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

Some representative passages from the post you linked, that certainly indicate you are a convinced materialist:



Yes, your linked post does definitely define what you think the word "soul" means (something that you think is impossible). It doesn't look like there is much room for dialogue here, since with the highlighted assertions you simply deny, dismissively wave away, the huge amounts of empirical evidence to the contrary accumulated over many years, in addition to by implication similarly dismissing the massive metaphysical/philosophical problems of materialism. Far be it from me to attack your faith.

Yeah @Merle seems like an ex-Christian whose prior focus was on how Christianity is - from his POV - delusion / false prophecy /  false history ...but who now wants to "graduate" to talking about metaphysical issues.

But I really don't see much there in his argument - which really isn't clear to me - to change my mind about supporting the Survival position. Just going by my first few replies to Merle ->

As Sam Harris said, for a brain made of matter - that by physicalist definition lacks consciousness - to produce consciousness is a nonsensical Something from Nothing miracle.

Atheist Raymond Tallis, a retired neuroscientist & continuing philosopher, has noted that matter which lacks consciousness cannot hold memories.

Alex Rosenberg, who wrote An Atheist's Guide to Reality, says that because there is no place for thoughts about things in physics the conclusion is that there are no thoughts.

Seems to me a reasonable conclusion just from looking at these three opinions is that maybe Survival is true...and that's before looking at anything else on the matter like Terminal Lucidity or sudden Savants.

Just to add to the scales:

Why I am not a Physicalist: Four Reasons for Rejecting the Faith

Peter Sjöstedt-H, PhD

These are but four brief arguments for being sceptical of physicalism, for withholding assent to this belief system. These arguments do not thereby advance any other system of belief but merely leave one lost in a field of ignorance which, to apply a positive spin, opens one up to a world of possibility.

Again, not a definite argument for Survival but I can get into those as well. But an argument that the brain is necessary and sufficient for all mental activity, and the mind dies when the brain does, would need to explain if this brain is "physical" in the sense of lacking all mental content in its constituents or if it somehow has consciousness in some way.

It just isn't clear to me how one could successfully say Survival could be ruled out. If anything, as I've noted, Survival cases are just what we would expect given the unanswered issues of what "matter" is, how "matter" produces Mind, and if Mind terminates when the brain dies.

Yeah @Merle seems like an ex-Christian whose prior focus was on how Christianity is - from his POV - delusion / false prophecy /  false history ...but who now wants to "graduate" to talking about metaphysical issues.

This doesn't reduce the merit of the current understanding of neuroscience that, while not being slam dunk proof, is coherent with the regular materialist paradigm of the mind-brain relationship.

Kindly explain how would "a rush of adrenaline" analogy would work in the case of terminal lucidity.
Why would a random rush of some unknown substance occur at the end of life in such patients? Moreover, how could a random rush like this work on a brain which has been ravaged by neurodegenerative diseases such as alzheimers, which are understood to be irreversible?

This is absolutely spot on! If it really were the case that late-stage alzheimers could be reversed - even temporarily by an infusion of adrenaline, wouldn't that be an amazing medical fact that would be endlessly discussed in medical research circles? In reality, those struggling to maintain the concept of Materialism will throw out all sorts of ideas - but having won an argument, they then forget about them!

The 'super-psi' hypothesis is an even more extreme example of this. Materialists will deny that psi exists at all, but then when faced by experiments that show communication with people who have died, the materialists will propose a very strong form of psi. They never seem to realise that they are conrtadicting themselves!

David

This doesn't reduce the merit of the current understanding of neuroscience that, while not being slam dunk proof, is coherent with the regular materialist paradigm of the mind-brain relationship.

Sorry, what are you trying to say here?

(I honestly am not sure)

Sorry, what are you trying to say here?

(I honestly am not sure)

The way brain damage causes changes to personalities and memories, as explained by Merle earlier, but unlike him I don't see that alone being a strong case, although it fits with a materialist understanding.

The way brain damage causes changes to personalities and memories, as explained by Merle earlier, but unlike him I don't see that alone being a strong case, although it fits with a materialist understanding.

Well as I said earlier if his faith in materialism and mortality is centered on that it is fine.

Not everyone has to believe in Survival.

"Death destroys a man but the idea of it saves him." - EM Forester

However personality changes are subjective reports, and the brain you are looking at is a phenomenal representation of whatever the "brain" is underneath. As per Smythies, that brain that seem to be in your head is a representation just as the head is.

Why should we accept personality change reports and not Terminal Lucidity and Savant reports?

