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

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

– Max Planck

You turn to a series of quotes from scientists, but this is not the way science is done. In the scientific literature, we look at the arguments, evidence and reasons of other scientists, rather than quotes. 

You have found a rather impressive list of quotes. Some of these are a little hard to know what they are talking about in context. Some are translations that might not pick up the nuance of the original statement of the original language. 

Let's look at the quote above from a scientist I have a lot of respect for, Max Planck. What is he saying? He appears to be saying that, when we look for the fundamental source behind molecules, for instance, we find something else like atoms. And if we look for the fundamental source behind atoms, we find smaller particles and quantum mechanics. When we get to the bottom of it all, and ask for the fundamental source behind that, Planck says we find consciousness.

What consciousness does he mean by that? We don't know. But if we look at his religious background, there is little doubt he is talking about God. He might mean a deist God rather than a Christian God, but we don't really know.

Planck was Lutheran. He wrote, "Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations … To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view."

So we know he sometimes made statements in line with Christian faith. At other times he appeared to be more deist or universalist, so we don't really know his inner beliefs. But he certainly did sometimes make statements in line with his inherited Lutheran faith.  
 
He also wrote, "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent spirit [orig. geist]. This spirit is the matrix of all matter."

And that certainly looks like a theological statement, declaring God as being behind it all.

In light of these other statements, it looks to me like the consciousness he said was fundamental to all existence was God. In other words, this statement you quoted above appears to be a statement of theistic (or perhaps deist) belief. It is not a statement of scientific discovery.

So yes, as I said, many great scientists were theists, and yes when speaking theology, they often used faith as their criteria, not science. And no, we cannot take Planck's statements of faith as holding the same scientific weight as his statements based on science. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck .

You turn to a series of quotes from scientists, but this is not the way science is done. In the scientific literature, we look at the arguments, evidence and reasons of other scientists, rather than quotes. 

You have found a rather impressive list of quotes. Some of these are a little hard to know what they are talking about in context. Some are translations that might not pick up the nuance of the original statement of the original language. 

Let's look at the quote above from a scientist I have a lot of respect for, Max Planck. What is he saying? He appears to be saying that, when we look for the fundamental source behind molecules, for instance, we find something else like atoms. And if we look for the fundamental source behind atoms, we find smaller particles and quantum mechanics. When we get to the bottom of it all, and ask for the fundamental source behind that, Planck says we find consciousness.

What consciousness does he mean by that? We don't know. But if we look at his religious background, there is little doubt he is talking about God. He might mean a deist God rather than a Christian God, but we don't really know.

Planck was Lutheran. He wrote, "Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations … To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view."

So we know he sometimes made statements in line with Christian faith. At other times he appeared to be more deist or universalist, so we don't really know his inner beliefs. But he certainly did sometimes make statements in line with his inherited Lutheran faith.  
 
He also wrote, "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent spirit [orig. geist]. This spirit is the matrix of all matter."

And that certainly looks like a theological statement, declaring God as being behind it all.

In light of these other statements, it looks to me like the consciousness he said was fundamental to all existence was God. In other words, this statement you quoted above appears to be a statement of theistic (or perhaps deist) belief. It is not a statement of scientific discovery.

So yes, as I said, many great scientists were theists, and yes when speaking theology, they often used faith as their criteria, not science. And no, we cannot take Planck's statements of faith as holding the same scientific weight as his statements based on science. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck .

You've missed the entire point, perhaps deliberately because you've yet to make any serious arguments?

If we take "Physical" in "Physicalism" to mean what physics is supposed to show us, then why are people who looked deeply and even discovered & initially verified QM not "Physicalists" in the sense that they believe Matter can produce Consciousness?

If Planck had said whatever mysteries about consciousness remain we can be assured consciousness comes from matter my guess is you'd take that as part of your Materialist gospels.

But as physicist Adam Frank - who I already linked to, not that this ever makes a difference apparently - notes ->

How can there be one mathematical rule for the external objective world before a measurement is made, and another that jumps in after the measurement occurs? For a hundred years now, physicists and philosophers have been beating the crap out of each other (and themselves) trying to figure out how to interpret the wave function and its associated measurement problem. What exactly is quantum mechanics telling us about the world? What does the wave function describe? What really happens when a measurement occurs? Above all, what is matter?

This arbitrariness of deciding which interpretation to hold completely undermines the strict materialist position. The question here is not if some famous materialist’s choice of the many-worlds interpretation is the correct one, any more than whether the silliness of The Tao of Physics and its quantum Buddhism is correct. The real problem is that, in each case, proponents are free to single out one interpretation over others because … well … they like it. Everyone, on all sides, is in the same boat. There can be no appeal to the authority of ‘what quantum mechanics says’, because quantum mechanics doesn’t say much of anything with regard to its own interpretation.

As I've already said in this thread, the point is not that Idealism or some other view is the truth of physics. The point is that physics can support views that are decidedly not in line with the metaphysical belief of Materialism-Physicalism.

One can say that future physics will rule out all the interpretations that include consciousness as a fundamental, but this is just what Karl Popper called "Promissory Materialism".

