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

But yes, I do think believe in the paranormal is ultimately due to win out over the faith of atheist-materialism and the other more theistic religious factions.

I think theism, broadly speaking has a strong future. But there is no requirement to adhere to the past, any more than science adheres to Aristotle and Ptolemy. Personally I find some aspect of theism one of the foundations of my attempts to understand this reality - though I discovered through experience that there are all sorts of mistakes in my ideas too. This is one of the hardest parts of life - that not everything can be discovered through the experiences of others. Or maybe that is life's greatest joy.

Oh I think theism i[n] general will last as long as human kind, but once you accept the varied forms of Psi especially psychic healing the most likely explanation for any particular religion is that some historical mortal figure was gifted with Psi.

I don't strongly disagree there. But I feel a need to distinguish between individual human lives and the larger picture of some more general description or at least perspective on things. I don't particularly spend time dwelling on those individual human lives - it isn't the aspect which illuminates understanding for me, except to the extent that they may have looked beyond themselves too.

[It is possible that we have differing definition or concepts of the term 'theism' so there's probably no need to dwell too long on this.]

Some time back I commented that if AI ever gets good enough to create completely driverless cars that work in all the conditions we drive in, then I'd have to become a materialist. I'm glad to say that hasn't happened, and I don't think it is likely to do so. The reason I said that, is that driving seems to involve an open-ended awareness of the world.

There are some materialists that are skeptical of AI though. One of their main objections involve biological systems being fundamentally different from machines, but also like to compare transhumanism the "fantasy" of immortality that religions revolve around according to them (ignoring the belief systems that had eternal oblivion, something equivalent to it, or a bleak afterlife)

I don't strongly disagree there. But I feel a need to distinguish between individual human lives and the larger picture of some more general description or at least perspective on things. I don't particularly spend time dwelling on those individual human lives - it isn't the aspect which illuminates understanding for me, except to the extent that they may have looked beyond themselves too.

[It is possible that we have differing definition or concepts of the term 'theism' so there's probably no need to dwell too long on this.]

Admittedly it does matter how one looks at Psi. Are they natural powers of the world, or a sign that we ourselves share a part of our Being with the Divine?

Did Buddha's teachings survive and thrive because he was more attractive or charismatic than most, or because he was a great teacher and a tireless advocate of the poor? Or— and here's the core question I'll explore in detail— was it because he was an enlightened being with profound insights into the nature of Reality, and because he possessed supernormal abilities?

We might ask the same questions about Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Milarepa, or a host of other historically prominent figures associated with special illumination, wisdom, or grace. Did these people just sport great tans and know how to work a crowd, or did they understand something genuinely deep about the human condition, about consciousness, and about our capacities, that are not yet within the purview of science?

Asking such questions about revered religious icons is asking for trouble, so we may consider a more contemporary figure. The Dalai Lama regularly hosts discussions between scientists and Buddhist scholars as part of an ongoing series of dialogs sponsored by the Mind and Life Institute. Do the scientists who compete for a coveted slot at one of those celebrated meetings secretly believe that the Dalai Lama is a backwards country bumpkin, and they're just humoring him long enough to get their photo taken with a famous Nobel Laureate so they can post it on their Facebook page? Or does the Dalai Lama know something that science ignores publicly but is fascinated by privately?

This presentation will offer answers to these questions based not on opinion, but on analysis of decades of experimental data collected in dozens of laboratories around the world,and regularly published in scientific journals.

That particular avenue seems to depend on a very particular definition of consciousness. For example, what if a primary requirement of consciousness was the ability to at least occasionally demonstrate psi?

Certainly for me, one of the big kick-starts in the exploration of consciousness as distinct from either material or cold mathematical logic was the observation in my own life of events which were neither.

That seems an odd response to what I wrote, and perhaps we have crossed lines.

My point was, that to drive one a car one absolutely has to understand a lot about what it is to be human. If a robot could master that task without accessing a non-physical realm, then presumably materialism would be enough to explain the world.

However, I have long argued that the opposite is true - that AI can't possibly drive a car safely.

Garry Marcus, an AI scientist has written a book that illustrates exactly what is wrong with AI as it is - with lots of amazing examples:

https://www.amazon.com/Rebooting-AI-Buil...1524748250

Anyone who thinks AI is making steady progress, should read that book.

He seems to be a materialist because he claims that AI must be possible since the the brain can manage the task. His view seems to be that AI has got stuck on an approach that can only go so far. It works best on things like generating lists of videos/books/products that might interest you. It doesn't really matter if many of these are irrelevant if there are a few interesting items.

Driving is most certainly not like that!

David

Old but interesting video about the subject. While the author is agnostic, the criticism is coherent with some materialist objections to AI

You appear to define the word soul  as meaning nothing more than the human self, which of course in physical life is drastically limited through its occupancy of the physical brain with all its vulnerabilities.

That seems to be a common complaint, that I misunderstand what is meant by the soul. 

I could argue that everybody misunderstands what is meant by the soul. For there is often endless confusion over terms like soul, mind, spirit and self, with people often bouncing back and forth between definitions. Sometimes they use these terms interchangeably. Sometimes one is defined as a part of another, and then, in the next paragraph it is described as something distinct from the other or as the same as the other. Such confusion of terms makes it difficult to make any progress in discussions.

Anyway, as @Laird has posted, I do describe what I think people mean when they use the term soul at https://mindsetfree.blog/if-only-souls-had-a-brain/ . In particular, the picture that @Laird posted here represents what I am hearing when I hear people describe the soul. Does that match what you think it is?

I realize that the very concept of the soul allows for an existence independent of the brain. That is why I show two pathways in that diagram that show the soul interfacing with the world without using the brain. But, as I contend in that post, I don't think the physical evidence is consistent with such a soul existing in the role described in that diagram.

   

Sometimes one is defined as a part of another, and then, in the next paragraph it is described as something distinct from the other or as the same as the other. Such confusion of terms makes it difficult to make any progress in discussions.

Could you provide some examples of what you are talking about?

Getting confused by the terms. Some quotations actually said about the soul as part of or distinct from the "other" would be very helpful.

My point was, that to drive one a car one absolutely has to understand a lot about what it is to be human. If a robot could master that task without accessing a non-physical realm, then presumably materialism would be enough to explain the world.

I don't think this follows at all David.  You're making a massive volume of assumptions here.

I fully expect driverless vehicles to be likely and to ultimately be utterly mundane.