What theories of consciousness are falsifiable

My read is they think they have an iron clad argument for non-local consciousness.


Agreed. Yet there will always be those that will still insist NDE's,OBE's... = proof the brain does not create consciousness.

I realize that, but that's fairly normal for science - a few cheerleaders for an idea overstate the case, followed by more formal research which garners some interest depending upon whether or not it pans out. I get that there is a disconnect between what lay-people regard as evidence and what scientists do. My point was mostly that there is no real barrier to subjecting those ideas to the kind of research which could serve as evidence for the idea, even if that research has not yet been performed. 

I'm not holding my breath.

No, I'm not either. The idea of performing research under low risk of bias doesn't yet seem to be gaining momentum.

Linda

What does that mean? Does a philosophical position have relevance to scientific investigation? How is an investigatable domain determined if not empirically?

Oh, is this something like the naturalism thread, where philosophers define stuff in a way which does not reflect reality?

Linda

There’s much empirical evidence that the brain is, at the very least, heavily involved with the processing of, and interaction with, our environment.

Competing philosophical models can either ignore the evidence or fold the model to fit that data. Some will look at neural correlates, or the impact of brain injuries, and say, ‘this is what we expect to see if the brain is an antenna’. How can one test that?

To deny the link between conscious awareness and biology seems wilful to me. However, some find succour in rubbishing the ‘mainstream consensus’ so there’s bound to be a market for more speculative pondering.

There’s much empirical evidence that the brain is, at the very least, heavily involved with the processing of, and interaction with, our environment.

Competing philosophical models can either ignore the evidence or fold the model to fit that data, some will look at neural correlates, or the impact of brain injuries, and say, ‘this is what we expect to see if the brain is an antenna’. How can one test that?

To deny the link between conscious awareness and biology seems wilful to me. However, some find succour in rubbishing the ‘mainstream consensus’ so there’s bound to be a market for more speculative pondering.

I don't see any denial of a link between conscious awareness and biology...? Seems to be more of a contention on what is affecting what, how and why.

It may be claimed that there is empirical evidence that it's the brain that's doing the processing and interaction, but it seems to me to be more of what's being focused on, and how the raw data is being interpreted by the subconscious and unconscious biases of the researchers.

There is also the filter model, apart from the antenna model... and given the various events of brain injuries, recovery from such, and NDEs, the filter model is a much neater fit. The antenna model has never really make any sense to me. I just don't grasp how it could work...

To deny the link between conscious awareness and biology seems wilful to me. However, some find succour in rubbishing the ‘mainstream consensus’ so there’s bound to be a market for more speculative pondering.

What I wonder is where psi fits into this viewpoint. (This is, after all, a site whose theme is the discussion of psi.)

In the absence of psi, it may seem perverse to question the idea that mind is produced by brain through the action of known physical laws. But in the presence of psi, there's obviously something about the mind that isn't explicable in those terms.

So are the sceptics here implicitly assuming that the evidence for psi can be dismissed? Or are they assuming that even if psi does exist, it can somehow be accommodated into an essentially materialist view of the world, by tweaking the laws of physics or something?

There’s much empirical evidence that the brain is, at the very least, heavily involved with the processing of, and interaction with, our environment.

Competing philosophical models can either ignore the evidence or fold the model to fit that data. Some will look at neural correlates, or the impact of brain injuries, and say, ‘this is what we expect to see if the brain is an antenna’. How can one test that?

To deny the link between conscious awareness and biology seems wilful to me. However, some find succour in rubbishing the ‘mainstream consensus’ so there’s bound to be a market for more speculative pondering.

Is this a game? Count the strawmen?

I don't see any denial of a link between conscious awareness and biology...? Seems to be more of a contention on what is affecting what, how and why.

It may be claimed that there is empirical evidence that it's the brain that's doing the processing and interaction, but it seems to me to be more of what's being focused on, and how the raw data is being interpreted by the subconscious and unconscious biases of the researchers.

There is also the filter model, apart from the antenna model... and given the various events of brain injuries, recovery from such, and NDEs, the filter model is a much neater fit. The antenna model has never really make any sense to me. I just don't grasp how it could work...

Can you describe to me how the flaws in the antenna model are overcome by the filter model?

Is this a game? Count the strawmen?

Heh. Given that we are discussing filter/antenna models it may seem that way to you, with your idealistic perspective. For example, you may well agree that consciousness is a biological phenomenon, yet I've seen plenty of push back on that issue.

There’s much empirical evidence that the brain is, at the very least, heavily involved with the processing of, and interaction with, our environment.

Competing philosophical models can either ignore the evidence or fold the model to fit that data. Some will look at neural correlates, or the impact of brain injuries, and say, ‘this is what we expect to see if the brain is an antenna’. How can one test that?

To deny the link between conscious awareness and biology seems wilful to me. However, some find succour in rubbishing the ‘mainstream consensus’ so there’s bound to be a market for more speculative pondering.

That's the point of falsification - you're also under an obligation to find out if you see the same thing if the brain isn't an antenna. If it's the same either way, then we're back to Paul's sig.

Linda

There’s much empirical evidence that the brain is, at the very least, heavily involved with the processing of, and interaction with, our environment.

Competing philosophical models can either ignore the evidence or fold the model to fit that data. Some will look at neural correlates, or the impact of brain injuries, and say, ‘this is what we expect to see if the brain is an antenna’. How can one test that?

To deny the link between conscious awareness and biology seems wilful to me. However, some find succour in rubbishing the ‘mainstream consensus’ so there’s bound to be a market for more speculative pondering.

I know people often resist watching videos posted in threads - I'm guilty of that myself. However, I am very confident that most proponents here will agree with most of what Alan Wallace has to say in this half-hour talk. If you are interested, he sums up our position very well while, at the same time, addressing your point about empirical evidence.