It seems Merle thinks his "If only the soul had a brain" argument is some kind of novel slam dunk....but it's really old hat...

Better to stick with arguing that the Resurrection never happened, Jesus was a fraud, or whatever the point of the site's Bible section exactly is than to jump into metaphysics without preparation. Like I don't know if I agree with any of that but it seems the better prepared / proper level:

[*]Dare to Question

• How Old is the Earth?
  
• Did We Evolve?
  
• Is the Bible Perfect?
  
• Is the Bible Inspired?
  
• Is the Bible the Best Moral Guide?
  
• What Happens to Unbelievers?
  
• Are the Gospels Historical?
  
• Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?
  
• Is There Life after Death?
  
• Is God in Control?
  
• Does God Speak to Us?
  
• Is There a God?
  
• Is There Happiness without Jesus?
  
• How My Mind Was Set Free
  

[*]About

See, for instance, the discussion of the meaning of the word "soul" on this thread.  https://www.christianforums.com/threads/...t-76914698  .

Most of us are not Christians! I certainly am not - I gave it up aged 20! One particular issue was that some Christian friends insisted that Christ had to die on the cross because God could not disregard 'sins' - but could transfer the punishment to Christ!

I think Christians may have taken some valid ideas of the afterlife and distorted them out of all recognition.

I prefer not to use the word 'soul', precisely because of all its religious connotations.

David

I prefer not to use the word 'soul', precisely  because of all its religious connotations.

David

I kind of like soul as a term largely because I don't think at the end of the day people are all that concerned with metaphysical terminology but the question of Survival.

If Survival was accomplished by some kind of materialist set of fields I don't think most would have a problem with that, for example. (I don't think Materialism is logically possible but just giving an example.)

I kind of like soul as a term largely because I don't think at the end of the day people are all that concerned with metaphysical terminology but the question of Survival.

If Survival was accomplished by some kind of materialist set of fields I don't think most would have a problem with that, for example. (I don't think Materialism is logically possible but just giving an example.)

OK, but first or all, as we have just seen, people take the word and use it in its Christian definition. If the word had not got any unfortunate connotations, I'd be glad to use it - and indeed, I am aware that I am slipping into using it.

I think the concept of a soul doesn't just address the idea of survival. The book by Garry Marcus about AI is extremely revealing. He reveals the way in which much of the stunning effects of AI are just trickery. For example there was a video a while back in which a robot went to a fridge, took out a can of beer and poured a glass (presumably for its creator)! It turns out that the contents of the fridge were carefully arranged to help it select the right can, and they had to record the video many times to get it right. Household robots that can do that are still not possible - at least as of the date he wrote that book.

Getting back to souls, Garry claims that AI must be possible because we manage to do this job and many others with ease. Yet throughout the book there is an incredible sense in which there is a huge tree of issues that would need to be solved. This makes me think that we are really seeing the difference between matter with and without a soul.

I presume a soul has access to some extra information - maybe bot the Akashic records, but something more like Rupert Sheldrake's Morphogenetic fields.

When I have finished his book and thought about it for a bit, I intend to write to him, pointing out that the limitations of AI are discussed on this forum devoted to psi! I hope to pique his interest.

David

OK, but first or all, as we have just seen, people take the word and use it in its Christian definition. If the word had not got any unfortunate connotations, I'd be glad to use it - and indeed, I am aware that I am slipping into using it.

I think the concept of a soul doesn't just address the idea of survival. The book by Garry Marcus about AI is extremely revealing. He reveals the way in which much of the stunning effects of AI are just trickery. For example there was a video a while back in which a robot went to a fridge, took out a can of beer and poured a glass (presumably for its creator)! It turns out that the contents of the fridge were carefully arranged to help it select the right can, and they had to record the video many times to get it right. Household robots that can do that are still not possible - at least as of the date he wrote that book.

Getting back to souls, Garry claims that AI must be possible because we manage to do this job and many others with ease. Yet throughout the book there is an incredible sense in which there is a huge tree of issues that would need to be solved. This makes me think that we are really seeing the difference between matter with and without a soul.

I presume a soul has access to some extra information - maybe bot the Akashic records, but something more like Rupert Sheldrake's Morphogenetic fields.

When I have finished his book and thought about it for a bit, I intend to write to him, pointing out that the limitations of AI are discussed on this forum devoted to psi! I hope to pique his interest.

David

I guess I just don't see these AI issues as insurmountable, just stalled because of an over-reliance on machine "learning".

I fully expect robots to achieve capacity to drive, get beers, etc...It just requires some rethinking on how to solve these problems...