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

[Ninshub]

That's the word that came to my mind earlier reading Merle's post: "temporary" (and we might add possibly "partial").

The mind being affected by the brain (and viceversa) is an undeniable fact.

BUT, if the dependence model was true, why do anomalous instances of mental function persisting despite great damage to cerebral structure occur?

The Importance of the Exceptional in Tackling Riddles of Consciousness and Unusual Episodes of Lucidity

These periods of lucidity are well known to occur sporadically with certain types of dementia... perhaps some cases are just those who die at the time of one of these periods of lucidity. But taken together with all the evidence we have available, this seems likely to be only a poor approximation of what is really going on.

Li Huei Tsai showed we can substantially destroy the brains networks causing loss of memory, yet following robust recreation of these networks, memory does return, suggesting such severe damage merely prevents recall, not that memory is lost.

We can also show behavioral effects on organisms using 'external' hyper-weak magnetic fields - thousands of times weaker than the earths local magnetic field.

Memory is also subject to the environment, learning under one condition, but recalling under another does cause problems - a well known problem for deep sea divers.

You can look at retrograde amnesiac effects of drugs like Midazolam, where we also see a strong anterograde reinforcement of memory from the period before the drug was administered - theories abound, but interference theories fit best.

You can also look at 'blocking effects' in molluscs, that have so few neurons, that the idea of higher processing taking place within the brain becomes rather unattractive.

As you point out, the idea that the brain is somehow involved in my experience is hardly controversial, but what is really going on remains unclear. My own controversial view is that past brain states 'directly' interfere with present brain states. I mean directly too. I think we have trouble defining that idea, using our current terminology, or even trying to think about it, because it is in my brain, but not my brain from now, it's from my brain in the past.

If your brain state in the past was different, and incompatible with your normal current brain state, it might be that in some cases the reason we do not have explicit recalled experiences are because you simply lost access to memory, because it was laid down in an incompatible way, you could no longer access it.

Once we open the door to the involvement of information from [what we label] the past, we have to start looking at similar effects over [what we label] space too, and we're forced to introduce the idea that any matching patterns within structures of the brain, can be added-up, not even your own, absolutely any, in a way that transcends spacetime.

Ultimately you get to a place (well I got to a place) where matching classical patterns (any), can add up non-classically (transcend spacetime), and that results in our experience... and the solutions that arise from that, offer a far more effective way of explaining our experience. And indeed, this is where physics seems to be heading.

Before my grandmother had a stroke, she would interact with people and remember it. After her stroke, she would interact with people, and not remember it happened. If the mind is dependent on the brain, this is easy to explain. If the mind is not dependent on the brain, can you explain why this happens?

Your experience with your grandmother (which I have much empathy so please excuse me speaking more directly for purposes of our discussion), is your observation.  It is an observation of correlation and not causality.  Further, your ability to observe is limited since you are simply a fellow human being.  There are countless potential alternative explanations other than a strict mind=brain-full-stop position.  Your position isn't unreasonable in my mind (as you state, its what you observe) but to hold it as well-grounded or even 'scientific' is just nonsense.

If you were being intellectually honest, you would be more agnostic on your position.  What I've been saying for pages in this thread.

..................................
Li Huei Tsai showed we can substantially destroy the brains networks causing loss of memory, yet following robust recreation of these networks, memory does return, suggesting such severe damage merely prevents recall, not that memory is lost.
..................................

Interesting. This research result seems to indicate that memory is held somewhere and in some form that we haven't discovered yet. And the finding that "...severe (brain) damage merely prevents recall, not that memory is lost" would be predicted by the filter/transceiver theory of mind. 

LOL. This misrepresents all that I said here. I have answered this stuff multiple times. Will you simply ignore what I write, and claim victory?

If anybody reading this wants to know what I actually said, you can go back and read my posts here. I see no need to repeat it again. If there are any questions for me, please ask.

People should definitely read your posts...

OK, I read the study you reference. (Sarraf, M., Woodley, M., Tressoldi, P. (2020). Anomalous information reception by mediums: A meta-analysis of the scientific evidence. Explore 17, 10.1016/j.explore.2020.04.002.)

It does have some merit. It is a compilation of 18 studies of mediums. In each of these studies, mediums were told the name of the deceased that the person in another room wanted to hear from. These mediums then prepared reported messages they were hearing from the named deceased person.

Later the person requesting the reading would be presented two readings, one reportedly from the requested departed person, and one reportedly from somebody else. In general the people requesting the services of the medium guessed the right message about half the time. In some studies they guessed correctly slightly more than half the time. In other studies, they guessed wrong more than half the time.

