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

I feel one of lingering curses of New Atheism is ex-Christians/Muslims/etc learning a few five dollar words and then thinking everyone who has ever come before them - whether physicist or neuroscientist - has lived in utter ignorance of whatever atheist talking points they've crammed over evenings for a week or so.

The conversation has devolved into trying to convince someone to abandon their faith position.  That's a fool's errand anyway.  (And never interesting in an online medium.)

The conversation has devolved into trying to convince someone to abandon their faith position.  That's a fool's errand anyway.  (And never interesting in an online medium.)

I do feel for @David001 who wanted to have an open dialogue, but only got cheap rejoinders for his patient efforts.

Otherwise, yeah just a wall of ignorance where someone has traded fundamentalist theism for fundamentalist atheism.

Your answer appears to me to be, "Yes, in order for a toad to do all that a toad does, then it needs to have a soul." Your link also seems to carry that requirement all the way down to a cell in your body, and perhaps even microplast subdomains of all your cells, all of which must need souls to do what they do. So are there untold millions of souls controlling each cell and microplast in your body? How many souls are at work in your body?

You say, "It isn't exactly a question of do they need souls, it is that these natural phenomena (animals etc) are part physical and part non-physical," which seems to be a statement that if these animals, etc., didn't have these souls, they wouldn't be doing what they do. And that looks to me like just another way of saying, "These animals need to have souls to do what they do."

That looks to me to stray from the very concept of methodological naturalism, which is the method scientists use that seeks answers to everything based on natural, testable phenomena.

Fine - that is obviously a starting point, but you have to be very, very careful when you try to explain complex phenomena, because the equations of physics become hopelessly hard to solve as you go to larger and larger systems - so it is usually not possible to say decisively that a particular phenomenon is, or is not consistent with the laws of physics (primarily QM of course).

But your answer implies that not only humans, but all animals, plants, cells, and even some parts of cells, behave in ways that are not natural, testable phenomena. Doesn't that rule out all the basis of natural science in the field of biology? How could biology proceed without using methodological naturalism?

Well a lot of biology proceeds by simply collecting facts.

You say animals can be part physical and non-physical. What do you mean by the word, "physical"? That is a word that gets thrown around a lot here. To me, any thing that in any way interacts with the universe in a way that is physically detectable and is theoretically capable of being studied by science is "physical". By that definition, everything you are talking about is physical. What do you even mean when you say something is "non-physical"?

I am strongly of the opinion that our everyday world is embedded in and loosely coupled to a larger reality that science tends to ignore. That is the only way that certain observed phenomena can be explained. These are generally called psi phenomena, and there are just too many of them to explain them all as bad science or fraud.

When I say something is non-physical, what I mean is that it uses that larger realm to do what it does.

The trouble is, I think you don't read any of the large literature that would inform you as to why this site exists. We are not all somehow inadequately educated, or deluded in some way!

Some time back I tried to get you to read Dean Radin's book "Entangled Minds". I'll bet you haven't even tried. The trouble is that if you don't look at some of the reasons why we think what we do - just assuming we are deluded - you become boring to talk to.

David

The brain doesn't create consciousness: The reducing valve theory of consciousness

Paul Marshall

The materialist assumption that consciousness is produced by the brain is on the decline. New theories, such as panpsychism, the idea that consciousness exists throughout the physical universe, are on the rise. But what about other alternatives? The notion that the brain acts as a reducing valve for consciousness was supported by the likes of Henri Bergson and Aldous Huxley, and could offer our best alternative to the materialist worldview, writes Paul Marshall. 

...When James first presented filter theory, he expressed it in the terms of mind–body dualism: a purely material brain filters consciousness. But he did so only to counter the prevailing type of dualism, according to which a purely material brain produces consciousness. He was open to alternative kinds of metaphysics, such as idealism and neutral monism, in which brain and consciousness are not different in kind. These non-materialist monisms have the advantage of side-stepping the mind–body problem, the difficulty of bringing a purely material brain into relation with consciousness.

