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

At least with memory I think paradoxical & terminal lucidity in the paper Sam posted is enough to question the idea mind is dependent on brain.

So even before NDEs we have those cases + Sudden Savants + people living relatively normally with minimal brain matter.

The problem is that materialists could easily argue that this is more proof the understanding of the human brain is on the a dark age. (A person functioning without intestines or a heart would be a true miracle) But terminal lucidity, considering alzheimer's damage to the brain, is rather compelling, at least in my opinion.

I feel like this question of amnesia has been addressed a few times over? ->

1. There's at least one study where those with amnesia remember things in dreams they claim to not remember on waking. I linked to it at least twice.

2. Since brains made of non-conscious constituents aren't the kind of things that could hold thoughts about things, they also cannot hold memories.

3. Filter Theory posits the Higher Self is constricted by a brain. Bergson even calls it a "vice". Brain-based illness would be a tightening of the vice, whereas stuff like artistic talent blossoming for elderly with dementia, Sudden Savants, and Terminal Lucidity are the vice loosening.

4. Survival cases show souls having memories, and psychic research in its nature supports the Filter Theory.

Even if one discounts 4, the other 3 are still there. Even rejecting 2 because it brings in some philosophy you have 1 & 3.

As a tentative Point #5 I'd probably throw in the question physicist Adam Frank raises, that the place of consciousness in physics is unknown and the "observer" may or may not require consciousness. It's not as directly related but I think the fact that consciousness may have a direct role within physics, rather than physics just not being able to account for consciousness (Hard Problem), seems interesting. Same with the necessity for qualia in natural selection, Mathematical Platonism, and the issue of Fine Tuning.

Science seems to directly run into the consciousness the materialist evangelicals were trying to "cash out" in terms of non-conscious constituents. To me even comparing amnesia to such a huge problem is like comparing a glass of water to a tsunami, so even if there were no accounting for it under the Filter Theory it still wouldn't shift the scales by much.

(I know you posted something that quoted me, will reply later )

Yes, the brain can't directly hold memories, when a "memory" is defined as the conscious experience of remembering something. But the brain can hold coded stored information about an event that if properly scanned and decoded by consciousness will evoke the conscious remembering experience. One limited analogy: this is a little like viewing a home video of yourself and friends at a party, which evokes conscious memories of being there. The information was encoded in the physical video file and when decoded and projected on the physical screen evoked the conscious past experience. This hypothesis of course as mentioned also entails the necessity of some sort of complex coding system in the brain to somehow encode the "memory" information stored in the neural net as a pattern of molecules or synaptic connections or whatever, with a complementary decoding algorithm used for "remembering" while in body. The mind/brain system would need to be intricately designed to accomplish this feat. Presumably the spirit or soul would also be designed to directly store conscious memories in the structure of its own self. 

Different kinds of amnesia would be explained by the different ways this intricate machinery can become dysfunctional, where either the scanning and coding/decoding function or perhaps the consciousness transduction function develop problems. The deeper you look the more complicated it seems to get.

Yes, the brain can't directly hold memories, when a "memory" is defined as the conscious experience of remembering something. But the brain can hold coded stored information about an event that if properly scanned and decoded by consciousness will evoke the conscious remembering experience. One limited analogy: this is a little like viewing a home video of yourself and friends at a party, which evokes conscious memories of being there. The information was encoded in the physical video file and when decoded and projected on the physical screen evoked the conscious past experience. This hypothesis of course as mentioned also entails the necessity of some sort of complex coding system in the brain to somehow encode the "memory" information stored in the neural net as a pattern of molecules or synaptic connections or whatever, with a complementary decoding algorithm used for "remembering" while in body. The mind/brain system would need to be intricately designed to accomplish this feat. Presumably the spirit or soul would also be designed to directly store conscious memories in the structure of its own self. 

Different kinds of amnesia would be explained by the different ways this intricate machinery can become dysfunctional, where either the scanning and coding/decoding function or perhaps the consciousness transduction function develop problems. The deeper you look the more complicated it seems to get.

When you look at a home video of yourself, how do you know it really happened?

What if I gave you a deep fake of events supposedly from your past, how would you know they were fake?

Because you have the right memories?

But then what is the encoding piece in the brain, separate from your consciousness, doing exactly?

The problem is that materialists could easily argue that this is more proof the understanding of the human brain is on the a dark age. (A person functioning without intestines or a heart would be a true miracle) But terminal lucidity, considering alzheimer's damage to the brain, is rather compelling, at least in my opinion.

Evidence is different from proof though. Between Production & Filter, the things I mention lean us toward Filter.

And recall that certain Sudden Savants have brain injury or illness as well [sometimes].

When you look at a home video of yourself, how do you know it really happened?

Well, if you look at what is possible with implanted memories, you can not be absolutely sure

What if I gave you a deep fake of events supposedly from your past, how would you know they were fake?

Because you have the right memories?

The same thing, if presented in a sneaky enough way, i see it possible to be convinced of the reality of these events.

But then what is the encoding piece in the brain, separate from your consciousness, doing exactly?

It is my belief that remembering is for a large part reliving.
All this supports the idea that conscious experience is a construct of the brain, one that can be, to a certain level, be reconstructed.

All this supports the idea that conscious experience is a construct of the brain, one that can be, to a certain level, be reconstructed.

Not necessarily and it doesn't answer the hard problem - how can a collection of non-conscious atoms produce consciousness?

I referenced Harris because he's a Neuroscience PhD (legitimate expertise) and New Atheist "Horseman" (lack of bias toward belief in souls). His argument is there for anyone to read. Just say you disagree with Harris, but it's just odd to deny what his position clearly is.

Yes he throws Materialists a bone and says it may turn out to be true. Seem to me nothing more than pity, possibly also some cover knowing his fellow atheists will accuse him of heresy for going against the Materialist faith. Look at that full statement:

Sorry, but you are completely misinterpreting Sam Harris. Yes, he does say that one cannot really understand what it means for unconscious brain matter to generate consciousness. But he also clearly agrees with my point that consciousness cannot continue if the brain is missing. See for instance this 2 minute segment starting here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjKJ92b9Y04&t=4250s .

I don't see consciousness as a property. Consciousness is the state of being aware.

Agreed, i would even go further, i don't think there is anything static about the whole process.

Your patience and tenacity in this thread are admirable.

Having contributed to this topic here, but much more at the earlier versions of the Skeptiko forum, i do not expect you to convince anyone away from their viewpoints.
But as long as you have fun, and see it as a learning experience, keep up what you are doing.

Sorry, but you are completely misinterpreting Sam Harris. Yes, he does say that one cannot really understand what it means for unconscious brain matter to generate consciousness. But he also clearly agrees with my point that consciousness cannot continue if the brain is missing.

I already said he doesn't believe in Survival?

Well, if you look at what is possible with implanted memories, you can not be absolutely sure

The same thing, if presented in a sneaky enough way, i see it possible to be convinced of the reality of these events. 

It is my belief that remembering is for a large part reliving.
All this supports the idea that conscious experience is a construct of the brain, one that can be, to a certain level, be reconstructed.

I don't see how "conscious experience is a construct of the brain" follows from memory implantation.

As Brian notes there are too many issues with the Materialist belief system to really make such a leap. I still don't even see how a brain made of non-conscious constituents can have thoughts about things or hold memories.