Gaia theory and its relationship to faiths

[Quahom1]

I would say energy is a form of spirit.

We just discussed this on another post. If Spirit were "energy", then spirit could conceivably keep a body going. Spirit it seems rides on the medium of energy, which in turn powers the body. Without energy, however, Spirit must leave the body. Therefore, Spirit can not be energy itself. It must be something else. Or else it can not be energy condusive to the continuance of a body and the functions therein.

To say one is living on shear will, is a misnomer. The Spirit within has rallied the energy resources left within the body, to maintain basic function, but not top performance. In short, the body's energy reserves have been tapped, and there is nothing left, once that energy is drained.

No, energy is not automatically spirit, and spirit may be energy, but not on the same frequency as required for this plane of existence.

A brain dead individual is a good example. If the back part of the brain is functioning properly, then the body continues (as long as the nutrients are provided). The lights are on, but nobody is home...

And we can tell. The skin may be pink, and heart going full force, but there is nothing in the face. It is like wax...too perfect. No personality, not even in sleep form. No snoring (a decidedly personality trait), no muscle twitches, no body reflexes due to a dream...nothing.

Spirit is something much more than energy.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[DrFree]

I too find the Gaia hypothesis of extreme spiritual interest. If God is to be found in the natural universe, most of the important questions about the relationship between God and humankind can be framed and discussed in that context.

Some red herrings need to be dispensed with first:

1. No one claims that there is any physical similarity between Gaia and human beings (except possibly the question of the mechanisms of sentience). The fact that the life processes of Gaia take place primarily on the surface of the earth, rather than spread throughout the body, like a human, is utterly irrelevant.
2. No one claims that Gaia is Yahweh or Allah or any other god of a traditional religion. As a natural being, the nature of Gaia is to be found in observation, not in ancient texts, not the Bible or the Q'ran or even the Pagan texts that describe the classical Gaia. Gaia should not even be characterized as a god in the same sense asYahweh or Allah.

That being said, it remains interesting to consider what would happen if Gaia were to become sentient and aware of us. (I assume that a non-sentient Gaia is of little spiritual interest, beyond some kind of respect for the "interdependent web of all existence" [7th Unitarian Universalist Principle].) We might say, for example, that Gaia is to the earth as we are to our respective bodies. (Back in the '60's Alvin Plantinga proposed that knowledge of God is exactly analogous to knowledge of other minds [God and Other Minds].

Our own sentience seems to be an emergent property of the behavior of our brains (although the boundary between brain processes and other processes is indeed a tenuous one). That behavior consists largely of a network of communicating neurons, in a changing bath of hormones and other chemicals, each of which examines its input signals and "decides" whether (and when) to trigger an output signal.

If Gaian sentience is like human sentience (and we don't have evidence of another model), then we would need to look for a similar information system on a Gaian scale. One hypothesis is that human being and computers function like a network of neurons, with high volumes of data (signals) passing among them.

Of course, just because we have an information network doesn't mean that sentience has emerged. In human beings, that took millions of years of evolution (yes, well before homo sapiens emerged as a species).

A question that I think still needs to be answered is how sentience could emerge in a single individual. Human beings evolved to be sentient. Step by step over the eons, slight changes transformed simple sensory awareness into sentience. That transformation was paid by the blood of variations that didn't succeed.

Gaia, however, is an individual, not a species. It does not evolve, it changes. It's systems change through the evolution of individual species, and the emergence of Gaian sentience is unlikely to have been a factor in that evolution.

That doesn't rule out the emergence of Gaian sentience, but it does require a new model of how it happened.

Another question is the mental health of Gaia. A healthy mind in a healthy human brain requires sound integration of a large number of subsystems, and not just those within the brain/mind. If Gaia were to become sentient now, I would expect her (to use the classical pronoun) to be schizophrenic. The various human cultures are too much at odds for a healthy global mind to emerge.

But that might be precisely the challenge. A healthy Gaia depends on a healthy earth and a healthy, integrated relationship among human cultures. A NeoGaian religion, one in which all local religions acknowledge and welcome the God in other local religions, while at the same time engaging in respectful dialog with one another, might be a path towards world peace that we have not yet found.

By the way, if Gaia is the sentience of the earth, might there not be a God of the Universe? Yes, but it's a thin kind of "might". The Gaian sentience I've described depends on a communication among information nodes that can be correlated between people and the earth as a whole. Communication among astronomical nodes, measured over light-years, would seem to be too slow to be translated into human communication. I don't think the difference in scale can be bridged.

[taijasi]

I'd like to chime in with a couple of responses, DrFree. I think there are a handful of points you made that warrant further discussion. Also, having somewhat of a background in philosophy, I'd like to present an entirely different view on the nature of sentience (i.e., consciousness).

Originally Posted by DrFree

Our own sentience seems to be an emergent property of the behavior of our brains (although the boundary between brain processes and other processes is indeed a tenuous one).

Hmmm ... so tenuous, in fact, that while sentience may seem to some to be emergent, I would submit that it is not. The idea of emergent sentience, or `epiphenomenalism,' is simply the result we get when we apply Ockham's Razor to our effort to understand mind (or consciousness). But I believe our reasoning here is flawed, because it rests on incomplete (because, ultimately, short-sighted) observations.

Were we to further investigate consciousness, we would find that it not, in fact, epiphenomenal - but in many ways just the reverse. As I suggested in my first post on this thread, another (and common enough) view of consciousness (sentience, mind, etc.) is the Cartesian view, in which the outer world (res extensa) of physical forms is complemented by a subjective, or interior world (res cogitans) - of equal ontological signficance. But I would go further, and suggest that it is the latter world (or worlds), which is the more fundamental (important, basic, vital, etc.), and this becomes a critical factor as we draw analogies between Gaia and human states of being ... and relationships amongst/between each of these.

Originally Posted by DrFree

If Gaian sentience is like human sentience (and we don't have evidence of another model), then we would need to look for a similar information system on a Gaian scale. One hypothesis is that human being and computers function like a network of neurons, with high volumes of data (signals) passing among them.

