Re: Quite simply...

Post #88,628 by rcareaga 3/15/03 11:24:26 PM Reply	Re: Quite simply... there is no evidence that the Earth has faced any stressor resembling that in the past and so the Earth could not perforce develop a response in the present day? See Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Daniel Dennett, 1995. cordially, "Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
Post #88,632 by boxley 3/15/03 11:29:16 PM Reply	pick up yer local copy of the bible happened to noah's generation as well as a mention in Isaiah for several other reboots. Glad to see you are a fundamentalist. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]</br> To a lot of people in California hunting anything but the wild tofualope was equivelent to sacarificing babies to satan. S.M. Sterling
Post #88,642 by ben_tilly 3/15/03 11:52:12 PM Reply	You seem to have missed the point The point is that the past stability of the Earth is not evidence that the Earth has any correction mechanism for us. There is therefore no reason to believe that there is any correction mechanism against us. The Earth can develop a response to our presence, but there is no reason to believe that its response will be massively out of line with what other successful species (ourselves in the past included) face routinely. That said, what has been routine in the past would be viewed with horror by our society. But what we consider horrendously unacceptable casualty levels would not come close to wiping us off of the face of the Earth. It would come as a massive shock to complacent masses who believe that evolution no longer applies to us (if, that is, they believe in evolution at all), but the species is likely to go on. About the book that you recommend. I have read plenty of books about evolution theory and sat in on biology courses on the same. Why do you specifically recommend that popularization on the topic? Is there something specific about that book which is not covered elsewhere, or did you think that I needed to be introduced to evolution theory? Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #88,648 by rcareaga 3/16/03 12:14:15 AM Reply	Re: You seem to have missed the point You (and I in my responses) are perhaps making too much of a notion I threw out initially in a fanciful and metaphorical spirit. As to past responses of the earth's hypothetical immune system, the argument could be advanced that the impact of humanity upon the larger biosphere has only just registered. what we consider horrendously unacceptable casualty levels would not come close to wiping us off of the face of the Earth Probably not, if no worse than the 1918-19 pandemic. Even if substantially worse, would probably leave enough of us (I have no use for "diversity" as a socio-political concept, but it would certainly come in handy here as a genetic fact of life) to keep the species going, but might briefly put paid to the more cancerous side effects of technological civilization. Why do you specifically recommend that popularization [Dennett] on the topic? --For his discussions of the adaptive responses of organisms within the practical dimensions of "design space." And Dennett, one of the extraordinary thinkers of our age, should not be lumped in with the "popularizers." But--just so we understand each other--I don't propose that the Gaia hypothesis be extended beyond the basic notion of global homeostasis I gather we both agree upon, although I find some of the more ambitious speculations tempting. cordially, "Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
Post #88,710 by ben_tilly 3/16/03 6:03:26 PM Reply	I think that I have read enough evolution theory for now... Some other time I will go back and pick up more books on the topic when I am properly motivated. So much to learn, so little time to do it... Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #88,663 by Ashton 3/16/03 7:22:33 AM Reply	Methinks the hypothesis could not be tested. There may even be 'proof' that it is of this class of concept, for those who do not believe in, "by inspection". That is: a unique phenomenon in the yet-known milieu (life) is the situation. One need not anthropomorphize the planet to embellish 'Gaia' - nor may we dismiss the concept via any notion of 'statistical reasoning'. Corollary: A collection of metaphors chosen by one group, is followed by repeated efforts to kill off members of another group (with slightly different ones) - an observable characteristic of the only example extant of this life phenomenon, at least among the most imaginative of the creatures. (Who are like us - therefore must be important) Thus, re this tendency of homo-sap to create personal Gods in Our Likeness and infuse these with personalities, via our vivid imaginations: what is one justified in concluding