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

No, it is not. You can quote a million words from an authority. It is still an argument from authority.

I have read the links you posted. I see a lot of statements that the writers do not know where consciousness comes from, and skepticism that it is fully material. But I find no solid evidence of the claim.

Again, to be scientific, you must show reasons that the brain cannot produce consciousness, not quote people that agree with you.

Read real scientific papers in the scientific literature. You will find very few quotes. That is not what science is based on.


No. I do not say to believe these things because Dennet does, not do I go around quoting him. That is not the way science works.


I find it interesting that many people use the word "atheist" almost as a synonym for "really smart person". Somehow people think that, if an atheist thinks this, then it must be true.

No, what matters is not that Sam Harris is an atheist. What matters is if he has convincing arguments based on real evidence that matter cannot be conscious.

And he is not making the point that matter cannot be conscious, only that physics might never explain it.


Uh, huh, he is an atheist.

I guess he must be really smart, huh?


No sir, I have explained to you why I trust science rather than appeal to a god of the gaps. There is a long history here. Those that trust science, and use methodological naturalism to explore the world, often end up finding out how the world works and often end up with real answers that drive science forward. Those who say, "a god did it", are constantly backpedaling and admitting that here, once more, science explains this thing which was once thought to be supernatural.

And I don't see a lot of difference between saying a nonphysical god did it, a nonphysical soul did it, or a nonphysical whatchamallit did it. (I take it your money is on the whatchamacallit, yes?) All are appealing to an an entity that could be described as magic.

What is magic? "The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces" or "having or apparently having supernatural powers".  That's the first two definitions that come up when I ask Bing, "define:magic."  By the common meaning of the word magic, appealing to nonmaterial, non-natural forces to effect thing in the world is supernatural magic. Your nonphysical souls and nonphysical whatchamacallits look like magic. 


None of these has anywhere near the human mental capacity. Computers can exceed humans in numerical calculations, but they fail in the vast parallel analysis of patterns that humans are good at. We don't know what is involved in consciousness, but computers are not close.


Why do you think nails will never be conscious? After all, in your view, why cannot these nonphysical whatchamallits (or souls) that you think make humans conscious also make nails conscious too? In fact, some people here seem to think these powers that I call magic actually might be making nails conscious.

I promise, you are safe here. If you tell me that a box of nails could be conscious, I won't joke that you are dumber than a box of nails.  

Without awareness, real consciousness would be impossible. That seems to rule out nails being conscious.


How can you explain that after a stroke, a person often loses the ability to remember new things? I don't see any answer here that looks thought out.

How can you explain that damage to the brain can hinder a person from forming sentences? I don't see any answer here that addresses that adequately.

And no just saying "filter" is not an answer.

I explained my view here: post #290 (And yes, I see that particular post doesn't mention that something might be working in conjunction with the neurons of the brain, but I have mentioned that many times.) Can you show me anybody who did a better job on this thread of explaining how the mind works?

No, No, No, No, No, No, No!  It's unfair arguing with you because you don't understand anything at all.

Yes. 

The biggest limitation of this aircraft electronic system analogy seems to be that with the human mind/brain but not with the pilot/interfacing aircraft electronics system, the interface with the vastly complex mechanisms of the brain is totally unconscious, and to the conscious mind the interface is totally transparent with the human coming to identify him/her self with the system as a whole.

Agreed. But it's a start. I find all analogies to be ultimately incomplete, as they're based on our inherently lack of understanding how it all fits together.

We don't actually know how bodies have been designed for a mind to interface with them. It is totally unconscious only to the conscious aspect of the incarnate mind, perhaps... so maybe that unconscious aspect has its own awareness... well, it must, I would cautiously assert, because it is part of our being that drives the whole process. Else, the body would fail.

I don't think the "filter" model is very good.

Me neither.

The best technological analogy to the very complex functions of the brain that occurs to me at the moment is the combination of a modern aircraft avionics interface unit, flight computer, cockpit controls and displays, and aircraft mission computer, which includes the following product as a major part:

ARIU (Avionics Remote Interface Unit)
The Avionics Remote Interface Unit is a real-time and high-reliability independent unit included in the mission system in aircraft. ARIU processes discrete and analog control and data signals coming from and going to sensors and actuators and pilot controls and displays, and communicates with the Mission Computer using the MIL-STD-1553B interface.

