Gaia

[g0pher]

The whole planet is a living organism and Mankind as part of that whole.

Humanity has become disconnected from Nature in our modern world of cities, cars and economics. the illusion that we exist as discrete bodies without relations to all other matter.

Recent discoveries on the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) show that human beings do not exist in isolation, but are in fact structures of the Universe. Thus they do not have dominion over the earth and all living things by divine decree,

Humans are intimately interconnected both to all other matter in the cosmos, and to all other life on Earth.

A human being is part of the whole called by us universe ... We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive. Albert Einstein

If we are "all creatures great and small," from bacteria to whales, part of Gaia then we are all of us potentially important to her well being. We knew in our hearts that the destruction of a whole ranges of other species was wrong but now we know why. No longer can we merely regret the passing of one of the great whales, or the blue butterfly, nor even the smallpox virus. When we eliminate one of these from Earth, we may have destroyed a part of ourselves, for we also are a part of Gaia.

We have a membership in this great commonwealth of living things. It may be that one role we play is as the senses and nervous system for Gaia. Through our eyes she has for the first time seen her very fair face and in our minds become aware of herself. We do indeed belong here. The earth is more than just a home, it's a living system and we are part of it.

[Rasta_Man]

I disagree with the Gaia hypothesis for a number of reasons, the first one is that there is clearly not mechanism of self-regulating homeostasis, as offered by Stephen Jay Gould.

Anyways -- I fail to see how "modern world of cities, cars and economics" is unnatural. If anything, it is the epitome of what highly evolved lifeforms should do.

To me, the gaia hypothesis reeks of a thinly veiled neo-pagan new age religion. It's ultimately deeply counter-productive to human society.

[Maitereya]

i like the article. though i dont know as much about the gaia hypothesis as stephen jay gould or rasta man, i still like the idea.

<TABLE class=tborder style="BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 0px" cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR title="Post 1852577" vAlign=top><TD class=alt1 align=middle width=125>Rasta_Man</TD><TD class=alt2>Anyways -- I fail to see how "modern world of cities, cars and economics" is unnatural. If anything, it is the epitome of what highly evolved lifeforms should do.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

i agree, but i think we could be building cities in a smarter way, using more efficient cars and economic models.

[Rasta_Man]

Originally Posted by Maitereya

i agree, but i think we could be building cities in a smarter way, using more efficient cars and economic models.

Oh yes, absolutely.

[jonathan]

You talk about this "Gaia" as if it's a living person with feelings and thoughts. You even give it a gender. where is her consciousness? How does she feel about your name for her? Have you ever talked to her?

How would you feel if you knew that Gaia is really an ancient God ultimately rooted in Babylonian religion?The spelling is actually Gaea and was the greek God of the fertile earth, the Roman counterpart being Terra. These Ancient deities are ulimately rooted in bablyonian religion, and are none other than semiramis, queen of babylon. Just about all of the ancient gods can be traced back to Babylon.Aphrodite, venus, artemis, diana, athena, minerva, demeter,ceres,herea, juno, hestia, vesta, rhea, ops, devka, isi, and other names far and wide. She was known far and wide as "the mother of the Gods". From historical records we know that simiramis was orignally a whore from erech, who was taken as wife by the conquering Nimrod. The words "shinar" and also "semaria" are both derived from her. Her name is actually a hellenized version of the sumerian name " suammur-amat" or "gift of the sea". her original name is lost, but we know this name originated because she was fabled to have been a virgin sprung from the sea at nimrod's landing, obscuring her history as a prostitute.

The earth is a system that supports life. That much can be said, but that does not make it a living organism. It carries no dna, has no consciousness, and cannot talk. We are the life, and we are not merely a collection of parts for survival but living, breathing things that have consciousness and feelings and a will. We are all part of this universe but we are all separate individuals with personal desires and self consciousness. Will you hold a handfull of earth in your hand, and call that God? I sure won't. And I sure wouldn't worship a 4000 year old prostitute.

[Rasta_Man]

Originally Posted by jonathan

You talk about this "Gaia" as if it's a living person with feelings and thoughts. You even give it a gender. where is her consciousness? How does she feel about your name for her? Have you ever talked to her?

While I tentatively agree with your conclusions, your comparison is a little skewed, Jonathan -- for example; plants have no discernible consciousness or sentience, but they are quite alive.

