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.
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.
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. i agree, but i think we could be building cities in a smarter way, using more efficient cars and economic models.
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.
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. 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. 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. You do know it's just a name, right? Not that the Sumerians were actually onto something -- it's just borrowed from ancient mythology.
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.
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.
r.m.: No they are not... 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. 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. 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.
Really? Well, Jonathan, you are wrong again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botany http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plants 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. If you treat it as a new-age religion, sure. I'm treating it as nothing more than a scientific hypothesis.
No, I am not and just because popular scientific definitions which preconclude naturalism say otherwise does not make it true. Read above statement 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. 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. No actually the word I was looking for is the one I used. a priori - 2 a : being without examination or analysis : [SIZE=-1px]PRESUMPTIVE[/SIZE] 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. 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.
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. It hardly even makes sense. I know... that's why it is an analogy. What a skewed view of life you behold. It must have been hard taking science class for you. Again, you use the word "pre-conclude" to poison the well and, when in fact, natural sciences are based on fact. 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. 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. That's a pretty obvious statement Prove it. I'm about to prove you totally wrong on your own example 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. Hmph, go figure, http://dictionary.reference.com/ failed me. What reference are you using? I'd like to know for my future reference, thanks. 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.... Luckily we had Francias Bacon come along and straighten much of it out. Anyways, that's an entirley irrelevant point. Well this supposed evidence has evaded the entire scientific community. 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? That's because there is no evidence, and any evidence you can source is legitimately ruled out by various principles of standard scientific evaluation. Funny, because I only get that reaction from faithful believers. Yes, my dedication to rational inquiry is truly horrible. 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. No need -- the evidence speaks for itself. My attitude has no bearing on the burden of proof. That information is extremly different though. Your comparison is totally useless. 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. 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. Hypothetically yes, but there hasn't been, so this is just a straw man. 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. 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. 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
I think the idea of something not having consciousness not really being alive stems from the whole, There's living, and then there is just existing. I agree that a huge part of my life involves my consciousness, but without it I still exist. I like your thoughts on this though Goph, I too agree that we are connected to all matter in the universe. What we are supposed to do with that knowledge now... I have no idea LOL We could be doing exactly what we are supposed to, simply because we are a form in nature brought about only because of reason. We also could be a cosmic mistake of Godly purportions... But I prefer to think we were brought about from sheer reason- that we developed because we could and for no other reason other than that. In my opinion The Infinite was involved but for no other reason other than "It" could too LOL Chance and will seem to be intertwined from this point of view.
True, Consider the sun, it has increased it's heat output by 25% in the natural course of it's life-span, yet the temperature on earth has remained comparatively constant. Without the presence of life on earth, the oceans should have either been frozen or boiled by now, the water molecules should have broken apart, and the lightweight hydrogen atoms should have already escaped into outer space, taking along with them all possibility of water on this planet. Even without freezing or boiling, the oceans should have become too salty to support life by now, given the amount of salts that wash off the continents each year. It appears that life on earth is somehow cooperating to modify and maintain the biosphere in a condition that is ultimately favorable for all life- almost as it the earth were alive. the effect is completely spontaneous- as it result in that of billions of individual plants and animals simply attending to their living needs, yet collectively creating something so much greater on the whole. Many scientists DO deny the possibility; however, such a view IS actually considered within scientific possibility but The more speculative versions of the theory- in which it is held that the Earth is actually conscious, sentient, and highly intelligent, are usually considered outside the bounds of what is usually considered Science, which i also agree with. My view is that the Earth's biosphere effectively acts as if it is a self-organizing system which works in such a way as to keep its systems in some kind of equilibrium that is conducive to life I see it as all lifeforms are part of a single planetary being, called Gaia. the atmosphere, the seas, the terrestrial crust are the result of interventions carried out by it, through the coevolving diversity of living organisms. The organisms on the Earth have radically altered