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

I have to admit I don't understand what you are saying here. I don't mean this in an insulting way, just literally not sure what you mean.

Could you elaborate - thanks.

This gets into deep waters. Max_B said, "You are not going to get real-time hits on secret, hidden visual targets" (referring to Parnia's protocol for the AWARE studies). "The visual target information has to be a fact for you to have any chance of accessing it. It has to be measured."

Max_B seems to be assuming that having had a prior conscious observer of the sticker is necessary for an NDEr to later perceive it during an OBE, and therefore for Parnia's study to yield any
"hits" at all. 

I have only a very limited and certainly in part faulty knowledge of quantum mechanics, but I think I have gleaned a little over the years. Quantum mechanics is, first and foremost, a mathematical system. There is no mathematical term for “conscious entity looking at something.”

In the first place, the experimenter who placed the sticker in its hidden location would indeed constitute a prior conscious observer of it. If the cue was actually some sort of randomly selected in real time video display, then indeed there would be no prior conscious observation of it. But it would still exist. Why?

More importantly, this gets into the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, which is presently unresolved. The fundamental measurement-collapse principle of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics says that collapses of the wave function happen when and only when a measurement occurs. But on the face of it, the notion of “measurement” is vague and anthropocentric. Within the quantum mechanical measurement-collapse framework, it is possible to understand measurement independently of consciousness, so that nonconscious systems such as ordinary measuring devices can collapse the wave function, as they in fact very much seem to do. In fact, any physical interaction can apparently constitute a "measurement". How else can countless atomic and subatomic interactions take place outside of conscious human observation? 

How did the Universe exist before there were conscious beings? It seems to me that simple consideration of the world and the universe strongly implies that conscious beings must not be necessary to collapse the wave function in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

When physicists speak of an “observer”, they apparently don't mean “a person looking at something”. An observer in this context is more akin to “any classical system whose state depends in a thermodynamically irreversible way on the state of the thing being observed”. In other words, a material interaction on some level.

The way the Universe seems to work without human or other conscious sentient observation very much seems to show that there is no need for consciousness for physical reality to exist, at least in the Copenhagen interpretation; the absolute requirement is only for coupling with a classical system (or a system with so many degrees of freedom that it is effectively classical), for the wavefunction to collapse.

Of course, another option can be that conscious observation is in fact necessary, and the necessary universal observer can be taken to be omniscient God.

[Ninshub]

as well as disliking pablum about how this world is a test or school or video game type setting.

I'm wondering what you mean exactly by the word "pablum", Sci.

Because regardless of whether in our perspective here we find anything can to "justify" suffering (if this is what you're relating it to), if NDErs and mediums consistently talk about planet earth being an earth school, I'm inclined to give it more than a little credence.

I'm wondering what you mean exactly by the word "pablum", Sci.

Because regardless of whether in our perspective here we find anything can to "justify" suffering (if this is what you're relating it to), if NDErs and mediums consistently talk about planet earth being an earth school, I'm inclined to give it more than a little credence.

The world just doesn't look like a school to me, but yes there does seem to be a line that gets delivered that this planet is some kind of learning opportunity. Perhaps this was the intention of some imperfect entity or entities, but if so I have trouble understanding what people are meant to learn...

This gets into deep waters. Max_B said, "You are not going to get real-time hits on secret, hidden visual targets" (referring to Parnia's protocol for the AWARE studies). "The visual target information has to be a fact for you to have any chance of accessing it. It has to be measured."

@Max_B  can offer a response but I really don't think he meant it in the way you are interpreting it.

It seems to me that this is most likely by design, not chance - the powers that be have decided that this plane of existence is to be a place of both joy and of suffering, presumably for learning purposes. The idea is, in order to properly challenge humans in the physical world this reality was designed so that paranormal proof of survival is either impossible or nearly so. This design makes it much harder for humans to develop a realization of spiritual reality - an intentional challenge. This of course is a bad decision from the human standpoint, but our existing physical reality obviously has a design that permits rampant injustice and innocent suffering. So obviously whoever or whatever set the system up was not a human person and didn't much have human suffering in mind, or may have even considered it important enough to have a lot of.

Of course, the system design must be exceedingly complex, meaning that there will inevitably be many conflicts between design requirements, which automatically necessitates a lot of difficult tradeoffs. We can't know what these tradeoffs were, but they may explain a lot of the "evils" of Earth life.

I realize that this idea of the planet as a learning experience has been offered in the context of both Survival evidence as well as other communications like Channelers and arguably even in the revelations of certain faiths...but I just don't buy it. I mean maybe as you say it was the original intention but I just look at this world and it seems very "random" in the sense that it is quite unclear what people are supposed to learn. Even the idea of this reality being some kind of entertainment seems questionable.

My best guess is Survival might as well be a natural phenomena as it seems to be almost as arbitrary as the patterns of Nature in this life. There does seem to be some situations where intention can influence destination as in certain reincarnation cases but even this seems to only work sometimes.

I *hope* that Someone is trying to make it all mean something, but I don't see a clear reason to think that's the case...

 Quantum mechanics is, first and foremost, a mathematical system. There is no mathematical term for “conscious entity looking at something.”

Looking for a definition of "an observer" can be found in the math and logic of information science.  An observation is to import information and is measurable in the series of equations gaging mutual information.  If the import of information was by an intelligent agent, the outcome of the information will change the probable choices for the agent.  There is a measurable decrease in entropy and maybe an increase in understanding.