from even this similar phenomenon, given the aforementioned Sample-of-One instance? We cannot study the process of Origin of this One sample. But we know how to design HVAC feedback loops and we naturally extrapolate that demonstrable knowledge of a process. What we can't know from this Sample - is whether or not 'Gaia' (for ex.) is a mere thermostatic device or if it is umm Something Else upon which "some loop is closed" - perhaps something so unfathomable to us in our primitive state of knowledge, as to seem Magical. IMO Gaia is as potentially useful a concept as is the Carnot cycle (a 'thing' which exists only in human mentation too - like so much else about which we tend to make the map/territory error). It needs less imagination than the construction of Gods and it derives from physics knowledge of process. It's A-l-i-i-i-v-e !!! makes for good theatre, we note in our entertainments. What is to say that this One Known biosphere is not also alive ?? After all, one Can say, "as above so below" - as easily as not say this. (And we both know well enough that, 'proof' is a word with rather limited application: perfectly applied only within rigorously stated mathematical axioms - damn near meaningless when applied to human behaviour; varying degrees of success in between. No?) Postulates on the Gaia hypothesis: 1) It is incapable of resolution. Yet. It will depend upon whether or not the species survives long enough to mature. 2) At maturity, we may apperceive that the hypothesis can be resolved - or even superseded. Ashton, or something (What is meant by maturity ? [Hah])
Post #88,665 by jake123 3/16/03 9:31:54 AM Reply	In other words, it's a statement of faith. --\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \r\n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \r\n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #88,684 by rcareaga 3/16/03 11:26:56 AM Reply	blazing metaphors Corollary: A collection of metaphors chosen by one group, is followed by repeated efforts to kill off members of another group (with slightly different ones) - an observable characteristic of the only example extant of this life phenomenon, at least among the most imaginative of the creatures. (Who are like us - therefore must be important) See Dawkins 1976 and Dennett 1991 for discussions of memes and how they propagate and compete. cordially, "Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
Post #88,759 by Ashton 3/17/03 12:33:37 AM Reply	Good reminder.. IIRC he had a bit of a blast with the faith dysfunction, though certainly not denying.. the also plentiful endorphins one experiences with guilty pleasures - Like -- as someone once quoted from that neat dead language -- "Certuum est quia impossibile est". It is certain because it is impossible. Mayhaps an explanation for the marlowe-phantasm's Digital-faith in Peace Through Massive Bombardment _{cha cha cha} Also Hofstadter on viral sentences and self-replicating structures (not sure if that was in GEB or elsewhere) - surely a Registry-cleaner for overloaded neuron agglomerations.. But then, is there really anything new (The Hundredth Monkey) under our virus-attracting conceptual-Sun -?- "Give me a child until it is six and I'll fuck up the little sucker for life.." to coin a phrase. Ashton Is The Rev Foulwell a Holygram or a dEvil Dog (spelled backwards is fun) Is the catalog of all works in the library to contain 'The Catalog' ? (Or must we perform asanas to the ^meta?) Is we edjaKatin our Yout yet?
Post #88,712 by ben_tilly 3/16/03 6:07:08 PM Reply	What value do you seek from the hypothesis? If it is amusement and sounding mystical, then proceed. If it is a useful paradigm which motivates research and enables you to organize your understanding of multiple areas of science, then a more concrete comprehension of the topic is worthwhile. My desire is for the latter... Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #88,763 by Ashton 3/17/03 1:15:47 AM 3/17/03 1:30:54 AM Reply	You might wish to be careful re the assumption that these are mutually exclusive (or even separate) goals :-\ufffd Merely because organized religion has been so abysmally filled with treacle - doesn't mean that the Gaia metaphor is required also to conform to our historical standard of Execrableness. Capital-r Reality [whatever That might Be] is hardly likely to be accessible via merely the likes of Mr. Booles's handy stone knives & bearskins. (In my lexicon, anyway. YMMV) Render unto ~~C\ufffdsar~~ Physics that which physics can manage: mapping the world of appearances and the Impressive! illusion of 'substance'. Dismiss the possibility of the ineffable at own risk ;-) Ashtonanda Subsidiary of, sat chit ananda Edit: sp Edited by Ashton March 17, 2003, 01:30:54 AM EST Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!