Again, I disagree with the first statement, because I find the evidence for non-emergent sentience voluminous and unending. It simply requires a different means of approach than most individuals are willing to invest - or at least a deeper level of commitment. Armchair philosophy will very unlikely lead to the conclusion that consciousness exists prior to and apart from the physical body, exterior world, etc. Simply reading the right books will also probably fall short ... and although direct experience is usually part of the prerequisite, even this can be questioned - such that a skeptic will remain a skeptic until s/he becomes sick of it, and finally admits of another possibility (of understanding, or interpretation).

But the point regarding neural networks seems unavoidable as we draw parallels to Gaia Theory and to what is known about the human brain (as an instrument, or agent of consciousness - its seat in the physical body, as Descartes pointed out). I don't think I emphasized nearly well enough in my earlier post(s) that we should consider at least hypothetically that consciousness is active (let alone present!) at other "levels" or in other states of being (than the physical). This becomes critical if we are to see certain parallels between the microcosmic (human) dimension and the macrocosmic (Gaian) dimension of being, let alone beyond ... Gaia relative to even greater entities .... as DrFree mentions.

Originally Posted by DrFree

Of course, just because we have an information network doesn't mean that sentience has emerged. In human beings, that took millions of years of evolution (yes, well before homo sapiens emerged as a species).

I think this is begging the question - "Just exactly how did sentience emerge?" Admittedly (and obviously), yes, there has been progress in the evolution of consciousness. This much can be agreed upon, but what most upholders of evolutionary theory seem to overlook, is that history - especially if one looks beyond (or behind) the prejudiced, short-sighted view of the "experts" - is as marked by decline(s) in culture(s) and civilization(s) as by rise(s) or increase. And yet, as even the experts of western, conventional science have begun to discover, the familiar picture of stupid, Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal ape-man evolving into super-intelligent, genius (sic) homo sapiens ... is flawed. Not even flawed, it is patently absurd.

This is not the proper forum to argue the (true) age of the Pyramids or Great Sphinx, but as I have pointed out several times ... posterity will one day show that we are looking at 200,000+ year old Temples - and not the 4 or 5 thousand year old tombs which biased Egyptologists (such asDr.Zahi Hawass) maintain. Even today's research shows that we can easily date the water erosion damage on these structures prior to the most recent flood of approx. 10,000 years BC. And since the jury is still out regarding the exact methods used to construct these amazing monuments ... I think we had better allow, at least for the present, that the degree of architectural perfection (or precision) found in such structures is evidence, itself, of a level of knowledge even in excess of that found among today's "expert" builders. And what of it?

Well, it just means we'd better leave off the usual round of hasty conclusions about history being a spontaneous, chance ascent from stupid, ape-like hominids ... to the brilliant Einsteins of today. If civilizations such as Atlantis did exist (say, 1 million to 5 million years ago), we have every reason to believe that they were every bit as accomplished as we are today - and even more so, in certain ways. Stories indicate universally that ultimately the Atlanteans could not sustain their society, because their focus became selfish and their development imbalanced ... relative to a greater evolutionary scheme (sic).

History repeats itself, and the Atlanteans were apparently not the first civilization (for certainly Mu, or Lemuria preceded her - at least accordingly to legend) to bring the karmic fruit of (exterior - not ultimate) destruction upon themselves. Nor were they the last, according to an overall consensus opinion of most spiritual traditions ... as discussed on other threads & forums on this site. Our days - especially the decadent ones - are numbered, thus our every action (both individual & collective) helps determine the future ... on every scale! And this has everything to do with Gaia Theory, because ...

It suggests that somehow, the planet has survived whatever cataclysms have occurred in the past - whether humanly (i.e., karmically) precipitated, or natural, such as by meteors, comets, earthquakes, flood, etc. What then, is the nature of the relationship between humanity and this planet ... if we have survived the numerous cataclysms - over millions of years (regardless of one's stance on prior continents/civilizations) - which have threatened our very existence? Why are we still here ... or if one wants to ask the opposite question, why are we threatened again & again by such cataclyms & the (apparent) threat of extinction?

Originally Posted by DrFree

A question that I think still needs to be answered is how sentience could emerge in a single individual. Human beings evolved to be sentient. Step by step over the eons, slight changes transformed simple sensory awareness into sentience.

Allowing, for a moment, that this is an accurate picture of our physical development from an exterior perspective - and taking into account the broadest sweep of time (yes, millions of years) - this seems, indeed, to be the critical question! An even more important one, for most, is: "Why did we become conscious/self-conscious in the first place!?!"

But I submit that we are barking up the wrong tree if we hold for one second to the mistaken notion that anything in all of Cosmos is "but a fortuitous occurrence of atoms," as the blind physicists of yesterday conjectured. We may be wary of making drastic statements that smack of `Intelligent Design' theory ... but let's at least admit the obvious - there are too many coincidences even in just the room you sit in ... to be so naive. That there is guidance involved - from somewhere, somehow ... whatever our own personal angle on this question ... should be openly explored. Any other approach is simply to ignore the forest for one's favorite & more familiar tree.

Originally Posted by DrFree

Gaia, however, is an individual, not a species. It does not evolve, it changes. It's systems change through the evolution of individual species, and the emergence of Gaian sentience is unlikely to have been a factor in that evolution.

That doesn't rule out the emergence of Gaian sentience, but it does require a new model of how it happened.

I agree that it is difficult to compare the notion of Gaia (as an individual) to an individual human being, precisely because the scale of being we're looking at in the case of Gaia is much vaster. I begin to beg the question, if I simply state that Gaia is one of numerous planetary existences of the same scale ... which I did in my first post in this thread. However, I cannot avoid stating this idea at least tentaively ... since it helps to bridge the gaps between neurons in some kind of a Galactic brain, just as humans (as brain cells) do in Gaia's brain.