QM and information theory are both in the math of probability and in states, where context matters.

So while it is correct to say that there is no equivalent to a "force" - information transfer as observation and communication is causal activity.

So while it is correct to say that there is no equivalent to a "force" - information transfer as observation and communication is causal activity.

I may have asked this before but any connection to Whitehead's ideas of causality as transmission of experience*.

*Assuming I have any idea of what Whitehead was saying about anything...

[Ninshub]

I realize that this idea of the planet as a learning experience has been offered in the context of both Survival evidence as well as other communications like Channelers and arguably even in the revelations of certain faiths...but I just don't buy it. I mean maybe as you say it was the original intention but I just look at this world and it seems very "random" in the sense that it is quite unclear what people are supposed to learn. Even the idea of this reality being some kind of entertainment seems questionable.

Hey Sci, I don't expect anything to provide you with complete or simple answers. I'm just curious if you've ever looked into Robert Schwartz' books (Your Soul's Plan, etc.). He's now a past-life regressionist but his books (the first ones anyway) dealt with meeting up with mediums and channelers and asking all those questions about why we incarnate, especially as it relates to suffering and tremendous challenges, and what "learning" means in this context. You may still end up feeling it unsatisfying and I respect that, but it did open up perspectives for me I hadn't necessarily thought of before. It did also often seem to resonate with what some NDErs come up with in terms of what "learning" is, often in terms of having a felt (you could say qualia) experience of something, rather than a spirit having an abstract notion of it. (Like the experience of riding a rollercoaster). That's a simplistic example, but it seemed to provide a lot of hypothetical answers, anyhow, to the "why's" and the "why's" behind those.

Of course he's interviewed online a bunch of places. There's at least one featured on BATGAP with Rick Archer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxi2wpJTXro

Looking for a definition of "an observer" can be found in the math and logic of information science.  An observation is to import information and is measurable in the series of equations gaging mutual information.  If the import of information was by an intelligent agent, the outcome of the information will change the probable choices for the agent.  There is a measurable decrease in entropy and maybe an increase in understanding.

QM and information theory are both in the math of probability and in states, where context matters.

So while it is correct to say that there is no equivalent to a "force" - information transfer as observation and communication is causal activity.

I don’t understand what you are saying here. There no link beteeen QM and information theory. Information theory is based on classic probability theory.

Hey Sci, I don't expect anything to provide you with complete or simple answers. I'm just curious if you've ever looked into Robert Schwartz' books (Your Soul's Plan, etc.). He's now a past-life regressionist but his books (the first ones anyway) dealt with meeting up with mediums and channelers and asking all those questions about why we incarnate, especially as it relates to suffering and tremendous challenges, and what "learning" means in this context. You may still end up feeling it unsatisfying and I respect that, but it did open up perspectives for me I hadn't necessarily thought of before. It did also often seem to resonate with what some NDErs come up with in terms of what "learning" is, often in terms of having a felt (you could say qualia) experience of something, rather than a spirit having an abstract notion of it. (Like the experience of riding a rollercoaster). That's a simplistic example, but it seemed to provide a lot of hypothetical answers, anyhow, to the "why's" and the "why's" behind those.

Of course he's interviewed online a bunch of places. There's at least one featured on BATGAP with Rick Archer.

Thanks - will check it out!

I should note that I don't discount the possibility that benevolent entities do seek to help us, and this could include a Limited God of some kind.

I just don't think that reality is ordered to such a degree we could be assured that Someone has a Plan to make sure all things turn out well.

From my well of quotes I overly rely on, William James' Will to Believe:

I CONFESS  that I do not see why the very existence of an invisible world may not in part depend on the personal response which any one of us may make to the religious appeal. God himself, in short, may draw vital strength and increase of very being from our fidelity. For my own part, I do not know what the sweat and blood and tragedy of this life mean, if they mean anything short of this. If this life be not a real fight, in which something is eternally gained for the universe by success, it is no better than a game of private theatricals from which one may withdraw at will. But it feels like a real fight,—as if there were something really wild in the universe which we, with all our idealities and faithfulnesses, are needed to redeem; and first of all to redeem our own hearts from atheisms and fears. For such a half-wild half-saved universe our nature is adapted. The deepest thing in our nature is this dumb region of the heart in which we dwell alone with our willingnesses and our unwillingnesses, our faiths and our fears. As through the cracks and crannies of caverns those waters exude from the earth’s bosom which then form the fountain-heads of springs, so in these crepuscular depths of personality the sources of all our outer deeds and decisions take their rise. Here is our deepest organ of communication with the nature of things; and compared with these concrete movements of our soul all abstract statements and scientific arguments—the veto, for example, which the strict positivist pronounces upon our faith—sound to us like mere chatterings of the teeth …

  These then are my last words to you: Be not afraid of life. Believe that life is worth living, and your belief will help create the fact. The ‘scientific’ proof that you are right may not be clear before the day of judgment (or some stage of being which that expression may serve to symbolize) is reached...

Or a little more subdued:

"It wouldn't hurt to light a candle for Jonah - We are, all of us, feeling for the worlds that move between the cracks in our senses.

Light a candle for your friend.

Good hearts push through many boundaries.

Have faith, Christoff.

Have faith in something."

-JM McDermott, Never Knew Another