Understanding of Earth as a life force

[backwardmachine]

Is there anybody here that understands Earth as a life force.

Out of 8 billion people I have yet to meet somebody who can describe a planet or anything bigger than a dinosaur as a living being, although I have read of them.

Where are they?

Is the limit of human intelligence to discover everything which is smaller than us and describe it in biological terms but assume everything which is larger than us exists simply to amuse our own existence as little crawlings of flesh?

[Strange]

1 hour ago, backwardmachine said:

Is there anybody here that understands Earth as a life force.

You would have to explain what that means, before I could answer. What is a "life force"? What would it mean if the Earth were a life force?

Have you heard of Gaia theory? That may be the sort of thing you are thinking of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

1 hour ago, backwardmachine said:

Out of 8 billion people I have yet to meet somebody who can describe a planet or anything bigger than a dinosaur as a living being, although I have read of them.

There are living organisms bigger than dinosaurs. For example: https://www.businessinsider.com/largest-living-organism-the-armillaria-ostoyae-fungus-2017-5?IR=T

1 hour ago, backwardmachine said:

Is the limit of human intelligence to discover everything which is smaller than us and describe it in biological terms but assume everything which is larger than us exists simply to amuse our own existence as little crawlings of flesh?

No. Why would you think that?

[backwardmachine]

Gaia theory is brief and it's the one everybody always falls back to when so-called scientists come forward to label anybody talking about something that can't be measured as hippy culture claptrap. 

You've provided something bigger than a dinosaur but you're scale of mind is smaller than the size of the atmosphere. You literally couldn't answer with anything bigger, not even to intrigue me. This is the limit of your intelligence and nearly every other scientist in the world. I'm trying to find someone who can imagine a planet as a being or as part of a being but it seems outside of the realm of logic or any kind of human theory of space and time and the universe.

Is that not where modern science falls apart because it all revolves around ourselves being the kingpin of space like we are children waiting for presents for christmas. 

Nearly everything in modern science revolves around looking downward at things which are smaller, and yet there seems to be zero ability within the human conciousness of explaining things which are larger from the point of view of something which is larger, looking down at us.

Do you see my point?

[Strange]

23 minutes ago, backwardmachine said:

Nearly everything in modern science revolves around looking downward at things which are smaller, and yet there seems to be zero ability within the human conciousness of explaining things which are larger from the point of view of something which is larger, looking down at us.

We have cosmology, which studies the entire universe. That is as big as it gets.  (And, yes, there are some scientists/philosophers who argue that the universe is conscious or alive.)

25 minutes ago, backwardmachine said:

Do you see my point?

No

[backwardmachine]

So before you downvote my post, why don't you write the sentence "Well gee I haven't thought about that because nobody can prove that anything bigger than a dinosaur or huge fungus really is alive" and yet you all like looking at the stars and you get enjoyment from them and their harmony, and you expect they are some puppet for your amusement. That's how a gentleman would do it and used to do it in England, I'm not sure what kind of "culture" this downvoting mechanic is but it's like everything else that is rotten on whatever side of the sea you live.

This is what I have to deal with every time I meet a scientist - quantum physics. I've yet to meet a single one of these so-called Einstein-level intellectuals that can take a hit without throwing formulas at me and the laws of what you can see with a human eye as working.

Let's say I create a system on my computer and throw one or two little pixel-shaped planets around a million times. A simple program. Spen the Scientist is going to sit there with all of his professors and associates and work out a thousand formulas to explain the system, the planets, the path, the trajectory, the limits, the patterns etc. It's chaos theory but nobody ever does this, you're right. This is how I see humanity and the level of intelligence we have, all prescribed to a single thread of logic. 

Not a single one of them is going to say "hmm, I wonder what the program is?"

If someone sat on some other planet were to see that data it would look completely different. They'd probably have a completely different set of formulas to describe what was going on.

That's how good human intelligence is. Not a single scientist on this forsaken planet can explain his theory from the point of view of the very thing everybody is enveloped in - data. It's still formulas from 100 years ago.

