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

There's no getting around it -  according to you, all these detailed statements of factual events were really fabricated by Rawlings and/or the nurses involved, along of course with all the other ones in The Self Does Not Die and in cardiologist Rawling's other writings and for that matter in all the other volumes by all the other authors (often medical doctors) detailing other cases.

To repeat my observation previously made, "to believe that every single one of all the experiences documented in "The Self Does Not Die" is invalid, really somehow being a fraud or misperception or coincidence or anesthetic awareness or hallucination or whatever, reveals a strong and unquestioning religious faith in materialism."

This is a story of somebody who had been revived, followed by four days in a coma, and then spent 2 days awake before talking about the experience. During that time there was plenty of time to overhear details of what happened. When later asked about it, she could repeat these details as something remembered.

How would this have stood up in cross-examination and careful investigation? Is this something she vividly remembered, or was she repeating what she had overheard? What did she also say about the experience that was wrong? Did she say these things after leading questions had been asked? Did the questioners misunderstand her replies? Were they driven by a desire to interpret things the way they wanted?

This type of anecdotal evidence is notoriously unreliable. Many, for instance, have been wrongly sentenced based on anecdotal evidence. Others have been wrongly convicted after children were lead to give false evidence by repeatedly asking them leading questions. The hard physical evidence later showed those convicted were innocent.

You can also hear stories of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster, but neither can be confirmed with physical evidence. People hear what they want to hear and see what they want to see. Anecdotes are not reliable evidence.

Science looks to controlled studies, not occasional anecdotes, to establish scientific truths. Claims of survival have been studied many times in controlled studies. These consistently fail to confirm soul survival.

See How not to Do Survival Research and When Will Survival Researchers Move Past Defending the Indefensible?

This is a story of somebody who had been revived, followed by four days in a coma, and then spent 2 days awake before talking about the experience. During that time there was plenty of time to overhear details of what happened. When later asked about it, she could repeat these details as something remembered.

How would this have stood up in cross-examination and careful investigation? Is this something she vividly remembered, or was she repeating what she had overheard? What did she also say about the experience that was wrong? Did she say these things after leading questions had been asked? Did the questioners misunderstand her replies? Were they driven by a desire to interpret things the way they wanted?

This type of anecdotal evidence is notoriously unreliable. Many, for instance, have been wrongly sentenced based on anecdotal evidence. Others have been wrongly convicted after children were lead to give false evidence by repeatedly asking them leading questions. The hard physical evidence later showed those convicted were innocent.

You can also hear stories of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster, but neither can be confirmed with physical evidence. People hear what they want to hear and see what they want to see. Anecdotes are not reliable evidence.

Science looks to controlled studies, not occasional anecdotes, to establish scientific truths. Claims of survival have been studied many times in controlled studies. These consistently fail to confirm soul survival.

See How not to Do Survival Research and When Will Survival Researchers Move Past Defending the Indefensible?

Interestingly, a user of this forum did contact Keith Augustine about the Pam Reynolds case about her being in burst suppression given the testimony of one of the medical professionals, and Keith simply decided to deny and prefered to believe in Woerlee's claims.

Interestingly, a user of this forum did contact Keith Augustine about the Pam Reynolds case about her being in burst suppression given the testimony of one of the medical professionals, and Keith simply decided to deny and prefered to believe in Woerlee's claims.

The Materialist faith is based on denial, a fundamentalist religion that accepts no heresies.

Have to repeat "Consciousness is an Illusion" to one's self, even though that's one of the most ad hoc ideas ever put forward to hold onto a belief...

Not necessarily and it doesn't answer the hard problem - how can a collection of non-conscious atoms produce consciousness?

The bolded statement is used left and right here as a sort of magical incantation to make any reasonable discussion go away.

But if you look at it from a physicalist viewpoint, it is a meaningless statement because having a conscious experience is seen simply as what the brain does, it is not something magic that will never be explained.

