• Marcus de Brun
    264
    Not my definition, but in any case, I'm not sure life contradicts entropy. It doesn't contradict the second law of thermodynamics (at least not obviously) since we are not usually dealing with isolated systems when we are dealing with living creatures and their physiology.MetaphysicsNow

    You can be certain that life contradicts entropy.
    Entropy -> Chaos
    Life -> Order

    There is no equivocation here.

    M
  • MetaphysicsNow
    315
    Entropy is just a measure of the energy of a system that is not available for conversion into work. That at least is the initial basic physical description, and it is consistent with the idea that it is a state variable. Measures/state variables are not the kinds of things that are susceptible to contradiction - propositions/theories/laws and so on are the kinds of things that can be contradicted. Life does not contradict the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (which is the principle law concerning entropy) since when we are considering life, we are not considering isolated systems, and the 2nd law concerns isolated systems.
  • Wayfarer
    6.2k
    You can be certain that life contradicts entropy.
    Entropy -> Chaos
    Life -> Order
    Marcus de Brun

    Google 'negentropy'.
  • Uber
    147
    The existence of life does not contradict the 2nd law, which in one of its many (many) variations states that the combined entropy of the system and the surroundings will always increase in an irreversible process. Ordered systems like life can arise as an efficient mechanism of increasing the overall entropy of the Universe. Michael Russell's theory is based on this very idea: that life is a low-entropy biochemical pathway for hydrogenating carbon dioxide, which leads to more entropy overall. Life is not unique as a system that can replicate, assemble, and grow. There is a whole field of physics called active matter physics that studies lifelike systems that are not life. There was an astounding experiment back in 2012 or so where vortices in a uniquely turbulent fluid started replicating spontaneously. Other systems have since been found with very ridiculous properties that closely approximate life.

    I think physicists could state the fundamental idea of life more elegantly: life is a dissipative thermodynamic system that aims to avoid equilibrium with the rest of the world (since equilibrium represents death for us). It takes in energy from outside, uses some of it to maintain internal order, then dissipates the vast majority of the absorbed energy back to the environment. At the end of this process, the total entropy of the organism and the environment has actually increased. Of course our internal order doesn't last forever and eventually we die. Second law still stands.

    Come on now Marcus, you can do better than this.
  • Uber
    147
    Incidentally my favorite version of the 2nd law does not involve entropy at all, largely because entropy is one of the most abused and misunderstood concepts in the history of science. Marcus has provided an example of that abuse in this thread. This is the best way to think about the 2nd law: heat and energy flows can never be entirely converted into mechanical work. MetaphysicsNow hinted at this definition above.

    Now it's more obvious that life does not violate the 2nd law. Most of the energy consumed by living things ends up as waste and heat (dissipation). Only a small fraction of it actually gets converted into work, like the motion of our muscles. The efficiency of muscles themselves is about 20%, roughly meaning that around 20% of the chemical energy stored in ATP molecules actually becomes the motion of the muscle. The rest is lost as heat.
  • wellwisher
    114
    Physics is mostly based on solid and gas state analogies. Gravity is about gases and solid dust becoming compressed into solid and gaseous planets and stars. Chemistry primarily deals with the liquid state, which has unique properties not found in solids and gases. The liquid state is not as common in the universe, as gases and solids. Physics left it out in terms of bulk modeling.

    The entropic force is not everywhere, but is restricted to the liquid state. The standard four forces are connected to gas, solid and liquid. The entropic force is not. Physics is not equipped to deal with liquid properties like the entropic force, using on a theoretical framework designed for gas and solid analogies. But it is real and easy to show in the lab. Life is 20% solid state and 80% liquid state allowing the life force. The solid is needed to help direct the force vector.

    Say we wanted to modeled the universe as a huge liquid, dark energy would be connected to the entropic force. In this model, the universe would need a semi permeable membrane analogy; solid, that allows selective movement, to generate an entropy force that expands the universe.

    A liquid allows surface tension and pressure to exist side by side; glass of water open to the air. The surface tension is connected to the entropic force; dark energy, while the pressure is connected to gravity and matter.
  • creativesoul
    2.6k
    Consciousness is a chimera, residue stemming from a gross misunderstanding of what it is to be human - as opposed to just being an animal. It is not an opposite situation. It is a comparitive one. The only difference is complexity of thought and belief.

