• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

The Gaia Hypothesis, Fact or Fantasy?

^ What if I were to tell you that most of the cells that have ever made up your body, including whole classes of cells and tissue types, are long dead? Life is a dynamic, ever-changing Ship of Theseus at most levels.

To carry this analogy forward from my perspective. Saying every system in nature is part of Gaia is like saying every system in the human body is part of the skin.

Spatial-encapsulation is not equivalent to structural encapsulation.
 
MyDoor: EXACTLY

Jam: I hesitate to ask, but how did Yougene's last post prove you right when all he did was concur with my statement on salinity effecting evaporation?

I ask by the way, not out of dic* sizing but out of an effort to understand your point of view. I see you as incorrect but then you agree with my statement when offered by 3rd party.

In fact, your "battle" over integrated disciplines only serves to further my primary pov, that Gaia views the world as a singular and self-regulating entity.

The point of contention with Yougene is that Gaia concerns the atmosphere above and beyond othere spheres.

Your whole crusade here is rather curious.

This:

This whole discussions stems from you claiming ocean salinity isn't part of atmospheric science. This is an example of how ocean salinity is part of atmospheric science.
 
And yet another thread goes down in flames as "poster" trumps "post."

Yougene says the bone of contention is "ocean salinity" while sidestepping his entire raison d'etre (for dismissing everything I stated n the OP) which was (basically) that Gaia is concerned ONLY with the ATMOSPHERE.

I replied to Yougene that it dealt with planet as a whole, not JUST the atmosphere.

Should I have used the biosphere (or its constituents) instead of ocean salinity as my example? While it would have avoided THIS nonsense ( "this" being the ridiculous "argument"over disciplinary provenance*) it would not have caused Yougene to alter his view (and related postings about it).

*The fact of the matter is this: Almost all scientific disciplines experience at least a modicum of overlap. Ocean salinty could be the provenance of 8 disciplines (just off the top of my head right now). Claiming that Gaia concerns itself only with the "atmosphere" because "ocean salinity" effects condensacion which is itself part and parcel of the "atmosphere" is disengenuous to say the very least. It is like saying gaseous exchange in plant life is the provenance of Atmospheric Science, not Botany, ergo even if plants are in the bio.,Gaia "is only concerned with the atmosphere."

Gaia is, as MyDoor easily understood, dealing in HOLISM. You can disagree with Holism until the cows come home but to misstate the basic definition offered by the hypothesis/theory's founder is non-sensical.

Finally, Jam, you pointing to Yougene's subsequently dishonest (intellectually) post as "proof" is bizarre. I asked the question though...

(Edited for spelling)
 
Re: Yougene's "Russian Dolls" comment to MyDoor; Great, EXCEPT that it cuts both ways. Each of those dolls are seperate entities and when one examines such things they regard EACH separate entity in its own regard.

All you are doing now is acknowledging the worthiness of the Holistic approach.
 
Yougene: In re-reading the thread in its entirety, I have another question (maybe 2) for you: You hold that Gaia is about the intersection between life and matter? All you seem to be doing is playing the semantics shell game. Holism by any other name is still holism.

Perhaps the 2nd question might be, with regards to disciplinary provenance, if a specificsubject falls withn the realm of several disciplines, inter-related or not, how does provenance prove your point (assuming your argument boils down to the folly of the Holistic approach)?

In other words, your entire argument seems to revolve around the atmospher being the boundry of the Earth as homeostatic entity, ergo Gaia MUST be about the atmosphere. Again you seem to be playing with a double edge.

Gaia holds that all constituents are inter-related and as such all are vital in order to maintain homeostasis, NOT that a singular component (IF one can ever even consider the "atmosphere" in singular fashion).

Typical much ado about nothing as I see it.

Also, your view on Jewish Mysticism seems to be suffering from that same hair splitting approach. All strands are intertwined and eventually comprise a "rope." Does the fact that the rope has many strands mean that there is more than 1 single rope?

Jewish Mysticism is very much in synch with the main idea within Gaia, that all these seemingly disparate strands combine in a singular entiy. Each strand is equally important with regard to the integrity of the whole. Compromise 1and you compromise all.
 
^ What if I were to tell you that most of the cells that have ever made up your body, including whole classes of cells and tissue types, are long dead? Life is a dynamic, ever-changing Ship of Theseus at most levels.

I don't quite know if this is a valid analogy. I don't see this sort of coherence in the ecology of the planet throughout the billion or two billion years life has been around... I see a common path for the cells as I am created, live, and die, but I don't see my identity transcending before and after I lived or was born.

Perhaps if people theorized many Gaias living and dying throughout the ages I might think this a more valid analogy.
 
Yougene's "Russian Dolls" comment to MyDoor; Great, EXCEPT that it cuts both ways. Each of those dolls are seperate entities and when one examines such things they regard EACH separate entity in its own regard.

