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

[Ninshub]

The first paragraph does indeed state that controlled studies do consistently show veridical perception in NDEs to be a false claim. The second paragraph does nothing to refute that claim. So there's that.

It's at the very least sloppy writing on Augustine's part to not indicate this is Ring's words (not Holden and company), and he includes mediumship research in there as if that was under discussion in that book chapter (or book period).

I can't pretend to know exactly what Kenneth Ring was meaning to say there (in a personal communication, not in an official statement) but I don't think he is saying what you do. He is saying "under controlled conditions" not controlled studies. Because there certainly weren't 30 years (!) of controlled studies when he made that remark, and he was very well placed to know that, and as others here are saying it's debatable as to how much control there even is in Parnia's studies (and the number of interviewees in his studies is so incredibly small, despite the ambitious scope of the projects, that it's no wonder there wasn't a precise "hit" - it's hard not to conclude that the lack of proper resources guaranteed such results unfortunately.)

I think Ring was making a loose, off-the-cuff philosophizing statement with his Trickster remark, and not a cool, logically precise claim about decades of "controlled studies". It's either bad reading or dishonesty on Augustine's part to make more out of that remark than what it is (especially in throwing mediumship in there).

Certainly, but it much increases the probability of survival, since it demonstrates under very adverse circumstances a certain independence of the human mind from the physical brain.

If you wish to interpret it in that way. On the other hand, I'm reasonably convinced that it is only the sense-of-self which has relocated.

Assuming it was a randomly selected timed display, it was indeed measured, by the effects of this information in interacting with some structures of matter and energy, in practice on the random number generator output circuits and on the display electronics. That presumably is all that is required. I don't think it has to actually be measured by human perception. The world doesn't work like that.

Good luck with learning about the results of your experiments if you don't make any observations.

I think Ring was making a loose, off-the-cuff philosophizing statement with his Trickster remark, and not a cool, logically precise claim about decades of "controlled studies". It's either bad reading or dishonesty on Augustine's part to make more out of that remark than what it is (especially in throwing mediumship in there).

Again, if you read on in Augustine's paper, he gives numerous references to survival studies and their failure to make a case for survival. That statement was merely an introduction. We should be discussing the documented failure of the studies to support survival, rather than debating the nuance of the wording of one sentence.

I would need people to stop reporting NDEs & OOBEs.

And do you also need people to stop making claims about the Loch Ness Monster before you acknowledge the evidence indicates it is not real?

Do you also need people to stop believing in Mormonism before you acknowledge there probably never were golden plates with the Book of Mormon written on them that were given to Joseph Smith?

Decades of research into survival have shown that there is no there there, at least not in the ways it has been tested. Is it possible that it exists in some way that has not yet been tested? Sure. But, by the same logic, one could argue that you created the universe, and that the failure of any test to verify that you are God is simply because we have not yet tried the right test!

Maybe someday somebody will come up with a test that strongly verifies survival. And maybe someday somebody will come up with a test that strongly verifies that you are God

Maybe not.

As noted above by Sam Harris in End of Faith, reincarnation research hasn't been completely negative.

I would agree, however, that there has been no definitive confirmation which is why I've said weeks ago that I think it's reasonable to hold that there is no afterlife.

By saying that reincarnation research "hasn't been completely negative" you seem to imply that the majority of the volume of research in reincarnation studies has been negative. What's your reason to make this sort of judgement?

I'm somewhat surprised by this comment, Sci, and I disagree completely. I think that cases of the reincarnation type constitute the strongest evidence for survival. Research has produced quite positive results.

You can claim that survival research hasn't been conclusive because of the rareness of the phenomena. But the number of strong cases (especially CORT) which have resisted normal explanations are enough to make a fairly strong case in favor of survival.

The idea that after we die we cease to exist is an assumption that lacks empirical support; it's based on the unfounded belief that mental function is entirely dependent on brain function.

And do you also need people to stop making claims about the Loch Ness Monster before you acknowledge the evidence indicates it is not real?

Do you also need people to stop believing in Mormonism before you acknowledge there probably never were golden plates with the Book of Mormon written on them that were given to Joseph Smith?

Decades of research into survival have shown that there is no there there, at least not in the ways it has been tested. Is it possible that it exists in some way that has not yet been tested? Sure. But, by the same logic, one could argue that you created the universe, and that the failure of any test to verify that you are God is simply because we have not yet tried the right test!

Maybe someday somebody will come up with a test that strongly verifies survival. And maybe someday somebody will come up with a test that strongly verifies that you are God

Maybe not.

Comparing case studies of these kind of phenomena to sightings of the Loch Ness Monster reported by unreliable sources is a very flimsy comparison, a false equivalence which quite frankly casts doubt your credibility as a skeptical commentator on paranormal phenomena.

The fact that you keep repeating this same claim, that investigation of phenomena suggestive of survival has supposedly not had any positive results, and that your only source for your claim is a third hand source, shows that your statement has no informed credibility and should not be taken seriously.