    Get thought and belief right, and the 'problem' between conscious experience and physiological sensory perception(brain) is solved(dissolved) as an unintended consequence.
  • SteveKlinko
    185
    Consciousness is a chimera, residue stemming from a gross misunderstanding of what it is to be human - as opposed to just being an animal. It is not an opposite situation. It is a comparitive one. The only difference is complexity of thought and belief.

    Get thought and belief right, and the 'problem' between conscious experience and physiological sensory perception(brain) is solved(dissolved) as an unintended consequence
    creativesoul
    Explain to us what we have to do with our Thoughts and Beliefs to solve the Problem (I'm assuming the Hard Problem).
  • creativesoul
    2.6k
    What, do you want a thesis? Not going to happen.

    I'm just nudging you in the right direction.

    It's not a matter of monism vs. dualism. It's a matter of neither being adequate. It's a matter of how it's been talked about. Change the path and you'll end up in a different place.

    Start by geting thought and belief right... ontologically, I mean. All thought and belief consists entirely of correlations drawn between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or the creature itself(it's state of 'mind'; mental state).

    "Consciousness" is nothing more than a namesake given to various forms of complex thought and belief and/or it's effects/affects.
  • Marcus de Brun
    264
    one small breech in the dam and an eager philosopher rushes to the spot and sticks his head in the hole. For a time the job is oxo, until the next crack appears and another rushes to apply his head to the same problem. The catastrophe will apparently be avoided for as long as we have a supply of philosophers to use their heads and protect us all from the truth.

    Let's take our heads from the cracks and return to the water. The entropy of contained or uncontained processes is equally contingent upon mind. It (entropy) is equally contingent upon temporality. Therefore the interacting a priori are time and mind. When Descartes proved the existence of thought he equally proved the existence of time. These are the universal building blocks. An appropriate understanding of the relations here, must be completed before one applies ones head to the dam and speculates upon the dirty stuff that is matter and the ephemeral 'laws' that night pertain to its interactions.
  • SteveKlinko
    185
    What, do you want a thesis? Not going to happen.

    I'm just nudging you in the right direction.

    It's not a matter of monism vs. dualism. It's a matter of neither being adequate. It's a matter of how it's been talked about. Change the path and you'll end up in a different place.

    Start by geting thought and belief right... ontologically, I mean. All thought and belief consists entirely of correlations drawn between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or the creature itself(it's state of 'mind'; mental state).

    "Consciousness" is nothing more than a namesake given to various forms of complex thought and belief and/or it's effects/affects.
    creativesoul

    When you say this you imply that you have some deep insight into Consciousness. You very well might be right. But you have to provide us with better explanations than that we have to get our Thinking Right. A Thesis is not necessary but a Paragraph would be helpful.
  • Uber
    147
    So, this was all a bunch of nonsense that means virtually nothing and did not substantially address any of the points raised against your original argument. Cool.
  • Marcus de Brun
    264


    Not certain which argument you are referring to. My original and current point is that mind or consciousness has not been shown to arise from material interactions and the inverse is most likely the case. Objects that interact at an atomic and even sub atomic level must be conceived or perceived to do so. The interactions between matter and its relations to entropy involve a quantum leap out of the subject that is consciousness and into the realm where a material self has been assumed.

    I believe the relations between mind and matter are difficult to comprehend because an appropriate theory of mind has yet to be formulated. Such a theory would be dependent NOT upon mind matter interaction nor matter matter interactions, such speculations are based upon the presumptive notion of an 'I' or material self and thenceforth upon an assumed objective material reality. I am not saying that material reality does not exist, I am merely saying that we have only the uncorroborated testimony of mind to vouch for this and at best we are not getting the full truth. Mind or thought exists, we can be certain of this much. However to jump from mind to matter without a sound theory of mind is to begin with an enormous assumption that leads to a Universe of material assumption.

    We can be certain the mind exists, and when this was proven to be such, Descartes has also inadvertently proven that there must equally be conditionalities for the existence of mind. These conditions have hitherto been believed to be material, but they are clearly not, and they (material conditions) have not been uncovered. I believe this is because we are continually looking in the wrong place (matter) As such it is inconsequential if entropy is positive or negative and if it is contradicted by material life processes.