The earth is a system that supports life. That much can be said, but that does not make it a living organism.

You are right that it doesn't make it a living organism. But the argument of the Gaia Hypothesis is that the living and non-living parts of earth (animals, plants, geology, etc.) act as organelles of a much larger living being -- much like how us, multicellular organisms are really composed of trillions of smaller individual living cells and various non-living components.

It carries no dna, has no consciousness, and cannot talk.

DNA could be argued to be the DNA of it's organelle components -- us. It's a weak one, but an argument nonetheless.

And also the lack of consciousness and speech can absolutely not be used as definitions of life, which is evidence from an even mediocre understand of biology.

We are the life, and we are not merely a collection of parts for survival but living, breathing things that have consciousness and feelings and a will. We are all part of this universe but we are all separate individuals with personal desires and self consciousness. Will you hold a handfull of earth in your hand, and call that God? I sure won't. And I sure wouldn't worship a 4000 year old prostitute.

You do know it's just a name, right? Not that the Sumerians were actually onto something -- it's just borrowed from ancient mythology.

[Azimuthal]

This is an idea that has resonated within me for quite some time.. It is hardly as sexy as ideas like we are our own creators, or that the creators are entities which we must yield too. It is at least consistent with the evidence that all known life in the universe exists on earth. The idea might seem less significant when you consider the fact that life on earth would be nought, if it were not for the sun. The Gaia cannot stand alone in the universe.

[HighGrowMan]

The quote that you posted by Einstein is awesome.

"We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive."

This is the part that has been on my mind intently for the last few weeks. We are in serious need of an evolutionary boost, in order to achieve this though.

There has been thousands of people who given their lives in order to show us the way; but each and every one of these individuals are more or less ignored by the mass of society; and their message has become polluted so that they become tools for exactly the things that they were against.

[jonathan]

r.m.:

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> Originally Posted by jonathan
You talk about this "Gaia" as if it's a living person with feelings and thoughts. You even give it a gender. where is her consciousness? How does she feel about your name for her? Have you ever talked to her?
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
While I tentatively agree with your conclusions, your comparison is a little skewed, Jonathan -- for example; plants have no discernible consciousness or sentience, but they are quite alive.

No they are not...

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> It carries no dna, has no consciousness, and cannot talk. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
DNA could be argued to be the DNA of it's organelle components -- us. It's a weak one, but an argument nonetheless.

No it's not an arguement at all. Because first of all, there is no information in the earth, in it's natural elements. It's just basic molecules of rock and whatever else.You can't even begin to have life without information. And information is proven through information science that information requires an intelligence able to direct force. The organic machines and living organisms in this world thrive off of natural elements and other energy in the form of the sun by harnessing energy in with thier bioligical machinery programmed by dna.

And also the lack of consciousness and speech can absolutely not be used as definitions of life, which is evidence from an even mediocre understand of biology.

Yes, actually without consciousness life is an non-applicable nomenclature . To assert that vegetables are alive is to begin with an a priori assumption in naturalism. It makes no distinction from conscious beings and plants which both have genetic information because they preconclude than supernatural spirits are not applicable.But the truth is it makes no sense because If a "biological machine" such as plant that has no consciousness is alive, then your computer is alive by the same standard.So is your cellphone, and your laptop, and even your car. But that's not life at all.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> We are the life, and we are not merely a collection of parts for survival but living, breathing things that have consciousness and feelings and a will. We are all part of this universe but we are all separate individuals with personal desires and self consciousness. Will you hold a handfull of earth in your hand, and call that God? I sure won't. And I sure wouldn't worship a 4000 year old ***. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
You do know it's just a name, right? Not that the Sumerians were actually onto something -- it's just borrowed from ancient mythology.

No, it's not just barrowed and it's not just a name. They call it by name, they treat it at a living thing, and for all practical purposes, it is treated as a God or a higher "entity". And I would like to add, that they fight so hard against organized religion, but it's the same God that roman catholics truly worship too. They both worship the same false god, and gaia is just a modern form of pantheism.

[Rasta_Man]

Originally Posted by jonathan

No they are not...

Really? Well, Jonathan, you are wrong again.

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Plants are a major group of life forms and include familiar organisms such as trees, herbs, bushes, grasses, vines, ferns, mosses, and green algae.