its composition. A stronger position is that the Earth's biosphere effectively acts as if it is a self-organizing system which works in such a way as to keep its systems in some kind of equilibrium that is conducive to life. Teilhard de Chardin, a paleontologist and geologist, believed that evolution unfolded from cell to organism to planet to solar system and ultimately the whole universe, Gaia theory is something similar to this. We are all ecologies in the sense that our (human) bodies contain gut bacteria, parasite species, etc., and to them our body is not organism but rather more of a microclimate or biome. Applying that thinking to whole planets The Earth System behaves as a single, self-regulating system comprised of physical, chemical, biological and human components. The interactions and feedbacks between the component parts are complex and exhibit multi-scale temporal and spatial variability. The understanding of the natural dynamics of the Earth System has advanced greatly in recent years and provides a sound basis for evaluating the effects and consequences of human-driven change. Many non-scientists instinctively see homeostatis as an activity that requires conscious control, although this is not so. when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rise, plants are able to grow better and thus remove more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but the extent to which these mechanisms stabilize and modify the Earth's overall climate are not known. All homeostatic control mechanisms have at least three interdependent components for the variable being regulated: The receptor is the sensing component that monitors and responds to changes in the environment. When the receptor senses a stimulus, it sends information to a control center, the component that sets the range at which a variable is maintained. The control center determines an appropriate response to the stimulus. The result of that response feeds to the receptor, either enhancing it with positive feedback or depressing it with negative feedback, Most homeostatic control mechanisms require a negative feedback loop to keep conditions from exceeding tolerable limits. The purpose is to prevent sudden severe changes within a complex organism. There are hundreds of negative feedback mechanisms in the human body. As far as science can determine, life started on earth a minimum of about 3.6 billion years ago. The fact that life started at all on this planet is just a miracle, yet it is equally miraculous that life has continued to survive so far. The Neo-pagan connection is only in regards to its name of origin, not the hypothesis. This is an obvious degree of ignorance on your part regarding the hypothesis, but you have already stated this in your argument, so its understandable. Rasta got a scolding man! that is fresh! I think it is certain that the human brain is a machine in sort of the same way as a computer. I think it is not possible to argue that some machines (eg sophisticated biological machines) are conscious but others aren't. And it is impossible to reasonably argue that at some arbitrary point life forms stop being conscious (eg Humans and dolphins are conscious, but sharks and lizards aren't) or are not "alive", a tree, is alive, simple. This is not even worth arguing.
Why would that be outside the realm of the scientific method? I think the Gaia hypothesis is interested in that the possibility exists of it being a lifeforms, I think it's a stretch to assume it is conscious, sentient or highly intelligent. I would view it as more of a big plant. I'm not saying it's impossible, don't get me wrong, I'm just saying there are still some very big question marks in the hypothesis. How do you explain Ice Age's then? Natural disasters? It seems to be that many of the functions of the earth are very neutral in regards to the biosphere. I see what you mean here, and but I think this is a concept which lends itself to both the Gaia hypothesis AND a sense of natural equilibrium. Or that evolution and natural adaptation over time is working as predicted. Again, this is a concept that lends itself to both ideas fairly well. ((I'm noticing I'm not totally against the Gaia hypothesis, I'm just playing devil's advocate here)) Didn't he write a book about that? I definitley understand that bit. Even cooler is to think that not only are our bodies a host to seperate organisms such as parasites and bacteria, but that our entire body is composed of much smaller lifeforms, all working to the benefit and continued existence of the larger organism. It's definitely a sound hypothesis, from my perspective. Indeed Oh, absolutely, I agree, just look at our Medellua Oblongata! Yeah, but you still have a problem with things such as global climate disasters, many of which have been documented throughout the earth history. Many of which are incredibly destructive to life on earth, such as super volcanoes, ice ages, etc. Oh absolutely, especially considering the numerous close calls life has had. If you haven't, you should give the book "A Short History Of Nearly Everything" by Bill Byrson a read. I recommend it in every other thread, but it's just such a fantastic book. It starts out with him congratulating you on simply being alive and having made it thus far. I think you would enjoy it. Yes, definitely, I brought that up with Jonathan already. I think there is as always, the opportunistic new age religion fools who can swoop in and declare it as evidence for their own agenda. I really should of clarified, and your accusation of ignorance (although incorrect) is expected, It's really my fault for not being more descriptive in my thinking. Just to clarify anything that hasn't: I think the Gaia Hypothesis has some real merit to it. With current evidence, I don't think it is provable, and shouldn't be accepted as fact, but something that cannot be ruled out. It possess the traits of a true scientific hypothesis and that is refreshing. In time, it maybe be proven to be correct, or it may be proven to be false. I think they are both plausible. I am just very wary of the pseudoscientific and religious implications, especially any that would spring from misconceptions. You seem a little offended by my response and I'm genuinely sorry if I did, it was not my intention. I was actually trying to cultivate some discussion. I like this topic Ooooh bitter.