Bergson took such a route. His filter theory, set out in Matière et Mémoire (1896), addressed normal perception and memory, drawing on the evidence of speech and memory pathologies, although he later applied it to telepathy and near-death life reviews. The metaphysical backdrop to his theory can be considered ‘neutral monist’, the basic elements of the universe being regarded as neutral with respect to mind and matter. Like the rest of the universe, the brain and body are made up of neutral ‘images’, and so perception operates through the selection of one set of images by another set that makes up brain and body (Barnard, 2011).

Filter theory continues to have value today as a philosophical antidote to the lazy assumption that the brain manufactures consciousness. At the very least, it is a heuristic device that encourages us to think more deeply about the functioning of the brain. But it could be rather more too. Efforts have been made in recent years to revive the insights of filter theorists and apply them to the more extensive and diverse empirical data now available to researchers (e.g., Kelly et al., 2007). Some of this data comes from the reinvigorated field of legally sanctioned psychedelic research, now blossoming after decades of stagnation, undertaken for therapeutic applications as well as basic neuroscientific interest.

The trouble is, I think you don't read any of the large literature that would inform you as to why this site exists. We are not all somehow inadequately educated, or deluded in some way!

I was thinking about this and would succinctly state my position as:

1. Is there some reason for a priori dismissal of all Survival & Psi research, whether in the lab/hospital setting or through the long history of witnesses? Such dismissal, before looking at any of it, could only be justified if there was a compelling reason to assume Materialism/Physicalism can account for consciousness.

2. It's not very clear what Physicalism is, and if it depends on the investigation of physics it seems this possibly leads to alternative metaphysical positions that have Consciousness as a fundamental aspect...perhaps, as per certain physicists, even all that is Matter is derived from the Ground of Consciousness...

3. If Materialism/Physicalism defines the "physical" as, whatever other characteristics it possesses, lacking any mental character...then it leads to a variety of bizarre ad hoc positions like Emergentism and Illusionism to get around the Something from Nothing miracles needed to account for how the "physical" produces the "mental".

4. Since Materialism/Physicalism cannot account for consciousness - and additionally runs into other issues like the location/existence of the Laws of Nature if there is no God, the role of the Observer in physics, Cosmic Fine Tuning - there is no reason to dismiss all Survival and Psi research.

5. Looking at Survival & Psi research, in combination with the logical impossibility of the Materialist/Physicalist faith, it seems reasonable to conclude that there is an afterlife*. Personally I'd maybe also include something like an update to Plato's Affinity Argument, that the soul's immortality is due to its grasping of the eternal Universals. [Note even Why I Am Not a Christian author B.Russell argued for Universals existing, though he rejected the idea of a soul IIRC.]

Now whether all this means a Filter/Transmitter theory has to be true...I don't think so. But I do think many charges against the Filter Theory are made in ignorance of its long history (at least back to Plato) and reasons for being proposed.

*I'd still hold it's reasonable to reject an afterlife, though that is not my position.

*I'd still hold it's reasonable to reject an afterlife, though that is not my position.

Since you explicitly state that you are not advocating for that position, I'm not disagreeing.


However, I'd like to add that the term 'afterlife' is very limiting. It seems to take this present life as the beginning and then considers an optional 'afterwards'. My own difficulty with that terminology is that it omits to reference the 'beforehand'.

There's something about that word which is reminiscent of the Ptolemaic view of astronomy which has Earth at the centre. In a likewise manner, making this life the origin and then considering what happens afterwards is analogous to placing this Earth at the centre. In astronomy we inhabit a small planet revolving around a rather ordinary star somewhere towards the edge on a somewhat ordinary galaxy. Taking this larger perspective in considering our own existence, to me it seems appropriate to consider that what happened before this lifetime, the 'beforelife' is every bit as relevant. Perhaps analogously we currently inhabit a rather small and ordinary stage of a much vaster existence.

I was thinking about this and would succinctly state my position as:

1. Is there some reason for a priori dismissal of all Survival & Psi research, whether in the lab/hospital setting or through the long history of witnesses? Such dismissal, before looking at any of it, could only be justified if there was a compelling reason to assume Materialism/Physicalism can account for consciousness.

None, but subtly restricting a discussion to avoid contrary evidence is a common ploy.
We should remember Julie Beischel's work, in which 'top quality' mediums were multiply blinded from the bereaved person and yet still retrieved information.

