Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you for providing the definition Peter. Very useful.
I don't have a horse in this race. But it's an interesting discussion and I hope you don't mind if I contribute.
I must have missed where Arach said that the biosphere meets the criteria for a living organism. I only dip in and out of threads when I can.
But looking up the definition of biosphere I found this definition from Oxford:
And this definition from Britannica
So could we say that the biosphere itself is not a living organism, but it is it is occupied by and is composed of living organisms?
The Britannica definition particularly would seem to be fairly close to what Arach meant I think?
How all of this is connected to Pantheism, I'm not sure, but it's an interesting basis for discussion I think.
If we take the term Ecosphere instead of Biosphere, which seems to include both living and dead matter and everything in between (including the Geosphere, Hydrosphere, Biosphere, Atmosphere, and Magnetosphere) we are then dealing with the earth as a whole.
Returning to the Gaia Hypothesis. I like the idea that the earth is a self regulating organism.
I'm an atheist and so don't think anything supernatural is going on here. I do think the idea that the earth is a geologically self-regulating system is a beautiful thing.
It's hard to not look at the earth and be in awe of this. Perhaps this is where Pantheists make a basis for their beliefs.
I fully agree with what you said - the biosphere is not a living organism, but it is composed of living organisms. I have said exactly that previously in this thread. That is also what the majority of textbooks and biologists seem to say (I'm not a biologist). The other poster was arguing the bioshpere as a single entity matched alive more than not alive, and this is an accepted and obvious fact. It certainly isn't an accepted and obvious fact.
The Gaia hypothesis is a fringe theory that is not accepted by mainstream biology. That poster was claiming it as a mainstream fact that the biosphere "matched alive more than not alive." It is certainly not a mainstream fact you can find in a biology book. That poster has repeatedly mentioned looking in a biology book for traits of life and then comparing those to earth as a whole (or just the biosphere).
I'm also interested why you brought beauty into the discussion? Do you think beauty is the same as truth? And that is a genuine question because some philosophers would argue that but I certainly wouldn't. I don't think finding something beautiful has any bearing on truthfulness. Now I too think that the Earth is beautiful and precious and should be looked after by us. But I have yet to see any good explanation for why the Earth is a in itself a living organisms (or more living that not living).
As for how any of this is relevant for pantheism, that is for the pantheists to answer.
My problems is not really with any spiritual claims. Rather it is with a poster who has talked specifically about looking in a biology book for traits of life. Then when asked to list them never did (eventually I did, because they would not).
Don't accuse me of being evasive. That's BS. We talk, we talk right here. if we can't talk here ... that proves what I have been saying. I told you petety, I am not going to suck your toes. I will be happy to play. I have no problem telling you that this dogma of "we don't have to say anything" is yellow belly back stabbing cowardice atheism. I am not falling for that sick political trick.
Atheism is stronger than that. We walk out in the open and we use all lines of logic. We have the weight of science, commonsense, logic, and reason on our side. I will not be a political chump. Its ok to believe stuff when its logical.
We both said our piece ... That is now behind us. Now back to business ...
1) Nutrition? Nutrition, as we use the word, is not a requirement. The word "nutrition" is really better stated "metabolizes energy". It process the energy from the sun to carry out processes that cause we see it doing.
The recourses to be alive (Nutrition) come from the atmosphere mostly. But the rest comes from minerals on the outer layer of the planet. If there is a blood thing, it would be water. water breaks down the big pieces into smaller more useable pieces. Then transports it around. the water cycle ...
2) Reacting to the system around it. this ie easy.
I gave you the example of co2 level increasing and asteroid impact. The system is definitely reacted to those. That 's where the word homeostasis comes into play. It reacts in such a way as to try and maintain that homeostasis.
CO2 sinks. The levels increase and the system reacts to that increase. Bigger plants and animals for instance. Like so many millions of years ago. But we are killing them off to fast to see that one. Co2 sinks are also sea water. But we are also affecting that one.
3) homeostasis. Trying to self regulate and actually doing it are two different things.
Much like when you get sick. Sometimes we die. We are killing everything off. But in a healthy ecosystem, it most certainly self regulates. Example: "limiting factors". Its an ebb and flow.
Homeostasis does not mean "never changes" and/or "never dies".
So I still have it more than half.
Thank you for the effort.
I do appreciate it.
at this point we can stop. I don't really mind if you don't see it. I don't even mind that you don't agree with it. Although I never met one trained person, in person, that said I was wrong. And I have been lucky enough to hang around more than your average amount.
But its is not a delusional, irrational, or fanciful belief. It has a mechanism pete. That is really important if you know anything about making claims.
Its a bottom up approach. Now, I would be happy to got a another cite and go deeper into it. Things like cell size is limited by the how a cell operates. Maybe dna strands are also.
again,
thank you.