r.m.: http://www.blogsforterri.com/archives/2005/04/persistent_vege.php They are not conscious in the sense that they aere thier recognising you an calling you by name no, but their mental functions still work, like a person who is in a dream. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090700978.html [SIZE=+1]British Researchers See Normal Brain Activity in [/SIZE] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1881206/posts some interesting comments I found on this page: Also remember that Terry Schiavo never got an MRI. I'm not saying I supported the people who wanted to keep her alive, but still. It absolutely is not. you said "Don't mix theology and science". But modern science was built upon theology. Creationists developed modern science, and it's been hijacked by evolutionists who don't even recognise it's theoligical premises. You know what it means, and no it's not your physical heart. Our conscience testifies to his spiritual and moral attributes, and even atheists attest to this by asserting moral truth. They may say morality is reletive, but in thier actions they prove thier statements false. We all believe in love. There is evidence, and it is ruled out a priori by naturalistic assumptions, which have been added to evolutionary principles of standard scientific evaluation. The rule isn't written in stone. It's preassumed by evolutionists. It is different, but no so different. They are both machines which operate from information. The fact that they have different coding is irrelevant. Your definition of life is flawed. You cannot resort to your atheistic definition of life to prove me wrong, that's what we're arguing about in the first place! I never said that at all. The variable which determines life is not allowed in your naturalistic philosophy. The problem is in the atheistic philosophy, not mine. A hypothetical situation does not exclude it from argument. You said yourself it was possible and it does well to prove my point. No it is not life because it does not have a consciousness. Yes information is the first requirement for life. Without biologically functioning systems of operation run from dna, consciousness in the body is not naturally possible. Information is not everywhere. Information is unique in carbon based lifeforms and information carrying biological systems. Complexity, randomness, and order are three different things. Irrelevent. They are both machines, and you cannot exclude them because they serve a different function. If you object you only object based on semantics and your naturalistic presuppositions. You know rastafarianism is based on Abrahamic relgion. r.m., I seriously you study this page in detail. You consistently claim that evolution is based on fact and no presuppositions. You are wrong. Evolutionists are the pseudo-scientists. http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/Lerner_resp.asp gopher: Why do you then call it by gender and refer to it as a living thing? There is no debate that it is simply thinly veiled pantheism. ANd there are many people who really do believe it is God, in fact some of the same people I think would say that cannabis is God also. But by the way you refer to "her" it does strike me as rather pantheistic. So then you would have to logically conclude that my cell phone is alive then, I see. It is possible to reasonably argue, but not on purely naturalistic assumptions.
Oh whats this? Another thread with my old pal jonathan. Hm, I liked the part where you denied that plants were living organisms. Lol, I just may have a new sig...not really, but it was kinda priceless. And the fact that you defend it... Dude....plants by definition are living things how can you bother to fight that? 2+2 = 4 prove me wrong...really...
Sorry Jonathan, but how does all this information about PVS and vegetative states prove plants are not living things? I fail to see the connection. I need to see actual proof that plants are not alive. Really? Show me the proof. What in the hell are you talking about? What atheists say morality is relative? Where are these people? The biological definition of life is the atheist definition? I'll have to remember that next time you throw some of your creationist science bullshit at us. If it's biological, it's atheistic. Jonathan, you are an idiot. Wow, just...wow. All life is consciousness Jonathan, no doubt about that, and when we are dead the consciousness ceases to exist. However that does not mean a plant is not a living thing!