As Peter Sjöstedt-H notes in Why I am Not a Physicalist: Four Reasons for Rejecting the Faith (already linked before in this thread) notes this just shows that "physical" is ill defined ->

It is often expected that a position be defined before it be rejected. In the case of physicalism, however, a reason for rejecting the position is the fact that it cannot be properly defined. This ambiguity in the meaning of “physicalism” is brought out through what is known as Hempel’s Dilemma, named after its formulation by philosopher Carl G. Hempel,[1] though it was in fact formulated earlier by Herbert Feigl.[2] The dilemma: it seems that the meaning of physicalism can be grasped through either of two horns. The first horn is exclusive belief in the phenomena of current physics, such as matter-energy, space-time, the fundamental interactions, and so on. The problem herewith is that such a belief is highly unlikely to be true. This is in part because we can witness the constant change of physics through history, realizing that our current state of understanding is but a moment within this history and thus, by pessimistic induction,[3] we realize that physics is likely to continue changing. Secondly, as is well known, the current state of physics cannot be final due, in particular, to the inconsistency between general relativity and quantum mechanics. Thirdly, as will be seen below, the role of the mind in current physics is undetermined.

Thus a self-proclaimed physicalist might therefore instead embrace the second horn of the dilemma: belief in the phenomena of a future, ideal physics. Yet there are two chief problems with this alternative. Firstly, how could one believe in physicalism if one did not know what that was? One may almost as well profess one’s adamant belief in drallewertism. Secondly, it may turn out that a future physics would include mentality amongst its fundamental elements. But because physicalism, as material monism, is as such opposed to dualism (one where mind and matter are equally fundamental), such a possibility would seem to contradict the current understanding of physicalism. As a result of this implication, many self-proclaimed physicalists add a “no-fundamental-mentality” condition to the meaning of physicalism to preclude such a possibility.[4] However, one cannot determine the future direction of physics, thus physicalism, by advancing ad hoc exclusionary clauses to suit one’s current preferences. It may well be that a future physics will be contrary to “physicalism,” as understood in such current exclusionary terms.

Once more I'll implore you to go read stuff like the collection of essays of the "quantum fathers" I mentioned in my last post. Read some Philosophy of Mind. [As a "meta" consideration - do you really think Raymond Tallis who worked as a neuroscientist for years and has published multiple books on philosophy has never thought about these talking points you harp on about?]

If you're still a Materialist, so be it, but at least your posts won't be trying to challenge us with stuff we've discussed, in some cases, around a decade or so ago in this small but stalwart group's long history.

“What a relief to have nothing to say, the right to say nothing, because only then is there a chance of framing the rare, and ever rarer, thing that might be worth saying.”
― Gilles Deleuze

The point is you don't have any serious arguments, it's just talking points that as E.Flowers noted have been discussed for years by this group.

You write this after posting back my questions: "And how do you think the mental gets produced? Is it magic? What is the difference between saying souls make consciousness and saying magic makes consciousness?"

Even if my arguments weren't serious, one would think these were questions you would want to answer if you could.

As I've already said, I think it's fine if people don't believe in Survival. That you seem to care so much that I do believe in Survival, and are putting in so much effort to evangelize for the Materialist faith, also makes me question your ability to look at the evidence in an unbiased way. It's just not worth my time,

I have explained multiple times that I am not saying the source of mind cannot include something we would call non-material. So why do you try to make it look like I am dogmatic that it needs to be just material?

I do not see how the fact that I tried to patiently present my views makes it a waste of time to listen to me.

we'd still have a retired clinical neuroscientist in Tallis and Atheist's Guide to Reality author Alex Rosenberg. Both atheists, the former rejecting the Materialist doctrine and the latter evangelizing for it...yet [we see] that both agree that *if* Materialism is true it means we cannot have thoughts about Paris or anything else.

I have read the posts and links you put up here many times that say we cannot have thoughts about Paris or anything else if the brain is the primary thinker. I find nothing there that convinces me that brain thoughts cannot be about something. I have shown you why I don't find this convincing. You keep on dumping the same stuff out here in response, as though he who gets in the last word wins.

If brains are not able to have thoughts about something, how do you know souls can have thoughts about something? How do they do it? Do they rely on magic? If not, how do they do this thing that you say is impossible for brains to do?

In the link you gave, Tallis ends with this paragraph:

These questions are posed because the case outlined here has been, necessarily, quite negative. It has merely been meant to clear the decks so we can set sail on the real work of finding a positive description of our nature, of the place of mind in nature, and, possibly, of the nature of nature itself. We need to start again thinking about our hybrid status: as pieces of matter subject to the laws of physics, as organisms subject to the laws of biology, and as people who have a complex sense of themselves, who narrate and lead their lives, and who are capable of thinking thoughts like these.
Source: https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicati...-ourselves

So no, in this article, Tallis is not making the positive case that souls can do it. Rather he is saying we don't know how it is done.

And you cannot legitimately get from "we don't know" to "therefore souls".