If we can accept such a notion tentatively, then much more will fall gracefully into place, and the end result (to skip quite a few intermediate propositions, I realize) ... is that a comprehensive picture of Universal Cooperation emerges, in which all beings - and being itself - is shown to have its proper place & purpose. This is no less than a Cosmology and an Anthropology in which Unified Field Theory becomes a vital first step toward understanding the real, scientific mechanics (or physics/metaphysics) of our environment. And the ideas are really nothing new - they are but fresh formulations of ideas that have been taught since the dawn of time (however many civilizations back this may go).

I have no space here to rehash this proposition regarding Gaia-like entities .... but I feel this is an incredibly important topic - given our unhealthy obsession with polluting our planet and pushing her & ourselves to the very brink of destruction. If we could but understand the depth, and true significance, of relationships between ourselves & the planet - we might be less inclined to "leave it all up to G-d," as many are wont to do ... or to pass the proverbial buck of responsibility, which seems to characterize too many of Gaia's human inhabitants' lives/attitudes. DrFree, your next statements are poignant ...

Originally Posted by DrFree

Another question is the mental health of Gaia. A healthy mind in a healthy human brain requires sound integration of a large number of subsystems, and not just those within the brain/mind. If Gaia were to become sentient now, I would expect her (to use the classical pronoun) to be schizophrenic. The various human cultures are too much at odds for a healthy global mind to emerge.

But that might be precisely the challenge. A healthy Gaia depends on a healthy earth and a healthy, integrated relationship among human cultures. A NeoGaian religion, one in which all local religions acknowledge and welcome the God in other local religions, while at the same time engaging in respectful dialog with one another, might be a path towards world peace that we have not yet found.

By the way, if Gaia is the sentience of the earth, might there not be a God of the Universe? (Communication among astronomical nodes, measured over light-years, would seem to be too slow to be translated into human communication. I don't think the difference in scale can be bridged.)

I would contest this last bit, sound on the surface of the argument, but even 4th-dimensionally, space as we know it is virtually annihilated. Other factors enter in, when we consider interplanetary and interstellar communication - even between entities on the scale of Earth's Gaia. However, both travel and communication are not hindered by the issues with which science still struggles in today's theorizing.

The solution will come once we admit to two recognitions: (a) the one, regarding the nature of consciousness and being - as I have argued already - such that we come to know ourselves as existing in 4th-dimensional (or emotional), 5th-dimensional (or intellectual), and greater (Spiritual) levels of awareness & being, and (b) the greater exploration of our interior being amidst or upon these levels, such that we become equally adept at self-consciously living in these worlds, and in manipulating the matter (or material) thereof ... as we are in the physical, or exterior, world.

It is not that we do not already have being within subtler worlds, or states of consciousness (the res cogitans) ... it is simply that most of us are not self-conscious therein & thereof. This becomes a useful comparison as we explore the nature of the being and awareness of the entity, Gaia - for it is one thing to have sentience, and another entirely to have self-sentience, or self-consciousness. And that latter, as we well know, is not simply the pinnacle of individual attainment - for anyone half-awake can observe that "not all self-consciousnesses are equal" (to put it awkwardly) ... there being greater qualities of self-consciousness, up until the point that the personal ego - as most of us have come to know ourself - is transcended and all but forgotten, having given over to a more inclusive view & understanding of "self." This begs all sorts of philosophical questions ... but then, this is a forum and an ever-evolving discussion, so if this is not the place to do it, I don't know what is!

I will defer my re-visitation of esoteric ideas regarding Gaia-like entities until a future post ... sometime soon, I hope, in order to mesh with this already-lengthy treatise.

Peace,

andrew

[Tao_Equus]

Hi there and thank you for your thoughts !!

Originally Posted by DrFree

Some red herrings need to be dispensed with first:

1. No one claims that there is any physical similarity between Gaia and human beings (except possibly the question of the mechanisms of sentience). The fact that the life processes of Gaia take place primarily on the surface of the earth, rather than spread throughout the body, like a human, is utterly irrelevant.
2. No one claims that Gaia is Yahweh or Allah or any other god of a traditional religion. As a natural being, the nature of Gaia is to be found in observation, not in ancient texts, not the Bible or the Q'ran or even the Pagan texts that describe the classical Gaia. Gaia should not even be characterized as a god in the same sense asYahweh or Allah.

Sorry but I cant agree that they are red herrings at all. I cannot be sure that the contrary is true either however. In point 1. there is indeed mechanisms at work in the physical interior of our planet that would not be taking place if it were not for the worlds oceans. The worlds oceans would be ice if it was not for the Gaia regulated biosphere and tectonics, the primary source of nutrients required by life, would have ground to a halt long ago. Additionaly we discussed the quantum nature of matter and it is entirely credible to theorise that inorganic matter is not lifeless. If veiwed from that perspective one could indeed view the entire earth as a single living entity.

For point 2. I expounded the idea that the connection we all have as constituent units of the whole that is Gaia would be a good explanation for why most of us have this sense of God. The deep down feeling that something much bigger is out there is easily understood as our individual connection to Gaia. That we wish to explain this feeling and share it with others is what might lead to the 'invention' of religeons. Gaia may not be a sentience in the anthropic sense, but our the worlds monotheisms ceratainly have 'invented' anthropic Gods. This leads me personaly to conclude that the entity Gaia is a much more credible source for the feelings of connection to something greater than the constructions of old uninformed and superstitious dogma's.
As to whether Gaia should be revered as a God in the sense you describe I dont know. Certainly our own future survival is dependant on our relationship to the whole. I have the strong sense that Gaia as an organism will do its utmost to produce the metaphorical antibodies to fight the infection if it percieves mankind to have become one. And if we wish to worship and revere what better and more relevant entity than Gaia?

If Gaian sentience is like human sentience (and we don't have evidence of another model), then we would need to look for a similar information system on a Gaian scale. One hypothesis is that human being and computers function like a network of neurons, with high volumes of data (signals) passing among them.

