Empiricism

[Tassman]

It is impossible for any closed physical system to increase or decrease in internal energy.

Planet Earth is not a “closed physical system” either in respect to matter (e.g. cosmic dust, small debris and meteors etc) or energy - as per electromagnetic energy radiating to earth from the sun etc.

Furthermore, you’re confusing experimental science, i.e. the proposing and testing of hypotheses (in this instance the emergence of consciousness), with established scientific theories such as Evolution, Gravity and the Laws of Thermodynamics - all of which are considered factual beyond reasonable doubt, although falsifiable in principle.

[Tassman]

Yes, and as with the appearance of this universe, the appearance of biological life, we don't have to assume that consciousness is the result of a strictly materialistic processes.

Do you have some substantiated evidence of an alternative to “strictly materialistic processes”? If not why should one take such a notion seriously? And what do you mean by “strictly” - are you suggesting that it was mostly “materialistic” with a little help from a non-material force of some sort? Evidence please.

[Leonhard]

Planet Earth is not a “closed physical system”

I was not making a claim about Earth. What made you think that?

Furthermore, you’re confusing experimental science, i.e. the proposing and testing of hypotheses (in this instance the emergence of consciousness), with established scientific theories such as Evolution, Gravity and the Laws of Thermodynamics - all of which are considered factual beyond reasonable doubt, although falsifiable in principle.

The statement I gave is true, and we hold to it with all the certainty that natural science allows us. It was a counter example to your quote from Arthur C Clarke.

I can expand that list with a huge number of conservation laws and other impossibilities.

[Tassman]

I was not making a claim about Earth. What made you think that?

The context of the comment was regarding the emergence of consciousness as a part of the evolutionary process. Some claim (erroneously) that Evolution violates the second Law of Thermodynamics. If this is not what you were referring to, why invoke the second Law at all?

The statement I gave is true, and we hold to it with all the certainty that natural science allows us. It was a counter example to your quote from Arthur C Clarke.

I can expand that list with a huge number of conservation laws and other impossibilities.

I’m not denying that the Laws of Thermodynamics are true - with, of course, the usual caveat regarding falsifiability . You missed the point. You were confusing experimental science, which is what I’m talking about (and whimsically supporting with the Clarke quote), with well-established, empirically tested and verified scientific theories such as Quantum Theory, Gravity Theory, Electromagnetic Theory and Evolutionary Theory, et al, which in no way contradict the Laws of Thermodynamics and nor are these Laws relevant to this argument.

[Leonhard]

The context of the comment was regarding the emergence of consciousness as a part of the evolutionary process. Some claim (erroneously) that Evolution violates the second Law of Thermodynamics. If this is not what you were referring to, why invoke the second Law at all?

I agree that's an erroneous claim, however I was talking about the First Law, not the Second Law.

I’m not denying that the Laws of Thermodynamics are true - with, of course, the usual caveat regarding falsifiability . You missed the point. You were confusing experimental science, which is what I’m talking about (and whimsically supporting with the Clarke quote), with well-established, empirically tested and verified scientific theories such as Quantum Theory, Gravity Theory, Electromagnetic Theory and Evolutionary Theory, et al, which in no way contradict the Laws of Thermodynamics and nor are these Laws relevant to this argument.

I think you're making way too much out of this. I checked in on the thread after after having been away for a bit, see you quoting Arthur C Clarke, I remembered that he used this to justify belief in free energy nonsense. It became an important in his last works of science fiction, even in a great piece like The Songs of Distant Earth. Which is okay in a science fiction context, however in reality we have plenty of well established theories about what can't be done. So the quote isn't true in general.

We both seem to agree so I don't see why you're even arguing with me.

[JimL]

Yes, and as with the appearance of this universe, the appearance of biological life, we don't have to assume that consciousness is the result of a strictly materialistic processes.

Agreed, we don't have to assume it. But as Tass points out, there is no evidence to the contrary, no evidence of an immaterial substance so why assume it.

[seer]

Agreed, we don't have to assume it. But as Tass points out, there is no evidence to the contrary, no evidence of an immaterial substance so why assume it.

And there is no evidence that a materialistic process could do any of it, so why assume otherwise.

[JimL]

And there is no evidence that a materialistic process could do any of it, so why assume otherwise.

Well, for me it is because there is only evidence of the material nature of existence and consciousness itself resides only in the material in so far as we know it. There is no evidence supporting the contrary view, i.e. that there is an immaterial ghost residing in and controlling the physical body or that there is an immaterial world where thoughts and such float about. There is also no explanation by those who believe in the immaterial as to how it could effect the physical. But, contrary to your assertion, there is evidence that materialistic processes could do it, because that is all that we actually observe, and too we see different stages of consciousness within the complexity level of different living organisms.

[Tassman]

I agree that's an erroneous claim, however I was talking about the First Law, not the Second Law.

Well all four Laws of Thermodynamics have been established as ‘facts’ beyond reasonable doubt.

I think you're making way too much out of this. I checked in on the thread after after having been away for a bit, see you quoting Arthur C Clarke, I remembered that he used this to justify belief in free energy nonsense. It became an important in his last works of science fiction, even in a great piece like The Songs of Distant Earth. Which is okay in a science fiction context, however in reality we have plenty of well established theories about what can't be done. So the quote isn't true in general.

We both seem to agree so I don't see why you're even arguing with me.

But the quote IS “true” with regard to devising and testing hypotheses, which was the area of discussion.

Agreed it is not true of established scientific theories which have been empirically tested and verified, such as Evolution and Gravity; they can be tweaked and adjusted but seldom, if ever, entirely replaced. However this area of science was not in contention. I think you may have jumped into the discussion too soon.

And there is no evidence that a materialistic process could do any of it, so why assume otherwise.

To date, it appears that ‘consciousness’ is only found in evolved, material organisms like us and there is considerable factual evidence of evolution. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that ‘consciousness’ is a by-product of this same material process and evolved via Natural Selection - especially as there is no credible evidence to the contrary. Furthermore all neurological investigations point in this direction.