Though many of these studies had right answers slightly more than half the time, the findings were not enough for science to call them significant. If, for illustration, you flip a coin 50 times, and come up with heads 26 times, that is not enough to prove the coin flip is anything but random.

.....................................................................

So I find this study interesting, but the small observed affect does nothing to overthrow all of neuroscience, which finds that the mind is dependent on the brain, and hence is unlikely to survive death.

Small observed effect? What about this follow-on study of mediumship accuracy from 2022, which employed 28 mediums, also with a triple-blind protocol:

Is There Someone in the Hereafter? Mediumship Accuracy of 100 Readings Obtained with a Triple Level of Blinding Protocol

Patrizio Tressoldi, Laura Liberale, and Fernando Sinesio

http://www.patriziotressoldi.it/cmssimpl...ter_22.pdf

Abstract
The accuracy of information obtained by 28 self-claimant mediums related to 100
readings obtained with a triple level of blinding was examined across three indices:
percentage of correct reading identified by the sitters, global score of readings and
percentage of difference between correct and incorrect information.

All three indices showed statistical differences of the intended versus the control
readings: correct identification 65%; global score: intended readings, mean = 2.4, SD =
1.5; control readings, mean = 1.7, SD = 1.2; percentage difference between correct and
incorrect information: intended readings, mean =
7.9%, SD = 38.7%; control readings,
mean =
27.3%, SD = 38%.

Our results using a very large sample, confirm previous results, supporting the hypothesis that self-claimant mediums are able to retrieve correct information about deceased people without knowing and interacting with the sitters having access with only to the deceased persons’ first name.

Note: the calculated cumulative p value was 0.000048.

Small observed effect? What about this follow-on study of mediumship accuracy from 2022, which employed 28 mediums, also with a triple-blind protocol:

Is There Someone in the Hereafter? Mediumship Accuracy of 100 Readings Obtained with a Triple Level of Blinding Protocol

Patrizio Tressoldi, Laura Liberale, and Fernando Sinesio

http://www.patriziotressoldi.it/cmssimpl...ter_22.pdf


Note: the calculated cumulative p value was 0.000048.

I have zero confidence in these types of triple blind medium studies, where the sitter gets to judge whether a statement was more accurate, or less accurate. But at least Beischel's fiendishly difficult papers told us that where her studies answers were factual, the sitters judged the accuracy as poor, when the answers were open to opinion the sitters judged them more accurate. This study seems even worse, we don't get to know anything about the answers/accuracy. We basically have two groups of people, one group makes statements (we don't know what they were), and the other group judges them (and we don't know if the judging is accurate), and someone publishes a paper, and says hey, we got a significant result. It's just such rubbish...

I have zero confidence in these types of triple blind medium studies, where the sitter gets to judge whether a statement was more accurate, or less accurate. But at least Beischel's fiendishly difficult papers told us that where her studies answers were factual, the sitters judged the accuracy as poor, when the answers were open to opinion the sitters judged them more accurate. This study seems even worse, we don't get to know anything about the answers/accuracy. We basically have two groups of people, one group makes statements (we don't know what they were), and the other group judges them (and we don't know if the judging is accurate), and someone publishes a paper, and says hey, we got a significant result. It's just such rubbish...

Actually, I've just noticed a there is a database... for each mediums answers (in Italian) I presume, with columns of 'interact' and 'no interact' (I don't understand the significance of these). I'll just post the first two mediums answers translated in google... I can't be bothered to do more, because it's even worse than I expected, the answers are almost entirely obvious, vague, or highly likely/common.

Medium 1

Interact

Shows difficulty in speaking
He shows me a picture his family are looking at that he has had to make choices about
She tells me "I couldn't express my feelings"
Show me white flowers or small white objects
His house was not really in the city because he shows me a lot of greenery from his house
It makes me hear the noise of a railway or a train in the distance
He often shows me his ring finger, maybe he wants to show me a ring

No Interact

Woman around 40 years old
Thin
Private person
He had quite serious vision problems
A sore throat
Dark of hair
When he was at the end of his illness he often passed out
He did work where he used his head (concentration) and hands
It gives me a feeling of loneliness
He spent some time in the hospital
She left with remorse that she hadn't said all she had to say
She was married
He had a son
She is very attached to a person, her mother or someone who has been her mother and is with her in the afterlife
He read newspapers or crossword puzzles
I see an abortion, but I don't know if it refers to her or to the woman in the other consultation
Two or three people have been very close to her
It was dark when she died
The applicant for this consultation is a man
She comes off with an appearance I interpret as being around 60 years old or older
Died of a health problem
Quite a long illness
Problems standing, knees or legs
Corpulent, rounded woman
Anxious person
He was a sober person
Voluminous hair, backcombed type
He dyed his hair
She was nice
Work or hobby with flowers or soil
She was a woman of the wrist
She was a smoker
She was in the hospital a lot
She was buried, or dressed for the last farewell, in a blue dress
He was very believer
His father is also in the afterlife
His father is a thin and tall man
His father was a smoker
His father died of heart problems
He left a daughter or a granddaughter, however a female figure
Daughter or granddaughter has family or sentimental problems, says "courage"