I'm more than happy to go to another site to discuss it deeper, I disagree with your points on nutrition, homeostasis and reacting to the system around it. Also the majority of biologists I know would say that the biosphere is a collection of living organisms, but is not a living organism itself.
lmao ... because you said so ... lmao you are funny.
The point still remains. calling nature god has more evidence than your walking around a city and finding churches leaves us with the conclusion a past life did it. That is a knee slapper. No wonder militants and foreign forum fighters target people like you.
You are so blinded by hate you can't see straight.
"Calling nature god..." is not evidence, is not data.
I fully agree with what you said - the biosphere is not a living organism, but it is composed of living organisms. I have said exactly that previously in this thread. That is also what the majority of textbooks and biologists seem to say (I'm not a biologist). The other poster was arguing the bioshpere as a single entity matched alive more than not alive, and this is an accepted and obvious fact. It certainly isn't an accepted and obvious fact.
The Gaia hypothesis is a fringe theory that is not accepted by mainstream biology. That poster was claiming it as a mainstream fact that the biosphere "matched alive more than not alive." It is certainly not a mainstream fact you can find in a biology book. That poster has repeatedly mentioned looking in a biology book for traits of life and then comparing those to earth as a whole (or just the biosphere).
I'm also interested why you brought beauty into the discussion? Do you think beauty is the same as truth? And that is a genuine question because some philosophers would argue that but I certainly wouldn't. I don't think finding something beautiful has any bearing on truthfulness. Now I too think that the Earth is beautiful and precious and should be looked after by us. But I have yet to see any good explanation for why the Earth is a in itself a living organisms (or more living that not living).
As for how any of this is relevant for pantheism, that is for the pantheists to answer.
My problems is not really with any spiritual claims. Rather it is with a poster who has talked specifically about looking in a biology book for traits of life. Then when asked to list them never did (eventually I did, because they would not).
My comment that 'I think the idea that the earth is a geologically self-regulating system is a beautiful thing' is a subjective statement on my part, indicated by 'I think'.
Why did I include it?
No reason other than any discussion that gets me thinking about the bigger questions in life, particularly as pertains to the earth / the universe often gets me in that 'awe' mode in the real sense of the word. So I suppose I just said what I felt in the moment.
Not sure what you mean by "do you think beauty is the same as truth?".
No. Obviously I don't. Not sure what that question means.
Obviously beauty and truth are two different things. Not sure how the question is related to the discussion.
I want to explain how the perception that something is "God" factors into the equation of the existence of a God Entity.
My perception of ALL THAT EXISTS (Everything in totality as One Thing) as irrefutably & unequivocally The Supreme Reality and Something of Supreme Value is all that is required for it to definitively and validly be titled "God"...and it IS then a "God".
Others not considering it a God does not nullify the God Status my perception imbues. And such a thing as a God Entity then exists.
Analogically: Once someone perceives another person as a "Friend" or "Hero" to them, that imbues that person with the status...they then are a "Friend" or "Hero". That others may not perceive them as a "Friend" or "Hero" to them, does not change or nullify that. And such a thing as a "Friend" or "Hero" then exists.
The declaration that there is such a perception, is all the "Evidence/Proof" needed. Then, it's a wrap, a done deal.
I fully agree with what you said - the biosphere is not a living organism, but it is composed of living organisms. I have said exactly that previously in this thread. That is also what the majority of textbooks and biologists seem to say (I'm not a biologist). The other poster was arguing the bioshpere as a single entity matched alive more than not alive, and this is an accepted and obvious fact. It certainly isn't an accepted and obvious fact.
The Gaia hypothesis is a fringe theory that is not accepted by mainstream biology. That poster was claiming it as a mainstream fact that the biosphere "matched alive more than not alive." It is certainly not a mainstream fact you can find in a biology book. That poster has repeatedly mentioned looking in a biology book for traits of life and then comparing those to earth as a whole (or just the biosphere).
I'm also interested why you brought beauty into the discussion? Do you think beauty is the same as truth? And that is a genuine question because some philosophers would argue that but I certainly wouldn't. I don't think finding something beautiful has any bearing on truthfulness. Now I too think that the Earth is beautiful and precious and should be looked after by us. But I have yet to see any good explanation for why the Earth is a in itself a living organisms (or more living that not living).
As for how any of this is relevant for pantheism, that is for the pantheists to answer.
My problem is not really with any spiritual claims. Rather it is with a poster who has talked specifically about looking in a biology book for traits of life. Then when asked to list them never did (eventually I did, because they would not).
This post is sufficiently revealing that I can conclude that your philosophical acumen seems too limited to engage Arach. Philosophical thought experiments demand an ability to switch perspectives as needed to expand consideration of the asserted conclusions. You just seem limited in that regard.