Again its been suggested that communication via the quantum matrix, or Zero Point Field, is a possible mechanism by which Gaia might keep tabs on and control its actions. This is not necessary however. The biosphere itself is a thick organic soup. From the high atmosphere to the deep ocean there is not a square inch left unpopulated. Viewing all organisms as a whole as a part of Gaias nervous system and u have a credible method of information transfer.

A question that I think still needs to be answered is how sentience could emerge in a single individual.

There is tantalising evidence to suggest that the basic constituents required for life are abundant in deep space. If you stop viewing everything as being separate and see that it all is bent on a particular path then we may live in a universe full of Gaia's. They might communicate using the quantum matrix alluded to above. This also is an answer to your questions on the mental health aspects.

Gaia, however, is an individual, not a species. It does not evolve, it changes. It's systems change through the evolution of individual species, and the emergence of Gaian sentience is unlikely to have been a factor in that evolution.

I disagree, everything alive evolves. And Gaia is most certainly alive.

You raised some interesting points but I feel you tend to tie down or limit the true scale and scope that is slowly begining to be seen. I have similair problems at times, the enormity of whats appearing is difficult to grasp and I have only been able to do so incrementaly. Even then I am far from certain that any of it is true. I live in hope that new breakthroughs in our ability to test these hypthoses will prove them fact before I am recycled.

Regards


TE

[DrFree]

Andrew, You made a number of interesting remarks in reply to my post. I will respond to them individually, and then offer some suggestions for the course of our dialog.

Originally Posted by taijasi

Hmmm ... so tenuous, in fact, that while sentience may seem to some to be emergent, I would submit that it is not. The idea of emergent sentience, or `epiphenomenalism,' is simply the result we get when we apply Ockham's Razor to our effort to understand mind (or consciousness).

Actually, emergent sentience and epiphenomenalism are not the same thing at all. Epiphenomenalism is the theory that consciousness is a effect but not a cause of the physical processes that constitute human behavior. Certainly, if you believe that all aspects of human behavior is fully explained by physical processes, then Ockham's Razor would support such a theory. The concept of emergent sentience, as I understand it holds that human behavior cannot be fully explained in terms of purely physical processes, that facts about human intentions, expectations, knowledge improve our ability to explain and predict human behavior, and cannot be reduced to purely physical processes.

Originally Posted by taijasi

As I suggested in my first post on this thread, another (and common enough) view of consciousness (sentience, mind, etc.) is the Cartesian view, in which the outer world (res extensa) of physical forms is complemented by a subjective, or interior world (res cogitans) - of equal ontological signficance.

On this we agree. I tend to prefer process words like consciousness or sentience, rather than thing words like mind or soul or interior world, because such "mental ontologies" are notoriously difficult to defend. Nonetheless, whatever the details are of the theory we use to describe human consciousness, it seems clear that people believe and intend and hope and expect and infer and so on (Roderick Chisholm used to call these intensional states – spelled with an "s"), that we can have empirical knowledge of these states, and that we can use that knowledge to explain and predict their behavior.

Originally Posted by taijasi

But I would go further, and suggest that it is the latter world (or worlds), which is the more fundamental (important, basic, vital, etc.), and this becomes a critical factor as we draw analogies between Gaia and human states of being ... and relationships amongst/between each of these.

Tread gently here. Such language verges on phenomenalism, such as that proposed by Bishop Berkeley, who proposed that the so-called physical world was no more than constructs of ideas, to which in principle it could be reduced. I've never seen a phenomenalist who could extricate himself from solipsism, the theory that there is only one mind (i.e., me). At least not without a significant big of logical magic.

Originally Posted by taijasi

Again, I disagree with the first statement, because I find the evidence for non-emergent sentience voluminous and unending. It simply requires a different means of approach than most individuals are willing to invest - or at least a deeper level of commitment. Armchair philosophy will very unlikely lead to the conclusion that consciousness exists prior to and apart from the physical body, exterior world, etc. Simply reading the right books will also probably fall short ... and although direct experience is usually part of the prerequisite, even this can be questioned - such that a skeptic will remain a skeptic until s/he becomes sick of it, and finally admits of another possibility (of understanding, or interpretation).

We are talking about two different things here. The Gaia that I am talking about is the earth of our common, objective, physical experience. It is not a consciousness that "exists prior to and apart from the physical body". If you want to argue for such a consciousness, fine; that's your right. But it is totally irrelevant to the question whether the earth itself is a living, sentient being.

Originally Posted by taijasi

But the point regarding neural networks seems unavoidable as we draw parallels to Gaia Theory and to what is known about the human brain (as an instrument, or agent of consciousness - its seat in the physical body, as Descartes pointed out). I don't think I emphasized nearly well enough in my earlier post(s) that we should consider at least hypothetically that consciousness is active (let alone present!) at other "levels" or in other states of being (than the physical). This becomes critical if we are to see certain parallels between the microcosmic (human) dimension and the macrocosmic (Gaian) dimension of being, let alone beyond ... Gaia relative to even greater entities .... as DrFree mentions.

I'm not sure I understand what you are arguing here. Are you suggesting that we might be able to identify that Cartesian prior consciousness with Gaian sentience? That would be quite an accomplishment. I certainly have no idea how to achieve it.

Originally Posted by taijasi

I think this is begging the question - "Just exactly how did sentience emerge?" Admittedly (and obviously), yes, there has been progress in the evolution of consciousness. This much can be agreed upon, but what most upholders of evolutionary theory seem to overlook, is that history - especially if one looks beyond (or behind) the prejudiced, short-sighted view of the "experts" - is as marked by decline(s) in culture(s) and civilization(s) as by rise(s) or increase. And yet, as even the experts of western, conventional science have begun to discover, the familiar picture of stupid, Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal ape-man evolving into super-intelligent, genius (sic) homo sapiens ... is flawed. Not even flawed, it is patently absurd.