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Botany is the scientific study of plant life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plants

No it's not an arguement at all. Because first of all, there is no information in the earth, in it's natural elements. It's just basic molecules of rock and whatever else.You can't even begin to have life without information. And information is proven through information science that information requires an intelligence able to direct force. The organic machines and living organisms in this world thrive off of natural elements and other energy in the form of the sun by harnessing energy in with thier bioligical machinery programmed by dna.

I don't really want to argue this point with you, because I'm not really into the Gaia Hypothesis, but your comparison is skewed. That's like claiming that humans aren't really alive, because all of our genetic information is contained within individual living cells, which aren't part of us. It's inherently flawed.

But like I said, the finer flaws of the Gaia Hypothesis are also flawed and I have no wish to argue for them.

Yes, actually without consciousness life is an non-applicable nomenclature .

Really? Well the biological community totally disagrees with you.

How about individuals with brain damage, and severe retardations who are non communicative? They're obviously not conscious of their surroundings. Are they too not alive?

To assert that vegetables are alive is to begin with an a priori assumption in naturalism.

You do know that priori is the wrong word right? The word your looking for is prior.

I wouldn't have corrected you normally, but you seem to use this word pretty regularly.

It makes no distinction from conscious beings and plants which both have genetic information because they preconclude than supernatural spirits are not applicable.

But they aren't. There is no evidence of a supernatural spirit. By definition that has no place within the scientific method.

Spirits are bunk. Don't mix theology and science -- it doesn't go well for you.

But the truth is it makes no sense because If a "biological machine" such as plant that has no consciousness is alive, then your computer is alive by the same standard.So is your cellphone, and your laptop, and even your car. But that's not life at all.

Um no -- this again is just illustrated the extraordinary ignorance you possess on the topic at hand.

Human technology fails to be consider life, by not meeting a number of the current definitions of biological life, including; They do not possess cellular organization, they do not posses biological metabolism, they do not conduct cellular growth, they do not adapt to their environments, and they do not meaningfully reproduce.

So, on the checklist of life, human technology fails to meet the definitions 6 out of 7 times. Your analogy is totally bunk.

No, it's not just barrowed and it's not just a name. They call it by name, they treat it at a living thing, and for all practical purposes, it is treated as a God or a higher "entity". And I would like to add, that they fight so hard against organized religion, but it's the same God that roman catholics truly worship too. They both worship the same false god, and gaia is just a modern form of pantheism.

If you treat it as a new-age religion, sure. I'm treating it as nothing more than a scientific hypothesis.

[jonathan]

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> Originally Posted by jonathan
No they are not...
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Really? Well, Jonathan, you are wrong again.

No, I am not and just because popular scientific definitions which preconclude naturalism
say otherwise does not make it true.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> Originally Posted by wikipedia
Plants are a major group of life forms and include familiar organisms such as trees, herbs, bushes, grasses, vines, ferns, mosses, and green algae.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> Originally Posted by wikipedia
Botany is the scientific study of plant life.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plants

Read above statement

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> No it's not an arguement at all. Because first of all, there is no information in the earth, in it's natural elements. It's just basic molecules of rock and whatever else.You can't even begin to have life without information. And information is proven through information science that information requires an intelligence able to direct force. The organic machines and living organisms in this world thrive off of natural elements and other energy in the form of the sun by harnessing energy in with thier bioligical machinery programmed by dna. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
I don't really want to argue this point with you, because I'm not really into the Gaia Hypothesis, but your comparison is skewed. That's like claiming that humans aren't really alive, because all of our genetic information is contained within individual living cells, which aren't part of us. It's inherently flawed.

But like I said, the finer flaws of the Gaia Hypothesis are also flawed and I have no wish to argue for them.

When did I say that humans arn't alive because of that? That's your statement not mine. If humans beings had no consciousness, then I owuld say they are not alive. It's only flawed to a person who preconcludes naturalism, and actually as I have pointed out your dfinition of life is flawed. According to how you define it your walkman is alive. That's absurd.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> Yes, actually without consciousness life is an non-applicable nomenclature . </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Really? Well the biological community totally disagrees with you.

How about individuals with brain damage, and severe retardations who are non communicative? They're obviously not conscious of their surroundings. Are they too not alive?