So no, in this article, Tallis is not making the positive case that souls can do it. Rather he is saying we don't know how it is done.

And you cannot legitimately get from "we don't know" to "therefore souls".

What an uncharitable reading of what I've written [and frankly a somewhat dishonest reading of what Tallis has written]. I am the one who has said Materialism being false does not immediately mean Survival is true multiple times in this thread.

Sorry Merle but you're obviously a fanatic who seems to lose sleep over the terrible horror that somewhere someone in the world dares to think there's an afterlife.

I've already said it doesn't bother me that you think death is the end.

Why do you care so much that I think there is post-mortem Survival?

Neither exactly expresses what I think. Let me try again.

My position is that the mind is a set of states and processes of the brain.

You make the mind sound very like a computer.

Do you believe that a computer is actually conscious while it is doing a calculation, or that a mind (yours for example) just clicks through a sequence of states and is never conscious at all?

Do you see how what looks like common sense in materialist philosophy, breaks down when you look at it in detail.

If you think a computer can be conscious, think where that consciousness goes if the computer (more correctly the computer program) is being debugged. This involves pausing the action at various points, printing out the contents of its registers (say) and maybe changing the contents of those registers, before resuming the action.

David

David

You make the mind sound very like a computer.

Do you believe that a computer is actually conscious while it is doing a calculation, or that a mind (yours for example) just clicks through a sequence of states and is never conscious at all?

Do you see how what looks like common sense in materialist philosophy, breaks down when you look at it in detail.

If you think a computer can be conscious, think where that consciousness goes if the computer (more correctly the computer program) is being debugged. This involves pausing the action at various points, printing out the contents of its registers (say) and maybe changing the contents of those registers, before resuming the action.

David

David

I think you meant to quote Merle not Silence?

But regarding the content of your post, I agree and if computers are [or could be] conscious [if they just ran the right program] then what about the Tinker Toy Computer ->



Beyond that I think what damns the attempt of justifying Materialism producing thoughts by way of comparing human consciousness to animals or computers is the Materialist Alex Rosenberg also uses the examples of animals and computers for his position that Materialism is true but also that we cannot have thoughts about anything (meaning Cogito Ergo Sum is false).

Since we have two kinds of Materialists making opposing arguments about whether Materialism can accommodate Cogito Ergo Sum, the arguably most basic root of all logical thinking about mind & body...well it certainly doesn't make me waver in my position that Materialism is utter nonsense no matter if there is no God, no Souls, etc etc...

But I know this isn't going to matter and all we've said will fall on deaf ears, that we'll still be arguing possibly months from now how nobody filled out the survey on waterfall souls or whatever...

I think you meant to quote Merle not Silence?

I have no idea how that happened - I hope @Merle thinks about what I wrote.

David

I have no idea how that happened - I hope @Merle thinks about what I wrote.

David

Well there are interesting atheist bloggers like the young man Emerson Green, from whom who I learned of the Vagueness Argument Against Physicalism.

If that were the caliber of new posters we might be able to get I think it'd be great, but the last few days have made me even more wary of trying to get new blood into the forums...

I think you meant to quote Merle not Silence?

But regarding the content of your post, I agree and if computers are [or could be] conscious [if they just ran the right program] then what about the Tinker Toy Computer ->

Regarding that Tinker Toy Computer, I've (years ago but on this forum or Skeptiko) raised similar ideas before, showing examples with brass gears, cams and levers. These mechanical devices can do everything that modern electronic computers do. The difference is in the slow speed, unreliability and impracticability of scaling up to bigger versions.

Nevertheless (and my idea is not original), there isn't any sensible argument for inserting consciousness and awareness into a box of gears and levers. Adding more of the same isn't going to suddenly change anything.

The only 'answer' I received in the past was along the lines of 'it needs to be more complicated'. The idea being perhaps that when something gets too big to understand, it is easier to be fooled into thinking something magical is going on. Just why anyone would wish to be fooled in this way remains unanswered. Sure, it has entertainment value. But it isn't a serious attempt at a solution.

Regarding that Tinker Toy Computer, I've (years ago but on this forum or Skeptiko) raised similar ideas before, showing examples with brass gears, cams and levers. These mechanical devices can do everything that modern electronic computers do. The difference is in the slow speed, unreliability and impracticability of scaling up to bigger versions.

Nevertheless (and my idea is not original), there isn't any sensible argument for inserting consciousness and awareness into a box of gears and levers. Adding more of the same isn't going to suddenly change anything.

The only 'answer' I received in the past was along the lines of 'it needs to be more complicated'. The idea being perhaps that when something gets too big to understand, it is easier to be fooled into thinking something magical is going on. Just why anyone would wish to be fooled in this way remains unanswered. Sure, it has entertainment value. But it isn't a serious attempt at a solution.

Yes - I'm not exactly sure why, but the idea that a mechanical calculator can be conscious seems extremely hard to believe.

OTH, there was a fad for the idea that water driven machinery might be conscious:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Restless-Clock-...B014RWV2CQ

Even Liebniz took an interest!

I was given that link in an email discussion with someone at the DI.

David