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

So do the neurons make the consciousness or is the consciousness something else that gives them a 'unified purpose'?

I didn't understand this either - consciousness doesn't decide anything but somehow is organizing inputs?

Seems like if there is some need to organize the inputs you'd use something akin to a router program that server applications utilize.

Does anyone think even a massive server farm has consciousness?

And yet plenty of evidence is regularly discussed on this board for which dualism is a much, much better fit, and which has at least in part been shared in this thread (near-death experiences, out-of-body experiences in general, shared-death experiences, telepathy, psychokinesis, etc etc). I don't remember you having responded to it in any meaningful way yet.

Is this really an argument for dualism, or rather just further demonstration physicalism is false? Though I guess this also depends on what someone means by "physical". If Information is included I'm not sure Psi or Survival is beyond the bounds of some future physics.

I guess Survival stuff could arguably be a functional dualism between the body at present and the consciousness that continues without it.

(Huh, Sci, it turns out that I have a bit more stamina for this than I expected. Don't let my contributions inhibit you from your own line of inquiry though).

I'm happy to yield the floor,  there are some questions I've not gotten a response to yet anyway...though maybe they've been answered in these exchanges...[I have more questions I might throw into the mix though...]

Swim classes, reunions and consciousness all really exist even though none is an actual object.

Aren't swim classes and reunions just collections of objects? There are people, a swimming pool, a location for the reunion...

What is it about swim classes and reunions that would not be captured by the mathematical descriptions of physics?

Deleted my last post on why consciousness feels real.

Figured it's too early to go there, still gotta discuss atoms.

Do non-physical entities feel and experience? How can a non-physical entity even do anything? Isn't "non-physical entity" an oxymoron? If you think non-physical entities exist, how do they do things that physical things can't do? Is it magic? If not, how is it different to say "a non-physical entity did this physically impossible thing" instead of "magic did this physically impossible thing"?

'Non-physical' here just means something that is not producible by the fundamental constituents of physics - matter/energy, forces, fields, etc - that are presumed to lack consciousness but also be that which makes up the universe.

It would only be an oxymoron if "physical" means "all things in reality". So something is "physically impossible" if it cannot be obtained by some arrangement/accumulation/addition of the non-conscious physical constituents.

Whether this means there are additional properties to "physical" that need to be added (Panpsychism) or there are genuinely non-physical entities (Substance Dualism) or there are *only* mental entities (Idealism)...or some other option would be a further line of inquiry...

For myself, I generally lean against the idea of purely non-physical or physical entities. I think everything consists of some constituents that provide the aspects of reality [that are] knowable [only] through consciousness. Does this mean the brain could just be made of these constituents and produce *my* consciousness, and that with the death of the brain my body also dies?

Yes, it is a possibility.  Why I said I think the denial of the afterlife is [a] reasonable position, though I also hold belief in an afterlife is also reasonable.

Yes, it is a possibility.  Why I said I think the denial of the afterlife is [a] reasonable position, though I also hold belief in an afterlife is also reasonable.

...Figured I should expand on this a bit for my fellow Survivalists before they think I am underrating the possibility for life after death.

This really doesn't have anything to do with Merle's argument but I figured it would help clarify my thoughts a bit.

As the aforementioned Nobel biologist George Wald - linked again here for convenience - notes:

A few years ago it occurred to me -- albeit with some shock to my scientific sensibilities -- that my two problems, that of a life‑breeding universe, and that of consciousness that can neither be identified nor located, might be brought together. That would be with the thought that mind, rather than being a late development in the evolution of organisms, had existed always: that this is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so.

Then mind is simply part of the fundamental constituents, and this is the best solution to the Hard Problem. However as per EJ Lowe I don't think there are any *easy* problems of consciousness, so for me it is not just the "what is it like" subjective aspect but the major components of mind in addition to Feeling - Reason, Thought, and Memory.