I don't care whether they agree with me on this one. People who are serverly retarted who are non communitative are still conscious, as any doctor would tell you, much like a person who is sleeping still has consciousness. Terry schiavo or however you spell her name still had consciousness.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> To assert that vegetables are alive is to begin with an a priori assumption in naturalism. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
You do know that priori is the wrong word right? The word your looking for is prior.

I wouldn't have corrected you normally, but you seem to use this word pretty regularly.

No actually the word I was looking for is the one I used.

a priori - 2 a : being without examination or analysis : PRESUMPTIVE b : formed or conceived beforehand


oh yeah and the other word I was looking forlast time is SPE'CIOUS, a. [L. speciosus.]

1. Showy; pleasing to the view. The rest, far greater part will deem in outward rites and specious form religion satisfied.

2. Apparently right; superficially fair, just or correct' plausible; appearing well at first view; as specious reasoning; a specious argument; a specious objection; specious deeds. Temptation is of greater danger, because it is covered with the specious names of good nature, good manners, nobleness of mind, &c.

Modern science was developed by creationists on theological principles, for instance that that laws of the universe hold true. This is a premise which was taken from theological principles, that secular scientists continue to use. There is evidence of the spirit, plenty of evidence all around us, and the hearts ability to perceive is preexcluded from secular "science" based on naturalistic principles. You say there's no evidence of supernatural, but you rule out the evidence available before you begin.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> But the truth is it makes no sense because If a "biological machine" such as plant that has no consciousness is alive, then your computer is alive by the same standard.So is your cellphone, and your laptop, and even your car. But that's not life at all. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Um no -- this again is just illustrated the extraordinary ignorance you possess on the topic at hand.

Human technology fails to be consider life, by not meeting a number of the current definitions of biological life, including; They do not possess cellular organization, they do not posses biological metabolism, they do not conduct cellular growth, they do not adapt to their environments, and they do not meaningfully reproduce.

So, on the checklist of life, human technology fails to meet the definitions 6 out of 7 times. Your analogy is totally bunk.

You've got a bad attitude, and you have a major flaw in your attitude. I think that far greater than any flaw I suppodsedly have in determining scietific fact. You're arrogant, you insult and self praise. Maybe you should take a moment to think how you're attitude could be affecting your thought procceses.

Plants are biological machines that contain information. Your cell phone is a machine that contains information. Excluding human technology based on the fact that they do not contain dna or are carbon based biological is irrelevent. Excluding technology because it does not carry out exactly the same function is irrelevent. A robot could be created that does just about all of those things you listed. A robot can be created that has organization in it's physical computer "cells", it can have a metabolism baed on some form of energy to keep it alive, they could be programmed to grow "cellularly" and even externally, they could be programmed to adapt to thier enviroment, and they could be programmed to reproduce through production. In summary, a cell phone contains information that is read to perform a physical or internal purpose, and so does plants.

It's becoming clear to me and I hope clear to others, that secular society has renamed scientific terms based on naturalistic principles. In fact they've done it losts of other places to, redefining things according to popular secular principles.

[Rasta_Man]

Originally Posted by jonathan

No, I am not and just because popular scientific definitions which preconclude naturalism
say otherwise does not make it true.

Well, no, see, that's because it is a fact. It does not "pre-conclude" anything. It is a judgment based on observation, evidence, review and substantiation.

Read above statement

It hardly even makes sense.

When did I say that humans arn't alive because of that? That's your statement not mine.

I know... that's why it is an analogy.

If humans beings had no consciousness, then I owuld say they are not alive.

What a skewed view of life you behold. It must have been hard taking science class for you.

It's only flawed to a person who preconcludes naturalism,

Again, you use the word "pre-conclude" to poison the well and, when in fact, natural sciences are based on fact.

and actually as I have pointed out your dfinition of life is flawed.

No you haven't. You've proven that your warped view of my definition of life is flawed. I've pointed you towards the ACTUAL definition and you have totally disregarded it.

According to how you define it your walkman is alive. That's absurd.

No, what about this do you not understand?

A walkman does not posses cellular organization, does not biologically metabolize, does not demonstrate cellular growth, adaptation or meaningfully reproduce.

Stop claiming things that are obviously not true.

one I don't care whether they agree with me on this.

That's a pretty obvious statement

People who are serverly retarted who are non communitative are still conscious,

Prove it.

as any doctor would tell you, much like a person who is sleeping still has consciousness.

I'm about to prove you totally wrong on your own example

Terry schiavo or however you spell her name still had consciousness.