I'm not sure what it is you are arguing here. I am sure that I've confused the conversation with my unexplained use of the word emergent. I use it here in a narrow, somewhat technical sense. The idea is that physical, non-intensional factors are necessary elements of an explanation of human behavior. These physical factors can be described without essential reference to the person, but only to his or her body, e.g., neurons and nerves and muscles and bones, as well as to the physical environment of the person's body. However, we can never know enough about the body and its environment to fully explain and predict human actions. This conclusion comes directly both from Quantum Mechanics (QM) and Chaos Theory (CT). More importantly, when we add information about human intentions (with a "t"), we are better able to predict behavior than we are without it. Thus there are facts about the whole person (as an intensional being) that cannot be reduced to facts about his body, and that are essential in understanding behavior. Such holistic causality emerges both ontologically as a property of a whole that cannot be reduced to its components, and historically in the process of evolution of the species from a mere cooperative collection of components (i.e., the single-celled animals that originally joined to form a multi-celled animal) into a tightly integrated system whose evolutionary success depended on its seeing itself as a whole individual.

Humans came to their consciousness through evolution, with descendents gradually, incrementally acquiring higher levels of consciousness than their ancestors, through a process that "selected" the best alternatives from among many experiments at each step.. Since the earth as a whole is not the product of such an evolutionary process, it is difficult to explain how it would able to find a viable informaation system to support its sentience.

I don't have the energy to pick up the many gauntlets you flung down in the last part of your response: 200,000+ year old Temples, Atlanteans, Intelligent Design, Gaia-like entities, 4th-dimensional (or emotional), 5th-dimensional (or intellectual), and greater (Spiritual) levels of awareness & being. These are speculations well beyond my ability to contribute.

My interest is the question whether our earth, in its physical, objective glory, might be not only living but sentient. It's the same kind of question that a space explorer might ask of an extraterrestrial found on another planet, or we might ask of a supercomputer here on earth. This is an empirical question, subject to objective scientific procedures, but perhaps one with spiritual consequences. I'd rather not get distracted by these other issues.

[DrFree]

Hi TE, worthwhile dialog.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Sorry but I cant agree that they are red herrings at all. I cannot be sure that the contrary is true either however. In point 1. there is indeed mechanisms at work in the physical interior of our planet that would not be taking place if it were not for the worlds oceans. The worlds oceans would be ice if it was not for the Gaia regulated biosphere and tectonics, the primary source of nutrients required by life, would have ground to a halt long ago. Additionaly we discussed the quantum nature of matter and it is entirely credible to theorise that inorganic matter is not lifeless. If veiwed from that perspective one could indeed view the entire earth as a single living entity.

My only point here was to counteract a theme I observed in my quick read of the entries on this thread (and it might not have been a theme you endorsed) that the earth's lack of certain systems analogous to systems we humans have means that the earth cannot nonetheless be living and sentient. Earth's living systems are quite different from ours, and that fact is irrelevant to the question of sentience.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

For point 2. I expounded the idea that the connection we all have as constituent units of the whole that is Gaia would be a good explanation for why most of us have this sense of God. The deep down feeling that something much bigger is out there is easily understood as our individual connection to Gaia. That we wish to explain this feeling and share it with others is what might lead to the 'invention' of religeons. Gaia may not be a sentience in the anthropic sense, but our the worlds monotheisms ceratainly have 'invented' anthropic Gods. This leads me personaly to conclude that the entity Gaia is a much more credible source for the feelings of connection to something greater than the constructions of old uninformed and superstitious dogma's.

That is an intriguing an possibly profound observation. I hope you will have occasion for developing it more thoroughly from a sketchy hypothesis into a verifiable theory.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

As to whether Gaia should be revered as a God in the sense you describe I dont know. Certainly our own future survival is dependant on our relationship to the whole. I have the strong sense that Gaia as an organism will do its utmost to produce the metaphorical antibodies to fight the infection if it percieves mankind to have become one. And if we wish to worship and revere what better and more relevant entity than Gaia?

I don't believe I suggested that Gaia should be revered or worshipped. I have this long-standing resistance to the notion that anything deserves to be worshipped, let alone wants to be. But the idea that we, as conscious beings, are contributing components of the sentience of the earth as a whole, coheres very strongly with the proposition that we are essentially social beings interdependent on each other, and on the whole of the web of existence, your idea that the connection we all have as constituent units of the whole that is Gaia. Even if we can never demonstrate Gaia's sentience empirically, it would be good for all of us to believe it anyway as a matter of faith.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Again its been suggested that communication via the quantum matrix, or Zero Point Field, is a possible mechanism by which Gaia might keep tabs on and control its actions. This is not necessary however. The biosphere itself is a thick organic soup. From the high atmosphere to the deep ocean there is not a square inch left unpopulated. Viewing all organisms as a whole as a part of Gaias nervous system and u have a credible method of information transfer.

These are interesting ideas, but none of them has reached the point of challenging Einstein's speed limit. Information still cannot disseminate faster than the speed of light.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

everything alive evolves. And Gaia is most certainly alive.

You are right that everything alive, including the earth, changes. Individual living things, however, do not evolve. This is a technical point: evolution by definition is a process that applies to groups or collections or species. It happens when differences propagated across generations confer an evolutionary advantage in a given environment over alternatives. Neither the notion of propagation nor the mechanisms of propagation (e.g., genes) make sense when applied to individuals like you, me or Gaia.

I hope we can continue this dialog.

[Tao_Equus]

Hi DrFree and thanks for your response.
My appologoies if in my last post I misinterpreted so many times what you were saying. I seem to do that rather often despite reading something several times. I do it with exam papers too and more than once I have had the comment ' good answer but not to the question which you were asked'. I seem to have some mental block somewhere, I think most people would call it stupidity

Originally Posted by DrFree

That is an intriguing an possibly profound observation. I hope you will have occasion for developing it more thoroughly from a sketchy hypothesis into a verifiable theory.

It is a simple and, to me, logical explanation and a good use of Occums razor. I'm sure other people elswhere have similair ideas and I will leave it to them to pick up and run with it. I dont do 'specialization', I'm a 12th house amalgam of disspirate trains and enjoy the freedom that gives me.

I have this long-standing resistance to the notion that anything deserves to be worshipped, let alone wants to be.