Just to correct your assertions, you interpreted Arach's claim to be a living organism when he simply said alive more than not. As an example of my point, Cruithne facilely switched perspectives as evidenced by her moving the philosophical point of view from the biosphere to the ecosphere, etc.
My comment that 'I think the idea that the earth is a geologically self-regulating system is a beautiful thing' is a subjective statement on my part, indicated by 'I think'.
Why did I include it?
No reason other than any discussion that gets me thinking about the bigger questions in life, particularly as pertains to the earth / the universe often gets me in that 'awe' mode in the real sense of the word. So I suppose I just said what I felt in the moment.
Not sure what you mean by "do you think beauty is the same as truth?".
No. Obviously I don't. Not sure what that question means.
Obviously beauty and truth are two different things. Not sure how the question is related to the discussion.
If your statement about beauty was just a subjective one on your part, I agree and share that sentiment with you.
I read your paragraph as a defence of the accuracy (or reliability or truthfulness) of the Gaia hypothesis, hence why I questioned the link between beauty and truth. If it was a subjective statement about your emotional response to it, then I actually agree with you and share the same response.
I fully agree with what you said - the biosphere is not a living organism, but it is composed of living organisms. I have said exactly that previously in this thread. That is also what the majority of textbooks and biologists seem to say (I'm not a biologist). The other poster was arguing the bioshpere as a single entity matched alive more than not alive, and this is an accepted and obvious fact. It certainly isn't an accepted and obvious fact.
The Gaia hypothesis is a fringe theory that is not accepted by mainstream biology. That poster was claiming it as a mainstream fact that the biosphere "matched alive more than not alive." It is certainly not a mainstream fact you can find in a biology book. That poster has repeatedly mentioned looking in a biology book for traits of life and then comparing those to earth as a whole (or just the biosphere).
I'm also interested why you brought beauty into the discussion? Do you think beauty is the same as truth? And that is a genuine question because some philosophers would argue that but I certainly wouldn't. I don't think finding something beautiful has any bearing on truthfulness. Now I too think that the Earth is beautiful and precious and should be looked after by us. But I have yet to see any good explanation for why the Earth is a in itself a living organisms (or more living that not living).
As for how any of this is relevant for pantheism, that is for the pantheists to answer.
My problems is not really with any spiritual claims. Rather it is with a poster who has talked specifically about looking in a biology book for traits of life. Then when asked to list them never did (eventually I did, because they would not).
A cell has not one living part in it and it is classified as the smallest unit of life. The biosphere has living parts in it. Hmmm, that would suggest it is more "ALvness" than even a cell.
That is one more piece to the of evidence for my claim? I actually have more, but I think I have proven it enough. You don't have to agree. But you couldn't debunk it using the observation I used. The claim is consistent with observation.
I did not state it as mainstream fact. That is just not true. I actually said many trained people would have no problem with it. In fact I said, not one has ever said I was dead wrong when I spoke to them in person. The only place anybody said I was wrong is here. Hmmm.
You can have a problem with it. That doesn't change the outcome. The biosphere, take as an "object" matches "alive" more than "not alive".
The reason I have you list it is that when I then explain it I know you have looked at it. I know that you actively engaged in the material at least a little bit.
I wonder why you have to take to steps to say things I did not say? That is a little more telling than me using a tried and true educational tool to get a point across. But forget that. I can over look scarred people's aggression, Its understandable.
SO the claim stands. The biosphere, taken as an "Object", kind of clearly matches "alive" more than "not alive". It is more consistent with observation than than the saying it not.
This post is sufficiently revealing that I can conclude that your philosophical acumen seems too limited to engage Arach. Philosophical thought experiments demand an ability to switch perspectives as needed to expand consideration of the asserted conclusions. You just seem limited in that regard.
Just to correct your assertions, you interpreted Arach's claim to be a living organism when he simply said alive more than not. As an example of my point, Cruithne facilely switched perspectives as evidenced by her moving the philosophical point of view from the biosphere to the ecosphere, etc.
I have said I disagree with his assertion of it even being more alive than not - and will happily go into detail about that elsewhere. However I must also say that in most biology books, the kind that he he keeps mentioning, all criteria have to be met in order to be categorised as alive. It is an all or nothing test, not a sliding scale.
The same argument is just as accurate for the ecosphere as the biosphere, so switching that perspective makes no change to the argument.
Arach's theory is not strong no matter what switching you do.
"Calling nature god..." is not evidence, is not data.
Nature has a ton of evidence. "nature", has textbooks on it. Yeah, he calls it god and we don't. That's semantics.
Your "rebirth claim" has absolutely nothing behind it. But, like your genes dictate, you express your beliefs as the family tree before you did.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
