Well, I'm back, after a rather long break. I think from now on I'll try to focus more on posting new subjects rather than only keeping up old discussions, though the latter can be quite interesting as well.

During a recent discussion, someone recommended an article about naturalism at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website (here) to help me understand better what it involves. I found it very interesting, and have a few points I would like to bring up for discussion.

If I understood it correctly, much of the argument in favor of naturalism was based on the law of conservation of energy and the principle of causal closure (i.e., "all physical effects can be accounted for by basic physical causes"). The argument seems to be that the mind has to be a physical entity at some level, otherwise it would violate the conservation of energy by producing physical effects. I have several points of contention with that argument.

1. Scientific laws are descriptive, not prescriptive.
The laws of science no more determine how the universe works than a map determines how a coastline looks. Just as a map only describes a coastline that is already there, the laws of science only describe a reality that is already there. If there is a discrepancy between coastline and map or reality and scientific laws, in both cases it is the latter that must be revised. Hence it is not proper to say that the law of conservation of energy precludes any and every possibility of energy not being conserved. Rather, we should say that so far as we know and have seen, energy is conserved. If we should happen to find a case where energy is not conserved, then the law must be revised, updated, or discarded, depending on the case. While this is not positive proof for a non-physical mind, it does in principle negate the dogmatic exclusion of such possibility based on this law alone.

2. Perhaps energy is conserved in ways we are not able to measure or understand at present.
It seems to me that cause and effect between mind and matter is a two-way street. Our thoughts, whether the result of physical processes or completely immaterial in nature, can affect our physical actions. In the same way, physical properties--eg., pain, pressure, heat, cold, light, sound, etc.--can affect our thoughts. An immaterial mind, such as that accepted by Christians, is no less real because it is not composed of matter. Therefore, even if we were to propose an immaterial mind, there seems to me no reason energy could not be conserved in the broader reality that encompasses both matter and mind. Mind both gives, and takes; causes, and receives effects. We might not be able to measure, quantify, specify, or otherwise scientifically understand the process at the moment, but that should not exclude the possibility in principle.

3. Perhaps the law of conservation of energy does not apply.
I cannot accept as yet that everything involved with the mind can be reduced to primarily physical causes. Yes, the basic physical processes and immediate causes can be explained, but the higher level motivations and (I would argue) ultimate causes are independent of the actual physical processes themselves. For instance, we can explain the physical processes and cause and effect chains involved in my punching you in the nose, at a biological level. But that does not explain my motivation for punching you, the reason those biological processes were initiated in the first place. Furthermore, if the reason I punched you was because you said something that made me angry, how do we translate that to purely physical processes? How do sound waves necessarily convert to the physical force of a punch, especially when the content of the sound waves is independent of the waves themselves? It seems to me any causation between mind and matter would be primarily at the higher levels of motivation, etc. But can such things be quantified? Can conservation of energy be applied to abstract concepts?

4. What about information?
Information is a concept that needs to be explained if naturalism as outlined in the article is to be accepted. Information has been proposed as a third fundamental entity, alongside energy and matter, but independent of both. Information is completely immaterial, though it does rely heavily on matter and even energy to be conveyed. Yet information produces unquestionably physical effects, particularly at the biological level through the genetic code. The information in the genetic code is not made up of the matter of DNA; rather, it depends on the highly complex and specified sequence of arrangements of matter. Yet almost every thing that happens in life at a biological level is caused by the genetic code. The biological activities of the cell are unquestionably physical effects, yet they are directly caused by a non-physical entity. According to the reasoning in the article linked above, this should be impossible. Yet we know that it is true. Why could not a non-physical mind have physical effects in the same way as non-physical information does?

What are your thoughts on this?