Could'nt agree more.

These are interesting ideas, but none of them has reached the point of challenging Einstein's speed limit. Information still cannot disseminate faster than the speed of light.

The earths electro-magnetic field runs through all things and could conceivably be harnessed as an information carrying system by Gaia. There is no requirement for Gaia to react at 'light speed', intuitively I would suggest rather the opposite that compared to our perception of time any reactions are extremely ponderous. For instant communication the use of Quantum Entanglement principles through the zero point field are inded faster than light. They take zero time regardless of distance between the entangled pair. Experiments with rats, parrots and dogs have all shown that individual animals are using some kind of esp. Perhaps our own use of audible and written language has muted our inner radio but that it very much a part of the wider living system I have little doubt.

You are right that everything alive, including the earth, changes. Individual living things, however, do not evolve. This is a technical point: evolution by definition is a process that applies to groups or collections or species. It happens when differences propagated across generations confer an evolutionary advantage in a given environment over alternatives. Neither the notion of propagation nor the mechanisms of propagation (e.g., genes) make sense when applied to individuals like you, me or Gaia.

I agree with you of course but perhaps Gaia cannot be viewed as an individual in that sense. As I posted in response to someone else, if Gaia was not 'evolving' and trying out different possibilities why did She waste 350million years playing around with a group destined for extinction? Just so modern humans could become 'twitchers'?
There seem to me to be 2 ways to look at it. Gaia Life Cycle or Evolving Gaia. In the life cycle model I hypothosise that Gaia has just in the past few decades hit puberty. So perhaps you can liken Gaia to a human and say that that the childhood fascination with the extremes of the possible that we see in dinosaurs is akin to the wonder a child has for the same subject. Puberty is where it becomes possible for reproduction to take place, something space travel has the capacity to make a reality.
On the other hand an 'evolving' Gaia is simply randomly trying out different ideas and selecting the best ones for further development. Because of the material composition and time scales involved for Gaia its able to do what we are not and self-evolve. To liken it to an individual organism such as us is perhaps an inacurate comparison, and I personaly tend to think along the lines of a combination of these two possibilities.


Regards

TE


'

[taijasi]

DrFree,

Thanks for clearing up several things, most notably the distinction between emergent sentience and epiphenomenalism, and also your preference for process words ... and for Chisholm's term intensional with the "s." And knowing that your view is essentially Cartesian, makes discussion easier for me.

On the other hand, my Philosophy of Mind course was in undergraduate school some 12 or 13 years ago, so I'm afraid I'm quite out of the loop with the current discussion. Certainly in some respects the dialogue is as fresh and familiar as it was a hundred years ago, but of course, there are new ideas introduced every day. What I discovered in my undergraduate career as a Philosophy major was that I have a disdain for most forms of modern, Western philosophy ... and so I openly admit to a strong bias toward almost any Eastern system, rooted as it is in millenia of debate & exchange, versus only a few centuries of discussion here in the West.

The exception would be to trace Western philosophy back to the Greeks - and that is where I feel we can observe (sic) the last real push from the Ageless Wisdom (or Huxley's Perennial Philosophy). This is notwithstanding some great contributions from European thinkers such as Liebniz & Spinoza, Heidegger & Wittgenstein, and yes - certainly Bishop Berkeley. But to put things into "proper" perspective (and I argue this solely on the basis of my own observations, experiences, and conclusions - not insisting that such a view be adopted by another soul) ... I do, as a matter of fact, agree with Berkeley's most peculiar approach - being more or less a Neo-Platonist, or an esotericist, in my thinking.

That being said, here are a couple of responses to keep the dialogue going regarding Gaia, "her" emergent consciousness, and the comparison between such a being and the microcosmic reflection we call (a) human.

Originally Posted by DrFree

If Gaian sentience is like human sentience (and we don't have evidence of another model)

It is precisely here that I am suggesting we do have evidence for another approach. As I say, I agree largely with Berkeley's subjectivism. Your approach, as you make clear, is to rely strictly on the empirical observations of the outward senses, and then to apply inductive logic in order to find sensible conclusions. Am I mistaken? Please correct me if so, or clarify what may be an over-simplification of your gestalt.

In my experience, I find that the more useful approach is a (w)holistic one, in which evidence comes to us from a myriad of sources ... including (but not limited to) "normal" sensory observation, subjective experience(s), super-sensory observations, the related accounts of others having had these kinds of experiences, and for one of the most credible sources of wisdom or insight, the collected/collective observations of history's Greatest mystics and esotericists - judged of one's own accord by one's own discriminative faculties, and not by accepting any claims to such status at face value (or at all, in most cases).

Enough of my epistemology, please accept at least hypothetically that there are more modes & methods of gaining (true) insight into a matter ... than by strictly applying the scientific method as it is today understood & followed. Otherwise we discount almost the entirety of religious and spiritual experience(s), and since this thread is not on the `Comparative Studies' forum, allow me to submit testimony from sources other than those recognized by today's still-largely logical-positivist, reductionist-empiricist philosophical and scientific methods. Besides, it hurts to make my brain try and think this way, since nobody really talks like this except in Philosophy of Mind classes.

Yes, it is starting with a bit of an a priori assumption, but I see so much evidence for it that I believe I am justified (personally, that is) in taking the following approach, thus I will try to explain:

I think the comparison can be safely & accurately drawn between our Human condition and Gaia's, plus even just her emerging physical sentience ... based on the Hermetic Axiom, `As above, so below.' We are obliged to start from the larger, more inclusive view, and reason to the particular, because I find it quite presumptuous to assume that "man is the measure of all things" ... unless, of course, we are willing to look at "man" from a much different (larger) perspective than usual. Certainly the approach I am suggesting is no more presumptuous than one which is constantly under revision as we find ourselves less & less the center of the universe, and more & more so but one of probably millions of sentient (and intelligent) species in this Galaxy alone (- the jury is out, I'm only stating what is most likely, as the "experts" are finally starting to agree). Our Earth is no longer flat, it is much larger than many people have thought it to be, and we learn more about the planet & ourselves every day that topples all the sacred, pet ideas we have held dear ... since the dawn of time. I am no expert on prior civilizations, super-physical states of consciousness, and the many, many taboo areas of exploration that stand - as always - like an open door, just waiting for scientists or even casual investigators to have the balls (and the selfless disregard for fame, reputation, etc.) to take seriously. But I can testify to their existence, if only in small measure, and I am confident I can play a card or two that cannot be trumped.