No, you're wrong. On the left is a normal brain, showing brain tissue. On the right is Terry Schiavo's brain, showing mostly liquid and a lack of neural tissue. This is near-total cerebral atrophy.



An electroencephalography showed that Ms. Schivo has zero measurable brain activity. She was brain dead. She was a vegetable.

She was not aware of her environment, she was not aware of the individuals around here. She had no perceivable thoughts or cognition.

No actually the word I was looking for is the one I used.

a priori - 2 a : being without examination or analysis : PRESUMPTIVE b : formed or conceived beforehand

Hmph, go figure, http://dictionary.reference.com/ failed me.

What reference are you using? I'd like to know for my future reference, thanks.

oh yeah and the other word I was looking forlast time is SPE'CIOUS, a. [L. speciosus.]

Ahh yes, as opposed to "scurrious", I can see how you made the mistake, they are such similar words..... both beginning with 's'.... and the same suffix....

Modern science was developed by creationists on theological principles, for instance that that laws of the universe hold true. This is a premise which was taken from theological principles, that secular scientists continue to use.

Luckily we had Francias Bacon come along and straighten much of it out.

Anyways, that's an entirley irrelevant point.

There is evidence of the spirit, plenty of evidence all around us,

Well this supposed evidence has evaded the entire scientific community.

the hearts ability to perceive is preexcluded from secular "science" based on naturalistic principles.

What the hell does that even mean? The heart's ability to perceive? The heart pumps blood, it doesn't perceive jackshit.

And what the fuck does "preexclude" mean?

You say there's no evidence of supernatural, but you rule out the evidence available before you begin.

That's because there is no evidence, and any evidence you can source is legitimately ruled out by various principles of standard scientific evaluation.

You've got a bad attitude,

Funny, because I only get that reaction from faithful believers.

I think that far greater than any flaw I suppodsedly have in determining scietific fact.

Yes, my dedication to rational inquiry is truly horrible.

You're arrogant, you insult and self praise.

That's bad? Hmm I quite like it. It's also very beneficial for me that I'm right and am supported by mountains of evidence of scientifically evaluated fact.

Maybe you should take a moment to think how you're attitude could be affecting your thought procceses.

No need -- the evidence speaks for itself. My attitude has no bearing on the burden of proof.

Plants are biological machines that contain information. Your cell phone is a machine that contains information.

That information is extremly different though. Your comparison is totally useless.

Excluding human technology based on the fact that they do not contain dna or are carbon based biological is irrelevent.

It's very significant because binary information is quite different from genetic deoxyribonucleic acid. They preform different functions, in different capacities. In fact, binary information would be more comparable to neural electrical information than to genetics.

Excluding technology because it does not carry out exactly the same function is irrelevent.

No, it is VERY relevant, because that is what the definition of life is based on.

Your using unfalsifyability by telling me that the very variables which determine life are irrelevant, therefore, life is whatever you say it is. Come on.

A robot could be created that does just about all of those things you listed.

Hypothetically yes, but there hasn't been, so this is just a straw man.

A robot can be created that has organization in it's physical computer "cells", it can have a metabolism baed on some form of energy to keep it alive, they could be programmed to grow "cellularly" and even externally, they could be programmed to adapt to thier enviroment, and they could be programmed to reproduce through production.

Okay, well let's play into this elaborate straw man (another example in the trend that is, your fallacious logic.); If a robot could meet all those definitions of life, what would exclude it as life? Nothing.

So maybe, at that point it is considered life. But then you delve into the definition of robotic sentience, etc.

In summary, a cell phone contains information that is read to perform a physical or internal purpose, and so does plants.

This argument is totally useless, because the possession of information is not one of the defining parameters of life. Hell, the possession of information is EVERYWHERE. This alone renders your argument as bunk, but lets go on with it anyways.

Although, the process of cellular growth necessitates genetic information, the possession of information does not equal cellular growth. The information contained in a cell phone is not genetic, with it, it cannot achieve growth or reproduction.

It's becoming clear to me and I hope clear to others, that secular society has renamed scientific terms based on naturalistic principles. In fact they've done it losts of other places to, redefining things according to popular secular principles.

Um yes, based on the scientific method. It's as simply as the demand of evidence. If your not able to produce, then your claim is bunk.

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.
-- Richard Dawkins