2. It's not very clear what Physicalism is, and if it depends on the investigation of physics it seems this possibly leads to alternative metaphysical positions that have Consciousness as a fundamental aspect...perhaps, as per certain physicists, even all that is Matter is derived from the Ground of Consciousness...

Agreed, but IMHO in a discussion like this, such considerations just seem to muddy the waters. Science is just so far away from the level where matter may be grounded in consciousness that there is no use discussing it. It would be like discussing QM at the time of Newton. A lot of water had to flow under the bridge!

3. If Materialism/Physicalism defines the "physical" as, whatever other characteristics it possesses, lacking any mental character...then it leads to a variety of bizarre ad hoc positions like Emergentism and Illusionism to get around the Something from Nothing miracles needed to account for how the "physical" produces the "mental".

Agreed - Materialists who resort to such concepts are throwing in the towel, whether they realise it or not. The worst example is Super Psi, in which some materialists will concede a particularly powerful form of psi (!!!!!!!!!) in order to attack the concept of an afterlife.



David

None, but subtly restricting a discussion to avoid contrary evidence is a common ploy.
We should remember Julie Beischel's work, in which 'top quality' mediums were multiply blinded from the bereaved person and yet still retrieved information.
Agreed, but IMHO in a discussion like this, such considerations just seem to muddy the waters. Science is just so far away from the level where matter may be grounded in consciousness that there is no use discussing it. It would be like discussing QM at the time of Newton. A lot of water had to flow under the bridge!
Agreed - Materialists who resort to such concepts are throwing in the towel, whether they realise it or not. The worst example is Super Psi, in which some materialists will concede a particularly powerful form of psi (!!!!!!!!!) in order to attack the concept of an afterlife.

David

Oh I agree - dismissing all evidence in a priori fashion would seem unfair for something as important as Survival, but I think this dismissal is made worse by the fact that Materialism makes no sense. We can just look at the criticisms Sam Harris & Raymond Tallis have (both atheists w/ neuroscience education) and how Alex Rosenberg - who wrote The Atheist's Guide to Reality - insists Materialism is true even though he agrees it must mean we don't have thoughts.

As to the Idealist position of some physicists, I would agree this probably something of a fringe position however what is curious to me is the historicity of the claim. The "quantum fathers" seemed much more amenable to at least Psi - heck Einstein wrote the forward to Mental Radio, Upton Sinclair's book about telepathy!

So for me it's no[t] [so] much that Idealism is something we need to accept as it is the observation that the investigation of physics doesn't by necessity lead to the conclusion that consciousness derives from non-conscious aspects of reality. And, in fact, said investigation can even lead to the extreme opposite conclusion. Thus Physicalism, if defined as trusting in physics, can [potentially] refute Physicalism defined as consciousnesses deriving from matter.

Super Psi...is this a materialist idea? It seems to me the biggest advocates have already abandoned Materialism but have some feeling that the picture Survival paints is distasteful for some reason or another. I think Kastrup prefers the unification with Mind @ Large. Sudduth seems to have gone over to the Vedanta tradition and before that was Christian, so I guess in both cases the Survival picture seemed to go against both faiths?

Braude, who is arguably one of the biggest and major advocates for Super Psi even though he has said he tentatively leans toward Survival...his motivations on this have been a mystery to me. He seems quite eager to jump the gun toward anything that might discredit Survival including Sudduth's questionable reincarnation research. OTOH in Immortal Remains he said he tentatively accepts Survival.

For me the biggest barrier to Super Psi is it has to accept incredible feats of Psi while denying consciousness any place to exist without a brain. But this, it seems to me, would mean Psi has to fall under natural selection which leads to the question of why Psi is "Super" when it comes to faking an afterlife but not in preventing deaths?

For me the biggest barrier to Super Psi is it has to accept incredible feats of Psi while denying consciousness any place to exist without a brain. But this, it seems to me, would mean Psi has to fall under natural selection which leads to the question of why Psi is "Super" when it comes to faking an afterlife but not in preventing deaths?

I know you have spent time on writing and collating material for a long thread on super-psi. Thank you for that.

Since it isn't my favourite topic, I'm not sure on this - is super-psi raised as a possibility only in relation to (not-)survival or is it applied in any other circumstances?