Medium 2

Interact

He shows me a religious figure on his bed
He tells me a name that begins with a D, perhaps Domenico or Domenica
He talks to me about family chats about a property
It makes me feel the presence of a man who died long before or long after her. Dark-haired, reserved and a smoker
He mentions Giuseppe's name
She shows me a white housewife or cook apron
He shows me a pocket with button teeth
He shows me a mask, like oxygen, when he was in the hospital
He talks to me about problems with a car, to her or his family
He shows me a slightly dark and antique wardrobe

No interact

Energetic, active woman **
Small Build**
Was 60 or older **
He had clear eyes**
Genuine person**
She was generous**
Did manual tasks**
Sociable woman**
He practiced in the social **
A combination of factors led to her death**
He gesticulated a lot
He lived in the suburbs
At some point in her life she had a hard time managing herself
She died when it was dark
He had difficulty with his fingers, like arthrosis
The applicant is a son or in any case a man
He had two sons
The family is uneasy about a young woman's move for study or travel
She makes me feel the presence of a man who died long before or long after her, dark-haired, reserved and a smoker
He sends me a peppermint flavor
Between May and April there is an anniversary to remember
She died quite young**
Cheerful and jovial person**
She died of illness**
Roundish in build**
She had a strong character and for this reason she was sometimes misunderstood**
He had a problem between the abdomen and stomach which shows me very swollen**
It is shown as if kneading bread or dough**
He had no particular hobbies**
He had fine, slightly thinning hair**
She wore soft colors**
She had quite large breasts**
His hands were a little rough, not very well-kept**
He had a foot problem, like a big toe**
She looks tired
His life was rather tiring, not easy
She passed when it was dark
In a span of 24/48 hours before her departure, she seemed dead for a few minutes, then recovered, but then left
Her father is with her in the afterlife
Her father is a taller man than her, he welcomed her into the afterlife
Her maternal grandmother is also in the afterlife, and has taken her in
He has remorse that he left something unfinished with his son
The hair was no other than shoulders in length
There were so many clothes in her closets
He had bought new shoes that he didn't have time to wear
It makes me feel like a light colored animal of small to medium size, bonded to her or to the applicant
She is sorry for not having understood the value of what was around her
She's sorry for her character, for how she sometimes put herself
He says he didn't have time to arrange some papers or documents
Someone in the family has health problems, they want to reassure that person

Actually, I've just noticed a there is a database... for each mediums answers (in Italian) I presume, with columns of  'interact' and 'no interact' (I don't understand the significance of these). I'll just post the first two mediums answers translated in google... I can't be bothered to do more, because it's even worse than I expected, the answers are almost entirely obvious, vague, or highly likely/common.

You've managed to casually trash a lot of work here. Looking at these example communications, many of them are hardly "obvious, vague, or highly likely/common". For instance, "He had bought new shoes that he didn't have time to wear". This statement is not obvious, not vague, and not highly likely. How likely is that to apply to just any person? Not very. Another: "He had difficulty with his fingers, like arthrosis". What is the probability of that in the population? I don't know, but it isn't high. Another: "He says he didn't have time to arrange some papers or documents". How likely is that statement to apply to just any person? Another: "It makes me feel like a light colored animal of small to medium size, bonded to her or to the applicant". The person had a small light colored pet dog or cat. How likely would this statement apply to just any person?

If in a phone session with no cold reading allowed and no preparation a medium made a lot of true statements about me or a deceased family member, a reasonable conclusion would be that the medium was genuine. Even if many of the individual statements had some modicum of probability, it's less than 1 and it's the cumulative multiplicative improbability that matters.

"Interact" means communications where the discarnate is actively responding to the medium. "No interact" means passive observations by the medium.

Before my grandmother had a stroke, she would interact with people and remember it. After her stroke, she would interact with people, and not remember it happened. If the mind is dependent on the brain, this is easy to explain. If the mind is not dependent on the brain, can you explain why this happens?

Maybe the mind is dependent on the brain as long as it is locked into a physical body but there is also the possibility of unlocking it such as in NDEs and OOBEs?  Even if it is the case, it is no proof of survival.  For all we know, the "soul," if it exists, might be a residual phenomenon that fades in time.