Present Evidence Here II

[Sorginak]

I had to delve back a few pages.

It seems to me that TheCloser is quite fond of the Gaia concept. 

[TheCloser]

I had to delve back a few pages.

It seems to me that TheCloser is quite fond of the Gaia concept.

yes, I said that at the very beginning.  I am just not willing to go as far as he did.

the question still stands.  Do the interactions in the biosphere, as a whole, look more like a cell, a rock, or a virus?

[TheCloser]

Show me one peer-reviewed article that supports your argument. If your argument is supported by scientific observations, you should have no trouble.

peer review? I am not doing your work.  Go study some and see whats out there.  I am not the first one thinking this kid.

The question is simple.  Does the biosphere's interactions resemble the interactions of life, non life, or something in the middle. 

Just answer the question, its simple. 

so what gives? why will you not answer it to the best of your ability?

[Baruch]

yes, I said that at the very beginning.  I am just not willing to go as far as he did.

the question still stands.  Do the interactions in the biosphere, as a whole, look more like a cell, a rock, or a virus?

There is a problem ... the idea of individuality vs collectivity.  Are all germs of the same species, a mega-organism or not.

[Baruch]

peer review? I am not doing your work.  Go study some and see whats out there.  I am not the first one thinking this kid.

The question is simple.  Does the biosphere's interactions resemble the interactions of life, non life, or something in the middle. 

Just answer the question, its simple. 

so what gives? why will you not answer it to the best of your ability?

Materialists like spiritualists, don't like to be called on their own BS, just like to call BS on the other guy.  Simple human psychology.

[TheCloser]

There is a problem ... the idea of individuality vs collectivity.  Are all germs of the same species, a mega-organism or not.

you and I agree on this.  "feedback lops" are a major process in the universe.  There is no "isolated" anything.  i am more of an engineer than you, but you make a point that we need to keep bring up if we go any further.  I personally don't need to good further than the biosphere looks more like a form than a non-life form when taken as a whole.

The microbes would be classified as one of the systems to me as apposed to a super orgasm.  I wouldn't even use the word super, i would use just the word bigger.  When I look at the biosphere I would classify it in terms of systems, just like we do with cells and the human body.  With the understanding that they are not isolated in anyway, nor do they work independently in anyway, and they are fraught with back loops.

[Mike Cl]

That's what I'm planning to do. lol

With a Masters, I qualify to teach at community college. If I get a Doctorate, I could teach at higher levels, but I'm not sure I have the energy to go for that. The Master's thesis was almost enough to kill me.

My daughter went a slightly different route.  She got her Masters in Ed--went into admin and is now in the middle of her doctorate.  According to her, it is hard and tedious.  But in another 6/8 months she should have it.  She then wants to become a principal somewhere for awhile and then go into a district level research team somewhere.

[Blackleaf]

peer review? I am not doing your work.  Go study some and see whats out there.  I am not the first one thinking this kid.

The question is simple.  Does the biosphere's interactions resemble the interactions of life, non life, or something in the middle. 

Just answer the question, its simple. 

so what gives? why will you not answer it to the best of your ability?

Ha. No. You make the claim, you support it. Otherwise I'm going to ignore your claim and move on with my day.

[TheCloser]

Ha. No. You make the claim, you support it. Otherwise I'm going to ignore your claim and move on with my day.

this is avoidance by cop out. 

I said the biosphere's interactions look like life.  The hypothesis is supported by any college chemistry book, bio book, and physics book.  the term used in the 60's or 70's was gaia.  but i said I am not willing to go as far as he did . The earths systems do not resemble the interactions of a rock.  That statement is just foolish.  They are vastly more complicated then even the suns.

I asked you do you think the interactions resemble life, non life, or in between given the complexity versus volume we see on earth?


I am also interested in why you are afraid to answer?  I mean its a simple question and even if we are just playing around? 

I am thinking, like Christians, you are avoiding the question because it directly counters your religious world view.