Invoking the hard problem is asking to explain monist ideas from within a dualist framework. The problem is that we do not have any reason to assume dualism in the first place.
That is also the issue with the "hard problem", it is based on an assumption of dualism (philosophical zombie), and at the same time claims to show dualism.

It is a mystery to me how people who proclaim at every opportunity, and as loud as possible, that nobody has the faintest idea of how consciousness works, can at the same time say that they perfectly know how it can not work?

Zombie argument is a conceivability argument, not everyone who rejects physicalism accepts it. I myself have doubts because - as noted by Tallis - I don't think our body systems would be an exact replica in a zombie world.

Argument against Physicalism from Naturalist Gregg Rosenberg:

Physicalism says that the fundamental physical facts are the only fundamental facts.
All other facts, whether about rocks, tables, morals, or minds, are derivative on these
physical facts. In this chapter, I argue that physicalism is false by arguing that a purely
physical world could not contain facts of experience. Others have given arguments of this
kind, but I hope to look at this kind of argument in a fresh way. In chapter 3 I defend the
argument against objections.

My argument is not a form of conceivability argument or knowledge argument. It is a
direct argument that the phenomenal facts are of a type that cannot be entailed, either a
priori or a posteriori,i by the physical facts. To diagnose precisely why entailment fails, I
produce a working analysis of physical facts as a type. This working analysis is central to this
chapter, and it recurs in part II. Because the specific lessons of this chapter s argument hold
recurring importance, I ask even readers who are familiar (or impatient) with the debate over
physicalism to pay some attention to this chapter.

Yeah I read the post a few times. Not sure why you think this is such a great argument?

Why is a soul fully aware of events if dualism is true? I've already pointed out that even after just finishing John Wick 4 I couldn't remember everything that happened in the movie. So I don't see why, if Dualism is true, it means I have to have perfect recall.

Once again, you completely ignore the issue, and go on to repeat the same old talking points that I have answered already.

Why is it that, before the stroke, my grandmother could remember interactions with me, but after the stroke, had a hard time remembering it?. This is easy to explain from the brain-dependency view. The mind depends on a healthy brain. When the brain is not healthy, it can affect the mind.

But I see no adequate answer to explain such anterograde amnesia on any model that says the mind is independent of the brain.

You say, on the dualist models, souls sometimes remember and forget. Certainly. That is not my question. Again: Why is this act of remembering so closely correlated to brain damage? 

On dualism, how could souls remember? Memory must surely require that the thing that is remembering is in a different state after it remembers something. How can a non-material soul get into a different state that now remembers something? On what material does it write the memory?

And if you say you are not a dualist, then, please tell us, in your view, how it is that people can retain memories much easier when the brain is healthy? Will you ignore the question, and repeat your talking points?

Interestingly, a user of this forum did contact Keith Augustine about the Pam Reynolds case about her being in burst suppression given the testimony of one of the medical professionals, and Keith simply decided to deny and prefered to believe in Woerlee's claims.

Can you link to where he said that, please?

Once again, you completely ignore the issue, and go on to repeat the same old talking points that I have answered already.

You've answered talking points? IIRC you've never even explained how non-conscious constituents can produce a brain capable of holding thoughts. You just jumped into some odd non sequitur about animal souls...there was that pointless survey for example...

(Also I noted that change of states is asking for perfect isomorphisms, don't recall that ever being addressed either since you didn't know what a perfect isomorphism was.)

I already said he doesn't believe in Survival?

So why exactly is it relevant in this discussion of survival after death to mention that Sam Harris, who believes that consciousness is dependent on the brain, says he cannot understand how an unconscious brain makes consciousness?

So why exactly is it relevant in this discussion of survival after death to mention that Sam Harris, who believes that consciousness is dependent on the brain, says he cannot understand how an unconscious brain makes consciousness?

Because we're already assuming souls exist as what we're debating is If Souls Exist They Would Need The Physical Brain For Cognitive Function.

So if said brain can't produce consciousness it's exceedingly unlikely the soul will find it necessary for its post-death cognitive aspects.

I'm pretty sure this has been explained multiple times...