All you are doing now is acknowledging the worthiness of the Holistic approach.
I never disregarded the holistic approach.

My points were
1)These ideas of holism were already floating around in science long before Gaia theory.

2)Gaia pertains to holism on a specific level of complexity.

3)New age adoptions of Gaia are a perversion of holistic scientific thinking because they don't acknowledge levels of complexity.



Jewish Mysticism is very much in synch with the main idea within Gaia
Only on a surface level. It's more consistent with proper General Systems Theory.


that all these seemingly disparate strands combine in a singular entiy. Each strand is equally important with regard to the integrity of the whole.
That is too broad of a generalization. Entities are intertwined at any level, so for example Gevurah and Chesed are intertwined as masculine/feminine counterparts. But they are emmanations from the sephirots above them which are more inclusive/complex. This isn't splitting hairs, without some idea of levels there is no concept of emmanation.
The more accurate analogy would be making successively larger ropes which are themselves made out of successively smaller ropes.

Compromise 1and you compromise all.
Not quite, in the context of Jewish Mysticism you can compromise the lower levels without compromising the upper levels.
So the existence of the material world necessitates the existence of the spirit world but not vice-versa.

In systems theory you have the same ordering but the dependency is flipped upside down. So the existence of the biosphere necessitates the existence of the physiosphere, but not vice-versa.
 
I don't quite know if this is a valid analogy. I don't see this sort of coherence in the ecology of the planet throughout the billion or two billion years life has been around... I see a common path for the cells as I am created, live, and die,

Hardly. Different cell lines follow markedly different courses with regard to how they develop, proliferate, communicate with other cells, and behave biochemically. But they all came ultimately from one cell. The same can be said of the proliferation of organisms and populations on this planet.

but I don't see my identity transcending before and after I lived or was born.

I don't think rebirth / reincarnation have anything to do with what we were discussing here, at least not as I read it.

Perhaps if people theorized many Gaias living and dying throughout the ages I might think this a more valid analogy.

But this planet will eventually die, and others will have doubtless sprung to life and eventually died elsewhere in the universe. Again, just like individual organisms. As above, so below. ;)
 
What is a system that maintains homeostasis? It is one that, amidst the ubiquitous decline toward entropy, maintains a bubble wherein patterns of matter/energy increase in entropy at some slower rate*.

*Put otherwise, there is some emergent (plagiarism from yougene) dynamic which temporarily reduces entropy.

Does this, the restricted Gaia hypothesis, characterize earth? Sure. Seems true but trivial though. I think people really seek to further biomorphize earth than this. I feel like there's something that I'm not getting.

And preservation of current ecosystems and their species doesn't appear part of this; extinction is the historical norm.

ebola
 
Ebola: Extinction is, and that is a fine point BUT extinction via the natural interplay betwen the elements. When humankind inadvertantly (or otherwise) causes this extinction by over-consumption, gratuitous destruction and/or violence and manipulation (introduction of non-native species for example) it completely throws off what, according to Gaia, is a self-regulating dynamic.
 
How? Per the usual, some species die off, and those that survive and those that evolve out of catastrophe interact to form how the ecosystem transforms. Humans certainly aren't the first species of animals to affect an ecosystem's dynamics...

ebola
 
Yeah, i like to call it 'everything effects everything'. I think it would be foolish to not think everything on this planet is intertwined somehow.
 
ebola said:
Does this, the restricted Gaia hypothesis, characterize earth? Sure. Seems true but trivial though. I think people really seek to further biomorphize earth than this. I feel like there's something that I'm not getting.
The problem lays in the conflation of spatial encapsulation and structural encapsulation.

Simple levels of complexity are more spatially expansive and spatially encapsulate the more complex levels.
More complex levels are structurally inclusive and structurally encapsulate the simpler levels.

For example, the solar system spatially encapsulates human beings. But human beings structurally
encapsulate the solar system as star dust. The human being is the more ontologically inclusive system here
since it structurally includes the noosphere which includes the biosphere which includes the physiosphere.

A common sticking point in these types of ontology stacks is they don't recognize this distinction. The homeostasis of Gaia spatially encapsulates the earth, but it represents the lowest common denominator
of life, structurally encapsulated within all living beings.
 
Last edited:
^ 'Encapsulate' may be a problematic word, then, when we're discussing any kind of systems theory. I'd bet that people who analyze systems for their level of complexity using mathematics alone typically use this word sparingly, if at all.
 
I assume your beef with encapsulate is it implies a boundary? I think words like "physiosphere" and "biosphere" are problematic as well. Their etymology implies some sort of clearly defined boundary.

A proper mathematical term would be includes/inclusion. Encapsulate is appropriate as well, at least in this example.
 
Top