Top-level breakdown of major elements and subfunctions of the entire aircraft digital control and communications system:

Mission computer + ARIU + flight computer
MIL-STD-1553B communications
discrete output interfaces
discrete input interfaces
analog output interfaces
analog input interfaces
interface management and monitoring
sensors
controls
displays

In this still very rough, inaccurate and incomplete analogy the "pilot" is the controlling spirit inhabiting the brain. The "pilot" has many capabilities that can't be expressed through the aircraft interfaces, like playing tennis or enjoying a glass of wine. Similarly, the spirit has many capabilities that can't be expressed through the physical body and that are unavailable in normal consciousness, hence the very limited "filter" analogy.

And the pilot represents your soul? 

In retrograde amnesia, people can hear what others say but lose most of the ability to remember those events. In your illustration, for the patient with retrograde amnesia:[1]

1. Who/what is the one that is listening and understanding? The pilot (soul) or the mission computer (brain) or both?
   
2. Who is the one that is responding?  The pilot (soul) or the mission computer (brain) or both?
   
3. In a normal conversation, who/what is the one that remembers and recalls? The pilot (soul) or the mission computer (brain) or both?
   

Then based on your answers above, please tell us how this illustration plays out when a person with retrograde amnesia forgets.

[1] I meant anterograde amnesia. This mistake was pointed out later. --Merle, 7/6/2023

I'm actually looking at a paper that seems to align with your ideas? ->

What Is Consciousness? Artificial Intelligence, Real Intelligence, Quantum Mind, And Qualia

Stuart A. Kauffman, Andrea Roli

whoa...........................  Sci, did you see this?

 First, there is growing and powerful evidence gathered independently over seven decades
by many independent investigators that mind may well be quantum, seen in aberrant
behaviour of quantum random number generators, telepathy, and precognition. The data with
respect to quantum random number generators are this: given a massive public event such as
the death of Nelson Mandela, will quantum random number generators around the world
behave non-randomly? The data are objective. These publicly available data are confirmed at
7.3 sigma (Radin & Kauffman, 2021). Do these data support the possibility of a quantum
mind? Yes, if we ask, “Are these physically possible?” If mind is quantum, spatial nonlocality
(Aspect et al., 1982) with its entanglement allows telepathy between entangled minds and
psychokinesis for entangled mind and matter

This is outstanding!

No, it is not. You can quote a million words from an authority. It is still an argument from authority.

The fallacy only applies if the argument consists of being nothing more than solely an appeal to someone's authority. (Though even there it's questionable because we do trust to expertise.)

Referencing an argument is not an argument from authority...I'm not even sure why you would think this?

I have read the links you posted. I see a lot of statements that the writers do not know where consciousness comes from, and skepticism that it is fully material. But I find no solid evidence of the claim.

Again, to be scientific, you must show reasons that the brain cannot produce consciousness, not quote people that agree with you.

Evidence of the claim that non-conscious matter cannot produce consciousness? That's just basic logic ->

If the brain is made from non-conscious constituents it cannot produce consciousness because you cannot get Something (Mind) from Nothing (Non-conscious Matter).

To say otherwise, as noted in this post, is magic in the pejorative sense of claiming an unintelligible brute fact is somehow true. (Yup, another essay with an argument - still not an Argument from Authority but if it helps that guy isn't exactly an atheist.  ).

I mean there's no scientific evidence that the interior angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees either, it follows from using logic.

To be honest I have trouble believing you read the essays, heck not 100% sure you even read all the excerpts from those essays that I directly posted in this forum. Frankly I can't think of a single argument you've refuted so I still think if the brain is made from non-conscious constituents it cannot:

-Have Thoughts About Anything
-Use Reason
-Store Memories [that require any of the other aspects in this list]
-Have Subjective Experiences

[If you have a post or set of posts that you think can explain how a brain made from non-conscious constituents can do any of the above feel free to link to save yourself from re-writing the same argument(s).]

Though I guess you did propose some ad hoc idea that new laws of physics would overcome the Something from Nothing problem and show us how atoms that lack consciousness could produce consciousness. That wasn't convincing at all.

Read real scientific papers in the scientific literature. You will find very few quotes. That is not what science is based on.

I just linked to a scientific paper in my discussion with StephenW?