Instead of relying on statements made by Keith Augustine, how about you become more familiar with the kind of topics we are discussing here?

Until then, expect your flimsy and doubtful remarks to be met with the same kind of skepticism that you claim to profess. Any informed reader on the paranormal, which you apparently are not, will notice that is not as black and white as people seem to think it is.

And do you also need people to stop making claims about the Loch Ness Monster before you acknowledge the evidence indicates it is not real?

Do you also need people to stop believing in Mormonism before you acknowledge there probably never were golden plates with the Book of Mormon written on them that were given to Joseph Smith?

Decades of research into survival have shown that there is no there there, at least not in the ways it has been tested. Is it possible that it exists in some way that has not yet been tested? Sure. But, by the same logic, one could argue that you created the universe, and that the failure of any test to verify that you are God is simply because we have not yet tried the right test!

Maybe someday somebody will come up with a test that strongly verifies survival. And maybe someday somebody will come up with a test that strongly verifies that you are God

Maybe not.

Are you this afraid of Hell that you want to stop the investigation for the [true] nature of reality?

I thought you said you wanted to know the Truth.

You seem to have ignored the fact that Parnia did note a "hit" in AWARE, just not the stickers in particular.

If we should stop NDE research, we should definitely stop trying to prove theories that suggest consciousness is produced by a brain consisting of non-conscious constituents as it's been millennia since Democritus noted the Hard Problem. Additionally, as Harris notes:

The idea that brains produce consciousness is little more than an article of faith among scientists at present, and there are many reasons to believe that the methods of science will be insufficient to either prove or disprove it.

By saying that reincarnation research "hasn't been completely negative" you seem to imply that the majority of the volume of research in reincarnation studies has been negative. What's your reason to make this sort of judgement?

I'm somewhat surprised by this comment, Sci, and I disagree completely. I think that cases of the reincarnation type constitute the strongest evidence for survival. Research has produced quite positive results.

You can claim that survival research hasn't been conclusive because of the rareness of the phenomena. But the number of strong cases (especially CORT) which have resisted normal explanations are enough to make a fairly strong case in favor of survival.

The idea that after we die we cease to exist is an assumption that lacks empirical support; it's based on the unfounded belief that mental function is entirely dependent on brain function.

I was noting the standards of a New Atheist Horseman with a Neuroscience PhD. My point was even by Harris' standard, which is likely stricter than the average layperson, there is some possibility that reincarnation might be true.

This would then lend credence to the possibility of Survival, which - in combination with Parnia's work - would mean that NDEs should also continue to be investigated as should other potential avenues pointing to Survival.

We can't let the Materialist fundamentalists fear of Hell and/or other spurious motivations get in the way of utilizing Science to learn the true nature of our reality.

But yes I do think it's reasonable for someone to conclude there's no afterlife because each of us has different experiences facing brain illness and witnessing death. This doesn't mean I think the case for Survival is weak -I believe in it after all.

That Survival is true, however, opens up a greater dialogue about the nature of this reality because it seems, for some reason, that the evidence of Survival is very difficult to investigate...

Until then, expect your flimsy and doubtful remarks to be met with the same kind of skepticism that you claim to profess. Any informed reader on the paranormal, which you apparently are not, will notice that is not as black and white as people seem to think it is.

Oh there hasn't been any good arguments provided for the claim that Souls Need Brains. It's still unclear to me why someone would make this claim, save perhaps a fear of Hell so great they need to believe that even if they are damned they won't actually be capable of suffering...

We've gotten bizarre arguments that when people directly say something they mean something else. Desperate appeals to poorly reasoned work by Richard Carrier who thinks Nothing can produce a Multiverse that explains away Fine Tuning and that Consciousness is like Color Qualia which is an aspect of Consciousess. And the extremely biased writings of Keith Augustine who is clearly dishonest.

Oh and some weird aside about animal souls that included a survey [plus accusations of "magic", a term that seems to lack any real definition when used against people who object to the Materialist faith].

Nothing, however, on why we should assume that *if* souls exist that they *must* lack cognitive function without the brain.

No good arguments for how non-conscious constituents could make a brain that produces consciousness, which is a claim in itself that needs to be shown ->

That a whirlpool emerges from water, or that water emerges from H2O molecules are examples of emergence that can be observed and explained using structural, i.e. primarily spatiotemporal, language. But that the patterned movement of particles in a brain makes emerge mental states that cannot be observed or described in structural, spatiotemporal terms, is a claim that is not scientific: it is not directly observable, it is not quantifiable, and there is no known transordinal nomology: no bridge laws that would explain the matter-mind emergence (laws that would have to cover more than the human species)...

...There would be a monumental jump in the universe even with the simplest emergence of sentience: there would be a point in time, presumably concurrent with an organism, where there suddenly pierced into reality some kind of entity – with its own perspective – that was no longer fully structurally describable. This would have been an emergence of kind rather than an emergence of degree. For such a claim, the burden of proof lies upon the person who believes it...

 -Peter Sjöstedt-H, Panpsychism: 3 Reasons Why Our World is Brimming with Sentience