    It is likely that the sole conditionality that must contain mind is a temporal one and not a material one. Again I am not saying that material existence is not real, I am saying that it is merely a byproduct of the mind and mind conditionalities. The conditions that contain thought or mind are at least temporal and if this is true then we have something definite to work with vis the relations between thought and time. A million philosophers have spent an ocean of ink upon the relations between thought and matter, and this approach is futility incarnate.

    I have a suspicion that material reality is produced as a consequence of the relationship between thought and time. I have written an paper on the subject and if permitted to do so I will publish it here under the article's section. I don't pretend that it has all the answers but I think it begins to ask some of the right questions, and I would be grateful for some Philosophical input.

    I don't know about you but I am bored senseless with the never-ending debate about mind-matter and would love to see the question take a new direction without material assumptions. Let the physicists have their entropy it may well be just another entertaining delusion.
  • Uber
    147
    Not really interested in that debate Marcus, sorry. But you should look up a few things on entropy, for fun if nothing else.
  • creativesoul
    2.6k
    What, do you want a thesis? Not going to happen.

    I'm just nudging you in the right direction.

    It's not a matter of monism vs. dualism. It's a matter of neither being adequate. It's a matter of how it's been talked about. Change the path and you'll end up in a different place.

    Start by geting thought and belief right... ontologically, I mean. All thought and belief consists entirely of correlations drawn between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or the creature itself(it's state of 'mind'; mental state).

    "Consciousness" is nothing more than a namesake given to various forms of complex thought and belief and/or it's effects/affects.
    — creativesoul

    When you say this you imply that you have some deep insight into Consciousness. You very well might be right. But you have to provide us with better explanations than that we have to get our Thinking Right. A Thesis is not necessary but a Paragraph would be helpful.
    SteveKlinko

    There is no such thing as some deep insight into consciousness. It's nothing more than a bunch of different notions throughout human history based upon the idea that humans, and thus human minds were somehow different than animal minds in some special kind of way. There's nothing special about it. It's a matter of complexity, and that's it.

    All thought. All belief. All statements. All meaning. All of these things consist entirely of mental correlations drawn between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or the agent(creature) itself. The only difference is in the complexity of the correlations.
  • SteveKlinko
    185
    There is no such thing as some deep insight into consciousness. It's nothing more than a bunch of different notions throughout human history based upon the idea that humans, and thus human minds were somehow different than animal minds in some special kind of way. There's nothing special about it. It's a matter of complexity, and that's it.

    All thought. All belief. All statements. All meaning. All of these things consist entirely of mental correlations drawn between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or the agent(creature) itself. The only difference is in the complexity of the correlations.
    creativesoul
    I think most people recognize that animals probably have some kind of Conscious existence and experience similar to what humans have. So how would you explain the Conscious Red experience using your Correlations drawn between 'Objects' of physiological sensory perception ... proposition?
  • tom
    1.5k
    I think most people recognize that animals probably have some kind of Conscious existence and experience similar to what humans have.SteveKlinko

    That is just an example of the typical anthropomorphizing that people do. There is no evidence that animals possess qualia, and let's hope robots don't either.

    If animals can create "what-it-is-like" knowledge, then what stops them creating any other kind of knowledge?
  • creativesoul
    2.6k
    ...So how would you explain the Conscious Red experience using your Correlations drawn between 'Objects' of physiological sensory perception ... propositionSteveKlinko

    I wouldn't. That notion is utterly meaningless to me personally. That said...

    If you would like, you can explain to me what you mean by "Conscious Red experience", and perhaps I could translate into my framework afterwards. As it stands, I'm sure that whatever you say will consist of the aforementioned correlations.
  • SteveKlinko
    185
    If you would like, you can explain to me what you mean by "Conscious Red experience", and perhaps I could translate into my framework afterwards. As it stands, I'm sure that whatever you say will consist of the aforementioned correlations.creativesoul
    We don't even need to consider Correlations. I'm talking about the Red experience itself. How does the Red experience happen in the Conscious Mind? What is it? What experiences it?
  • creativesoul
    2.6k
    What is the Red experience? What does it consist of? Apple pies consist of their ingredients. What are the ingredients of a Red experience?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.