What if, as I have been suggesting, the Gaia entity, exists on such a larger scale of existence, that we are focusing our search much too "close to home," so to speak? I pointed out before that among the many planetary processes which we do understand, there are quite a few parallels to the human physcial organism. Even the interior of the planet, with its fiery activity and predominantly-iron composition, mirrors the mineral components of our human body, including the blood and circulatory system, for obvious reasons.

Add to this the fact that ~75% of the Earth's surface is covered by water, which mimics to a large degree the composition of the human body. Now consider that functionally speaking, the Earth has a direct equivalent of our respiratory system - namely the forests & portions of the atmosphere that we are so determined to exploit & destroy in the name of greed & vanity. Let's keep going ... and keep proper perspective - Humanity, collectively, does seem to have parallels on the planetary scale with the physical brain on the human scale. Neural networks, division of brain into cortex, limbic system, & brain stem, etc. - all of this finds a mirror in (or rather, can be seen as mirrored from) the planet as a whole. Further, we are developing a `noosphere,' a la Teilhard de Chardin's philosophy, including a global communications network - but more notably, an obvious evolution & organization of ideas, and even if only for say, 10,000 years, I should still think this marks a definite progression from simpler to more complex. With this general evolutionary trend - both in terms of form, and consciousness - I am in agreement.

The list goes on, and I would hope someone might chime in with the many, many parallels I have missed. The animal kingdom, for instance, must have a parallel. I say must, because I am assuming we are simply removing a veil - not inventing a new recipe for chicken scallopini. Clearly the animal kingdom plays a role that includes the reproductive system of the planet, but I think Humanity also shares in that - so there must be something more. We might go a bit further and say that animals, collectively, constitute the instinct(s) of the globe, but I think that parallel could be better drawn out and elaborated.

Does all this seem to miss the point, in that we have yet to really get at the consciousness of Gaia? Yes, I think so. But that's because imho and in my way of thinking (gestalt) ... consciousness is actually one of the least pronounced aspects of, or in, the human physical body. I believe that form, speaking in terms of the Esoteric Philosophy, or Ageless Wisdom, almost entirely dominates. Even what we identify as instinct is but the programmed response, long, long ago allowed to drop below the level of our waking consciousness ... such that indeed, many functions of our body take place - well duh, obviously - without the least bit of intervention or effort from us. And just exactly so, I would have to argue with respect to Gaia, if indeed she parallels (or is the Greater Correspondence to) the human being. Therefore, if we search for the individual consciousness - or to speak more clearly and on the mark, the consciousness OF the individual .... in the case of Gaia ... we are likely to end up only with a handful of straws, and after all, these are so easy to knock down. Like my "house of cards," I suppose, and perhaps all I say can be trumped, if that's our game.

But my effort was to show - and I'll try to renew my argument without appealing too greatly to an obscure set of teachings with which many folks aren't famliar - that our planet is really not so difficult to understand after all (nor her parallels to a human being), precisely because she now stands in Her evolution ... where one day, each of us shall stand. Or, conversely put, if we reach far enough into the past, this planet (like ALL) was a "human."

This is not impossible to defend, because if we can observe the many parallels listed above - and maybe come up with a few more of our own, some of which may be obvious, but which my tired brain has missed - then we have a good starting point. And this needs no appeal to the Ageless Wisdom teachings, or any other, since it is but our senses and a bit of logical reasoning (!) ... which leads to the conclusions (or at least the premises of the argument).

The greatest stretch which I will attempt right now, is to state (if it will be allowed to stand, at least tentatively - or better yet, begin a discussion) hypothetically that the entire physical planet is a direct correspondence macrocosmically (and not that far removed, actually) ... to our physical body. To discuss this parallel is useful, but it is also to ignore the fact that humans exhibit emotions, or passions, as well as the intellectual component which Aristotle called the Rational Soul. In this line of thinking, neither the planet (as Gaia) - nor a human being - consists of primarily a body - plus these other states, or modes of being (higher aspects of consciousness, each "clothed" in a vehicle of the corresponding subtler state of matter, according to the Ageless Wisdom). Rather, ontologically/metaphysically, it is just the reverse, such that, as Sting of The Police puts it, "We are spirits in the material world." And as many are fond of expressing it, it's not that we are physical beings having spiritual experiences, but that we are spiritual beings - having physical experiences (or incarnation(s)).

Now if this be accepted (hypothetically - and it is quite defensible), then we must look ... not in, or at, the physical globe to understand Who, and What, Gaia is - but rather, both to the spiritual heart of ourselves, and of the planet, to know her. Otherwise, just as the scientist in the laboratory, or the philospher in his armchair - each dissecting a human being according to his familiar method - we will be destined to failure.

If, on the other hand, we take into account the testimony, writings, and accomplishments of such groups as the Jewish Kabbalists, the English Transcendentalists, and the Esotericists of every age ... then we will start with, as our premise, the insightful statement of Alexander Pope:

"All are parts of one stupendous whole


Whose body Nature is and God the soul."

Thus - I would submit that Gaia is both one and at the same time ... a living, sentient, self-conscious being, in the truest sense of that word, existing on a scale much larger than that of the human individual, but mirroring our existence considerably ... while Gaia is also, if we consider collectively her physical, emotional & intellectual states of being - but the outer garment of, or vehicle for, a being that very closely fits the descriptions of the theological `G-d,' keeping in mind the many, many differing accounts & opinions regarding the latter formed by Humanity throughout the ages.

