.

(I know that "physical" is a fraught word in this conversation, but, operationally, what I mean by "rejecting the causal closure of the physical" is that you allow that the brain does not merely follow the laws of physics, but is also affected by consciousness).

It's either that, or you're confused, don't actually have a coherent position, and have made an ad hoc claim in an attempt to evade the argument - which in my eyes has a high probability of being the case.