But also this is just silly. I'm not going to rephrase whole arguments I can quote/reference as nothing you've said has any novelty. Linking to essays that have the necessary refutations is just a logical time saving strategy.

In your footnotes here, I see two mentions of Consciousness Explained. Which brings us to ->

No. I do not say to believe these things because Dennett does, not do I go around quoting him. That is not the way science works.

So all that stuff about how the neurons are vying for attention and the brain making a model of the self to deal with said vying were just some ad hoc ideas you came up with? If I open up Consciousness Explained I won't find Dennett proposing something similar for how consciousness can be produced by non-conscious matter?

Again, I don't think it's a problem that you are borrowing ideas from Dennett or anyone else. But it's silly to make an arbitrary distinction between a summary of someone else's ideas and a direct quote/reference.

I find it interesting that many people use the word "atheist" almost as a synonym for "really smart person". Somehow people think that, if an atheist thinks this, then it must be true.

No, what matters is not that Sam Harris is an atheist. What matters is if he has convincing arguments based on real evidence that matter cannot be conscious.

The reason to use atheist arguments is to get away from the charge of bias, that people argue against matter producing consciousness simply because they want to believe in God. [Also while an atheist can believe in an immortal soul (John McTaggart for example) both Harris & Tallis reject Survival.]

I thought Harris' argument was quite convincing, as why would we expect Something (Mind) to come from Nothing (Non-conscious Matter). Isn't that why it's so obvious a nail doesn't have consciousness that to believe such a thing makes a person "as dumb as a nail"?

And he is not making the point that matter cannot be conscious, only that physics might never explain it.

So when he says that non-conscious information processing (IP) can produce consciousness is like "round squares" or "2 + 2 =7" he doesn't mean that it's a logically impossible proposition?

Why compare non-conscious IP producing consciousness to two logically impossible propositions then?

No sir, I have explained to you why I trust science rather than appeal to a god of the gaps. There is a long history here. Those that trust science, and use methodological naturalism to explore the world, often end up finding out how the world works and often end up with real answers that drive science forward. Those who say, "a god did it", are constantly backpedaling and admitting that here, once more, science explains this thing which was once thought to be supernatural.

As noted a few times, especially here, a complete physics could conclude that consciousness is one of the fundamental aspects of the universe. In fact, given the Something from Nothing problem, this is the most rational prediction.

It could even be the case that the physicists like Max Planck who say Matter is generated by Consciousness are correct.

So very unclear what you mean by "I trust science" here.

And I don't see a lot of difference between saying a nonphysical god did it, a nonphysical soul did it, or a nonphysical whatchamallit did it. (I take it your money is on the whatchamacallit, yes?) All are appealing to an an entity that could be described as magic.

Already pointed out a few times "non-physical" is just used in contrast to the claim that the "physical" has no consciousness in its fundamental constituents. If, as logic dictates, the "physical" defined in this way cannot account for consciousness we know exists then it follows from *that* definition that consciousness is "non-physical".

Not sure how many more times this needs to be said?

What is magic? "The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces" or "having or apparently having supernatural powers".  That's the first two definitions that come up when I ask Bing, "define:magic."  By the common meaning of the word magic, appealing to nonmaterial, non-natural forces to effect thing in the world is supernatural magic. Your nonphysical souls and nonphysical whatchamacallits look like magic. 

What does supernatural mean? What does "non-natural" mean?

Why would consciousness be "supernatural" when it's the way one apprehends the world around us?

Claiming the idea of consciousness being a fundamental constituent of reality as "non-natural" is just begging the question.

Noting that if non-conscious constituents (matter, fields, etc) cannot produce consciousness - which we know exists from ourselves - it must exist in some other form is just following logic. Nothing "non-natural" about that.

None of these has anywhere near the human mental capacity. Computers can exceed humans in numerical calculations, but they fail in the vast parallel analysis of patterns that humans are good at. We don't know what is involved in consciousness, but computers are not close.

If we don't know what is involved, how could you say computers aren't close? It still seems to me we are both using the same reasoning here, that computers aren't conscious because their components aren't conscious.

I just follow through with that reasoning to include brains if they are also just made up of non-conscious components.

Why do you think nails will never be conscious?

Because if atoms aren't conscious things made out of them will never become conscious.