This may tread somewhat on avenues of exploration or investigation that we wish to confine, on this thread, but it can nevertheless be argued quite sensibly (I hope, anyway) ... that the analogy is accurate insofar as it goes. If we confine ourselves to looking at Gaia's outer mode, method & vehicle(s) of expression, then we will not quite plumb the depths of the spiritual character - and true state(s) of Being - of Gaia as an entity ... just as to focus on the physical human body is hardly to understand the (emotional) heart, the (subtler aspects of the) mind, let alone the spiritual components, or `Soul.'

That's a start ... maybe more later.

andrew

[DrFree]

Hi, TE. Thanks for keeping the dialog going.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

The earths electro-magnetic field runs through all things and could conceivably be harnessed as an information carrying system by Gaia. There is no requirement for Gaia to react at 'light speed', intuitively I would suggest rather the opposite that compared to our perception of time any reactions are extremely ponderous. For instant communication the use of Quantum Entanglement principles through the zero point field are inded faster than light. They take zero time regardless of distance between the entangled pair. Experiments with rats, parrots and dogs have all shown that individual animals are using some kind of esp. Perhaps our own use of audible and written language has muted our inner radio but that it very much a part of the wider living system I have little doubt.

I see no problem in Gaia's tapping into our human-computer information system, learning one or more of our languages, and making contact. The limitation of light speed comes in trying to take the analogy to the level of the galaxy or the universe. The transmission of data among nodes in a galactic system takes tens of thousands of years; it would take millions of years in a universal (i.e., multi-galactic) system. The processing of that data would take longer than we live. I think communication is not feasible.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I agree with you of course but perhaps Gaia cannot be viewed as an individual in that sense. As I posted in response to someone else, if Gaia was not 'evolving' and trying out different possibilities why did She waste 350million years playing around with a group destined for extinction? Just so modern humans could become 'twitchers'?

You seem to suggest that Gaia chose to create us. I don't think that's true, any more than we chose the features of our own bodies. Gaia emerged from from the microprocesses of the earch in a way analogous to the way we emerged from the microprocesses of our bodies. We find ourselves able not only to react to events in our environment, but also to act on it (i.e., to choose), and thereby to co-create our future in partnership (or in opposition) with other people and other active processes. Similarly it might be that Gaia not only has living processes of the kind that Lovelock and Margulis describe, but also sentient processes that allow Gaia to be aware of what's happening, and possibly to choose to participate in the co-creation of the future.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

There seem to me to be 2 ways to look at it. Gaia Life Cycle or Evolving Gaia. In the life cycle model I hypothosise that Gaia has just in the past few decades hit puberty. So perhaps you can liken Gaia to a human and say that that the childhood fascination with the extremes of the possible that we see in dinosaurs is akin to the wonder a child has for the same subject. Puberty is where it becomes possible for reproduction to take place, something space travel has the capacity to make a reality.

There is nothing we know of in the paleohistory of the world that functions like the neural net that is our brain. Gaia could not have been more than very dimly aware of the microprocesses that went on in the earth until relatively recently. If Gaia is becoming intelligent, it's not yet a mature intelligence. Indeed, as I've remarked before, I fear that that given the macroprocesses that the earth is undergoing right now, there is a reasonable likelihood that if Gaia's intelligence were to emerge right now, it would be kind of schizophrenic.

Note that you and I are totally unaware of what's going on in our brains or inside our bodies. We focus almost entirely on what's going on outside, except when we find ourselves undergoing pain or other unusual sensation. Why would Gaia become aware of what's going on in Gaia's body. (I remain reluctant to use the classical feminine personal pronouns for Gaia. In the mouth's of too many people, they lead to irrelevant questions about gender.)

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

On the other hand an 'evolving' Gaia is simply randomly trying out different ideas and selecting the best ones for further development. Because of the material composition and time scales involved for Gaia its able to do what we are not and self-evolve. To liken it to an individual organism such as us is perhaps an inacurate comparison, and I personaly tend to think along the lines of a combination of these two possibilities.

The notion of evolution's "trying out" various possibilities, is like a comfortable old shoe, until we start walking on gravel and feel the stone through the holes in the sole. Evolution is blind and non-intentional. An evolving species has no awareness of what's happening to its gradually changing nature. Only individual's can be aware of themselves, of their environment, or choose among the possibilities.

[DrFree]

Whoa, Andrew, slow down. I can't handle a philosophical firehose. It's been way too many years. Let me focus on your concluding remarks.

Originally Posted by taijasi

Alexander Pope:

"All are parts of one stupendous whole
Whose body Nature is and God the soul."

I like this quote. Thank you. I'm not fond of its objectification of the soul; I prefer to speak of the soul in process terms. Nonetheless, it closely resembles my opinion that Gaia is to the earth as we are to our bodies.

Originally Posted by taijasi

Thus - I would submit that Gaia is both one and at the same time ... a living, sentient, self-conscious being, in the truest sense of that word, existing on a scale much larger than that of the human individual, but mirroring our existence considerably ... while Gaia is also, if we consider collectively her physical, emotional & intellectual states of being - but the outer garment of, or vehicle for, a being that very closely fits the descriptions of the theological `G-d,' keeping in mind the many, many differing accounts & opinions regarding the latter formed by Humanity throughout the ages.

I certainly agree with the first part of this paragraph, at least as a hypothesis worthy of consideration. I'm not comfortable with the metaphor of a garment or vehicle. My body is not a garment or vehicle in which I reside. I am my body. But then my body is not a mere thing, it is a living thing. As a matter of fact, it is a sentient, aware, active thing. It is the thing that is right now talking to you.

It's a little dangerous though attributing Gaia with the trappings of religions. Gaia as a natural being is unlikely to conform to the definitions of God as expressed in the many world religions. If Gaia did directly talk to us, I suspect that Gaia would prefer to provide Gaia's own biography.

By the way, I don't mind using the word "God"; that's a proper name in the human language. However, I'm reluctant to use personal pronouns, not even the feminine pronouns of the classical pagan tradition. Too many people have come to very sad conclusions from our language's lack of a genderless personal pronoun.