[Baruch]

you and I agree on this.  "feedback lops" are a major process in the universe.  There is no "isolated" anything.  i am more of an engineer than you, but you make a point that we need to keep bring up if we go any further.  I personally don't need to good further than the biosphere looks more like a form than a non-life form when taken as a whole.

The microbes would be classified as one of the systems to me as apposed to a super orgasm.  I wouldn't even use the word super, i would use just the word bigger.  When I look at the biosphere I would classify it in terms of systems, just like we do with cells and the human body.  With the understanding that they are not isolated in anyway, nor do they work independently in anyway, and they are fraught with back loops.

The idea of analysis ... is that things are sufficiently "separable" that you can break it down into parts that can be analyzed themselves, in isolation.  This is a fundamental limitation on reductionism.  But given most real situations (chaos, turbulence etc) is all feedback loops ... you can only analyze toy problems, like Newtonian mechanics ... yes, the planets and Sun and Moon are sufficiently independent, that analysis works.  Living organisms are the mother-of-all feedback.  This is why if you chop a living person into their individual organs ... they are no longer alive.  Usually if you divide a packet granular salt, into smaller packets of granular salt ... nothing substantial is lost ... it is still salt.  Why?  Because (in this narrow sense) the salt packet isn't alive.  However we must not neglect that a human being, created that salt packet from salt water.

[Blackleaf]

this is avoidance by cop out. 

I said the biosphere's interactions look like life.  The hypothesis is supported by any college chemistry book, bio book, and physics book.  the term used in the 60's or 70's was gaia.  but i said I am not willing to go as far as he did . The earths systems do not resemble the interactions of a rock.  That statement is just foolish.  They are vastly more complicated then even the suns.

I asked you do you think the interactions resemble life, non life, or in between given the complexity versus volume we see on earth?


I am also interested in why you are afraid to answer?  I mean its a simple question and even if we are just playing around? 

I am thinking, like Christians, you are avoiding the question because it directly counters your religious world view.

Seems you've never taken a class in philosophy either. It's your responsibility to prove your point, not mine to prove you wrong. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof onto me. It won't work.

[TrueStory]

yes, I said that at the very beginning.  I am just not willing to go as far as he did.

the question still stands.  Do the interactions in the biosphere, as a whole, look more like a cell, a rock, or a virus?

So what, how does that impact anything I do?

[TheCloser]

The idea of analysis ... is that things are sufficiently "separable" that you can break it down into parts that can be analyzed themselves, in isolation.  This is a fundamental limitation on reductionism.  But given most real situations (chaos, turbulence etc) is all feedback loops ... you can only analyze toy problems, like Newtonian mechanics ... yes, the planets and Sun and Moon are sufficiently independent, that analysis works.  Living organisms are the mother-of-all feedback.  This is why if you chop a living person into their individual organs ... they are no longer alive.  Usually if you divide a packet granular salt, into smaller packets of granular salt ... nothing substantial is lost ... it is still salt.  Why?  Because (in this narrow sense) the salt packet isn't alive.  However we must not neglect that a human being, created that salt packet from salt water.

yuppers.

To your last line.  Ultimately, the universe made that salt packet.  That is an undeniable conclusion. 

well, unless we are light weights.

[TheCloser]

Seems you've never taken a class in philosophy either. It's your responsibility to prove your point, not mine to prove you wrong. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof onto me. It won't work.

dude, your a light weight.
Be gone, like you promised.

[TheCloser]

So what, how does that impact anything I do?

you're asking for a personal meaning or emotional need.  that's not my area.

I only do "how the universe works". 

I only thing I would say is that in the middle 1800"s many people asked the same thing about electrons.  The practical application of gaia-ish notions is left for better people then me.  I think, because we are in a living system that we will create the next form in less than 200 years.  Just like proteins have done for the last 500 million years.  Well, the "boom" of life making, you understand.

***edit***

That last part is the prediction component needed to make any claim reasonable.  It explains "dust to man", it predicts a new life form coming up.