Empiricism

[Tassman]

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

Planet Earth is not

[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 ? If not why should one take such a notion seriously? And what do you mean by - are you suggesting that it was mostly

[Leonhard]

Planet Earth is not

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

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.

experimental science,

[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.

experimental science,

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.

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 ISnot 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.