The “filter” theory might be consistent with the data, but that is an extremely low standard. Consistency with data is the bare minimum that any theory requires. The theoretical virtues go well beyond consistency with data: falsifiability, simplicity, predictive fecundity, clinical relevance, etc.. What does the filter theory bring to the table as an improvement on the standard neurocentric view?

From the same page, the coarse details show:

Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?

Accept or lean toward: physicalism 526 / 931 (56.4%)
Accept or lean toward: non-physicalism 252 / 931 (27%)
Other 153 / 931 (16.4%)

Thanks for providing that. I’m actually slightly surprised that 27% accept or lean to non-physcial, but I haven’t been keeping up on philosophy, I’m more interested in science and critical thinking at this point in my life.

Philosophical arguments can be logically sound with false premises. Therefore they don’t hold water if you can’t verify the premise as true.

In any case – if the mind is not material, it has no bearing on the science – brain damage is brain damage. Neurological disease is the same whether the brain is a filter or not. It doesn’t help us understand the brain and how to treat it.

Here’s a link to a recent survey among philosophers: http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

‘Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?

Accept: physicalism 322 / 931 (34.5%)
Lean toward: physicalism 204 / 931 (21.9%)
Accept: non-physicalism 132 / 931 (14.1%)
Lean toward: non-physicalism 120 / 931 (12.8%)
The question is too unclear to answer 59 / 931 (6.3%)
Agnostic/undecided 23 / 931 (2.4%)
Accept an intermediate view 22 / 931 (2.3%)
Accept another alternative 18 / 931 (1.9%)
Reject both 12 / 931 (1.2%)
Insufficiently familiar with the issue 8 / 931 (0.8%)
Skip 4 / 931 (0.4%)
There is no fact of the matter 3 / 931 (0.3%)
Accept both 3 / 931 (0.3%)
Other 1 / 931 (0.1%)’

These are just the percentages from 2011, and I currently have no data from previous years with which I could back up my claim that the number of dualists – or non-physicalists in general – has increased, but for all I know (from reading articles, papers etc.), this is the case. At the very least, the survey result shows that there are quite a few contemporary philosophers who reject physicalism or are unsure about it (even if it is still the mainstream view).

Also I must point out that all the data we have from the searing light of neuroscience is compatible with the brain being a filter of consciousness model. Also we can rule out the model of brain=mind due to the powerful and undeniable fact that the nature of conscious experience is incompatible with our concept of what is physical. If consciousness is not actually reducible in explanatory terms to a physical process, then the strange notion of brain=consciousness or mind model must be wrong, no matter how many correlations we observe.

Once again I urge you all to familiarize yourself with the Philosophers above, forget Dennet for a while.

The Dualist ideas are all very cool, but they are just pure speculation and while I’m not a philosopher, I find the arguments made by the respected people you quote are making some pretty big assumptions, which any science-minded person will not grant. False Premise, invalid conclusion…

Bring it. Tell us a problem. Don’t cite other people. Give an argument.