After all, in your view, why cannot these nonphysical whatchamallits (or souls) that you think make humans conscious also make nails conscious too? In fact, some people here seem to think these powers that I call magic actually might be making nails conscious.
I promise, you are safe here. If you tell me that a box of nails could be conscious, I won't joke that you are dumber than a box of nails.

 
My view is that if the fundamental constituents of physical things are defined as lacking conscious their arrangements won't produce consciousness. I follow that logic all the way through without making any exceptions of certain arrangements like brains.

But I've already noted this doesn't mean there are souls a few times over? How many more times can this be said?

Without awareness, real consciousness would be impossible. That seems to rule out nails being conscious.

Can there be awareness without consciousness?

How can you explain that after a stroke, a person often loses the ability to remember new things? I don't see any answer here that looks thought out.

How can you explain that damage to the brain can hinder a person from forming sentences? I don't see any answer here that addresses that adequately.

And no just saying "filter" is not an answer.

I explained my view here: post #290 (And yes, I see that particular post doesn't mention that something might be working in conjunction with the neurons of the brain, but I have mentioned that many times.) Can you show me anybody who did a better job on this thread of explaining how the mind works?

I've already said, at least twice by my recall, that I think it's reasonable for a person to look at brain illness as a reason to disbelieve in an afterlife?

My objection is to the idea that brains made of non-conscious constituents can produce consciousness, have thoughts about things, hold memories, utilize logic, or have subjective feeling.

So I'd say Post #290 fails as an explanation at the outset when it proposes consciousness is a model generated by the brain.

Also this:

It is as though consciousness walks unto the stage and becomes an actor in the play in which consciousness is being created.

Seems quite circular.

And as you note:

Even on dualism, the basic mechanics of the control of a tennis stroke must be similar to what I just described.

Not a Dualist myself but it seems a Dualist explanation, while similar, would not be lacking where it differed from yours.

In fact this:

The mind sees itself as not merely a robot chasing a ball, but as an entire human being controlled by a self that is directing the show with a clear overall purpose. 

Seems to assume the consciousness that was supposed to be explained? So the Dualist would have advantage by not needing to try and overcome the issues related to getting consciousness from non-conscious constituents.

In fact, recalling my tennis lessons as a child, all the "models" you mention are memories with content that requires consciousness (thoughts about things & subjective perspective) so I wouldn't accept a brain made of non-conscious matter would have them.

I do accept that an AI in a video game about tennis could learn the game, but we both agree there's no consciousness in today's computers. That your explanation, taking out anything that requires the consciousness that needs to be explained, seems more appropriate for how a conscious-less AI could learn tennis than how consciousness is involved makes me feel it's not a great argument for why we should think brains made of non-conscious constituents can produce consciousness.

Also not sure why "filter" is an inadequate answer? I am not saying it's the definitive answer but it's already been discussed that as a filter damage/illness to the brain can cause further restriction in consciousness. This follows easily because Filter Theory already proposes consciousness is being limited by the brain. Since it doesn't require the logical impossibility that a brain made of non-conscious constituents can produce consciousness it's actually a better explanation, but on top of that it also better explains stuff like Terminal Lucidity and Sudden Savants.

Agreed. But it's a start. I find all analogies to be ultimately incomplete, as they're based on our inherently lack of understanding how it all fits together.

We don't actually know how bodies have been designed for a mind to interface with them. It is totally unconscious only to the conscious aspect of the incarnate mind, perhaps... so maybe that unconscious aspect has its own awareness... well, it must, I would cautiously assert, because it is part of our being that drives the whole process. Else, the body would fail.

I feel like the idea of a VR headset + controllers + haptics console may be the best analogy though it won't be perfect.

The game you are logging into is a shared online virtual space. (This world)

Damage to any of the console components can interfere with your experiencing of said virtual space, even removing your access completely. (Physical damage & death)

There could be some kind of secret background program (cheat codes? glitches? power ups?) that allows you to do things not usually allowed in the virtual space. (NDEs, Psi)

A software and/or hardware error (or computer virus) may make you think allies are attacking you, or dialogue that was supposed to come from friends has been altered so it seems that they now hate you. (Mental Illness)

Skills that you are training for, saved conversation points, or your quest log may not actually update for your avatar. (Mental Illness)

Sometimes you go up a level or a particular skill gets a huge stat boost. (Sudden Savants)

And so on...it's not perfect but I think with some imagination it can cover by analogy the basic idea of brain illness in addition to the soul-body separation, Psi/NDEs, etc.