The question is *how* it should be so, and of the varied options I think many are supportive of an afterlife - Smythies & Carr's extra Phenomenal Dimension, Edward Kelly & Paul Marshall's varied Idealist proposals, Stapps Quantum Dualism, Eric Weiss' Whiteheadian Panpsychism, etc.

But of course just because it *could* be so, doesn't mean it is. However after spending years reading Survival cases, I found myself shifting over to the conclusion that seemed most likely is that the cases exist because Survival happens.

I guess for me one extra bit was the ability of the mind to participate/grasp/utilize what are called the Universals - Laws of Logic, the proofs that give us Mathematical truths, arguably even colors & concepts. If these exist without being affected by time or change, what does it mean for minds that participate in them? I don't think there's an unassailable version/variation of Plato's Affinity Argument but it did make me more open to think Survival cases were due to, well, Survival.

...Figured I should expand on this a bit for my fellow Survivalists before they think I am underrating the possibility for life after death.

This really doesn't have anything to do with Merle's argument but I figured it would help clarify my thoughts a bit.

As the aforementioned Nobel biologist George Wald - linked again here for convenience - notes:


Then mind is simply part of the fundamental constituents, and this is the best solution to the Hard Problem. However as per EJ Lowe I don't think there are any *easy* problems of consciousness, so for me it is not just the "what is it like" subjective aspect but the major components of mind in addition to Feeling - Reason, Thought, and Memory.

I didn't readily find these itemised components in the linked page so I assume these are your own take on things.

Probably it is not easy to agree on what are the components of mind. My personal suggestion would be the sense of being (I am), and creativity. These seem essential to me. But to extend this conversation would fall away from the main topic of this thread.

I didn't readily find these itemised components in the linked page so I assume these are your own take on things.

Probably it is not easy to agree on what are the components of mind. My personal suggestion would be the sense of being (I am), and creativity. These seem essential to me. But to extend this conversation would fall away from the main topic of this thread.

Oh yeah I was just riffing, I think E.J. Lowe would agree with my divisions but they aren't explicitly mentioned in his paper. I just listed the aspects of consciousness that I previously mentioned a few times in this thread.

I agree that it isn't easy to separate the components of consciousness because our conscious comes to us in a unified whole (actually an argument for the soul in some arenas).

I actually like yours better than mine, just easier to have long protracted arguments that never seem to conclude with the divisions I listed. ;-)

'Non-physical' here just means something that is not producible by the fundamental constituents of physics - matter/energy, forces, fields, etc - that are presumed to lack consciousness but also be that which makes up the universe.

It would only be an oxymoron if "physical" means "all things in reality". So something is "physically impossible" if it cannot be obtained by some arrangement/accumulation/addition of the non-conscious physical constituents.

Whether this means there are additional properties to "physical" that need to be added (Panpsychism) or there are genuinely non-physical entities (Substance Dualism) or there are *only* mental entities (Idealism)...or some other option would be a further line of inquiry...

For myself, I generally lean against the idea of purely non-physical or physical entities. I think everything consists of some constituents that provide the aspects of reality [that are] knowable [only] through consciousness. Does this mean the brain could just be made of these constituents and produce *my* consciousness, and that with the death of the brain my body also dies?

Yes, it is a possibility.  Why I said I think the denial of the afterlife is [a] reasonable position, though I also hold belief in an afterlife is also reasonable.

I know you have studied these matters for many years, but still I find it astonishing that you can consider it a distinct possibility that all the tons of empirical evidence for survival furnished by some paranormal phenomena is invalid because of things like "super-psi". This afterlife evidence comes from such phenomena as veridical NDEs, mediumistic communications and reincarnation memories. This is direct experiential evidence that I don't think is subject to reasonable dispute philosophical or otherwise. I think empirical evidence always trumps theory. 

I do agree that there may be even more evidence, and unbreakable philosophical and logical arguments, against materialism itself regardless of the issue of survival.