I posted it in the more recent discussion of methodological naturalism, but in case you’re not following that discussion, here is the link to my full-length criticism of Robert Delfino’s paper on methodological naturalism, as promised:

On Junk Philosophy and Naturalism: A Criticism of Robert A. Delfino.

Of course, in quantum physics it has been supposed that quantum fluctuations can occur which might add or subtract energy from the universe willy-nilly. So I’m not sure how strongly we should adhere to the first law of thermodynamics anymore.

I’m not sure what you mean by “closed.” According to the second law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed. So, if that is true, then the universe is closed, because no new energy can come in, and none can leave. Is that what you mean by “closed?”

In any case, I see no reason to regard consciousness as a metaphysical hypothesis. I don’t see the sense in regarding any aspect or object of experience–or experience as a whole–as a metaphysical, as opposed to a physical, phenomenon.

You’ve recently used the term “metaphysical” in another discussion here, and I asked for clarification there as well. I don’t find “metaphysical” to be a useful term, unless we are talking about antiquated philosophical arguments or new age mysticism.

We have every reason to think of consciousness as a scientifically observable phenomenon. In fact, scientists have already begun observing parts of it. They just lack a complete description.

You seem to be not only arguing for an explanatory gap, but for a dualistic view of experience which regards consciousness as somehow otherworldly. I don’t think that makes sense, Ian. It is, at best, an irrational case of wishful thinking. At worst, it is stubborn ignorance. (I’m not saying where I think you personally fall on that spectrum of possibilities, mind you.)

Jason,

If a theistic God has any effect in this universe, then that God is in principle discoverable by science.

Do you disagree?

…………………………………………………………

If a conscious mind has any effect in this universe, then that conscious mind is in principle discoverable by science.

I’m afraid not because if the physical world is closed (as the materialists assume), then consciousness (whether of God, me, you, or anyone else) is causally superfluous.

Neither the infinite consciousness of a “God” or the finite consciousness of a human being are discoverable by science. They are metaphysical hypotheses, not scientific ones.

So I don’t know about Jason, but I certainly disagree.

Ian Wardell
http://existenceandreality.blogspot.com/

sonic,

I think I’ve been clear in my usage of the terms, and I don’t see where I may have abandonded reason or common sense. So I have nothing more to add at this time.

Obviously the dictionary version (and not even the OED one!) is not the authoritative definition of a philosophy. What is useful in a conversation is to define what YOU mean (you can use a dictionary definition if you want and it reflects your understanding but it doesn’t actually lend authority to your position in a high level discussion since dictionary definitions by their very nature are simplistic and the word or name may well carry all kinds of meaning in a specialized context).

For instance, you’ve been asked to define what YOU mean when you say “material” or “physical”. What do you mean since you don’t seem to use the word as most people do when discussing science?