[Ninshub]

It seems materialism is the default meta-physic that I slip towards if I am not doing various practices which allow me to perceive an expanded sense of self which reveals directly an experience which contains information which loosens the grip of the defacto reality of materialism which is the water we swim in our modern techno culture. I usually come back to my practices and studies when the existential dread that accompanies an unconscious lean into materialist ontology makes life unbearable. It appears to require sustained vigilance to keep the defato ego-syntonic effect of materialism from degrading my “lived” experience.

I can relate. Maybe less now but I definitely know that experience.

I very much wonder how much less hard that would be (to slip into that mode) in we weren't in the culture that we are in, and we hadn't lived decades with that conditioning.

On the other hand the internet gives us access to so much riches spirituality and psi-wise that an opposite micro-counterculture is also happening, which is helping me a lot the more I bathe in its waters. Living (or maybe thinking about it I should say, like apprehending the future, rationally or not) I find harder than thinking about what comes "after".

First, there is growing and powerful evidence gathered independently over seven decades
by many independent investigators that mind may well be quantum, seen in aberrant
behaviour of quantum random number generators, telepathy, and precognition. The data with
respect to quantum random number generators are this: given a massive public event such as
the death of Nelson Mandela, will quantum random number generators around the world
behave non-randomly? The data are objective. These publicly available data are confirmed at
7.3 sigma (Radin & Kauffman, 2021). Do these data support the possibility of a quantum
mind? Yes, if we ask, “Are these physically possible?” If mind is quantum, spatial nonlocality
(Aspect et al., 1982) with its entanglement allows telepathy between entangled minds and
psychokinesis for entangled mind and matter

I feel I have rebut this... i.e. Mandela's death being linked to changes in RNG output... as being wholly without any foundation, other than Radin asserting it to be so. There are loads of other things that could also affect the the output of these RNG devices, which Radin's studies fail to control for, particularly around power supply changes to the device/the devices post processing - required to get any sort of nice usable stream of numbers. We've been through this RNG stuff many times before, so I'm not going to detail it here again.

 
I feel I have rebut this... i.e. Mandela's death being linked to changes in RNG output... as being wholly without any foundation, other than Radin asserting it to be so. There are loads of other things that could also affect the the output of these RNG devices, which Radin's studies fail to control for, particularly around power supply changes to the device/the devices post processing - required to get any sort of nice usable stream of numbers. We've been through this RNG stuff many times before, so I'm not going to detail it here again.

The Mandela observation is a single data point.  Max, I am sure you are more well-versed on it than myself.  But, that said, the fact that S. Kauffman is endorsing the data tells me it is at least a professional presentation.  Merle has just given us the lecture on bias thru "authority".  I agree, when authority carries the weight of analysis!

So let me admit bias that Kaufman's successful history as a researcher carries weight, at least for me.  His career is outstanding and his science analysis has always been backed with solid information science principles and data-sets.  He started out with his analysis of biological complexity and self-org systems and was no friend to Psi ideas.
(look he won the Norbert Weiner Gold Medal for Cybernetics as far back as 1973 - 50 years ago). 

In the late 1990's he was someone I read to make sure I could understand and argue against self-org doing "magic" in evolution.  He was challenged on it later and his position has shifted toward the "adjacent possible".

Kaufman has co-published with many other well-mathed scientists and commands respect for his contributions in information science, as well as being a top-notch biologist.  I doubt his endorsing and promoting sloppy data handling by Radin.  (they cite sigma values for the claims.)

So, even if there is some uncertainty in the RNG results, the fact that another top researcher has seemingly moved to the positive camp in their analysis of the data around Psi is interesting.  When he came out writing about the adjacent possible on the NPR website, I went overboard.  Then, I found reporting from others that his position at the time "was it was a very interest path to explore, but was still skeptical about it".  He apparently has not been an easy convert.

In the late 1990's he was someone I read to make sure I could understand and argue against self-org doing "magic" in evolution.  He was challenged on it later and his position has shifted toward the "adjacent possible".

Could you expand on this? What is the "magic" in evolution? What is the "adjacent possible"?

edit: Reading about the latter....

Thanks!