So when I ask, who created these balls of rock that do such miraculous things... is it a religious question or is it a scientific question?

Somebody always pipes up with an answer about humans and that's not what I'm looking for. 

Why is it always about humans? That's how egotistical and full of itself our own species is, and you only have to look at decline in wildlife to see it.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

We have cosmology, which studies the entire universe. That is as big as it gets.  (And, yes, there are some scientists/philosophers who argue that the universe is conscious or alive.)

No

Where? 

You don't see my point but I explained it. This is what I mean by cap on human intelligence. It is literally headache-inducing to start to conceive of a planet or anything larger as a conscious or alive being for nearly everyone you meet. It is similar if you describe humans or any life as being a program. And yet nearly everybody is looking down at their cellphone at the train station trying to not communicate outside of a little metal box. We are all programs by some design, much of the human body is visibly programmatic.

What is "computer"? Why is it we think we invented it? Why is it we think it needs a name? Computer is everywhere, it's data... if we can use it in sci-fi movies then why can't we conceive of everything as data? Or "computer". Why is it everything is described by a formula, and not by a program. Why is it, everything is not alive, if everything is data? 

Which bits aren't data?

Does data need the name "data".

Or is it just "life".

So why can't most people conceive of a planet as "life"?

[Prometheus]

3 minutes ago, backwardmachine said:

So before you downvote my post...

I down voted your post, not because of any of the content but simply because it was rude. Seems you a more interested in ranting than discussing.

[backwardmachine]

Just now, Prometheus said:

I down voted your post, not because of any of the content but simply because it was rude. Seems you a more interested in ranting than discussing.

Maybe, but I studied the forum before my rude post, and determined that theory of this kind was met with rudeness in turn.

It is difficult to establish a discussion when the status quo is set within a little square-box model of teaching and professing, and is missing so much of the bigger picture. I haven't even got started but if these kind of questions are intimidating to your academic education then perhaps you can continue on your way without resorting to digg culture.

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, backwardmachine said:

why don't you write the sentence "Well gee I haven't thought about that because nobody can prove that anything bigger than a dinosaur or huge fungus really is alive" 

Because lots of people have thought about this. And had polite, intelligent discussions about it.

You are not the first person to suggest we should consider things at all scales to be alive. You may be one of the least constructive, though.

13 minutes ago, backwardmachine said:

So when I ask, who created these balls of rock that do such miraculous things... is it a religious question or is it a scientific question?

It depends. If you approach it scientifically (ie. using evidence) it is a scientific question. 

If you approach it analytically, using rational debate and logic, it is a philosophical question.

If you approach it on the basis of personal belief, then it is a religious question.

It is not clear which approach you want to take. (I am guessing not the scientific, evidence-based one).

16 minutes ago, backwardmachine said:

It is literally headache-inducing to start to conceive of a planet or anything larger as a conscious or alive being for nearly everyone you meet.

It is a very common idea that has been debated frequently. No one but you gets so antagonistic about it.

17 minutes ago, backwardmachine said:

So why can't most people conceive of a planet as "life"?

Do you know that most people don't? 

3 minutes ago, backwardmachine said:

Maybe, but I studied the forum before my rude post, and determined that theory of this kind was met with rudeness in turn.

Then maybe you should not have joined.

3 minutes ago, backwardmachine said:

I haven't even got started but if these kind of questions are intimidating to your academic education

They are not. But I would like to see a slightly less combative approach.

I started off trying to understand and explore what you were saying, but you have responded with nothing but insults.

Why not start again more calmly. How about defining what you mean by "life force"?

[backwardmachine]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Because lots of people have thought about this. And had polite, intelligent discussions about it.

That's another way to shake the fact that you gave me fungus as an example and berate my posts with smarm to excuse it.

[Ghideon]

I've read a few interesting and speculative things about how extraterrestrial life may evolve and what shape it could take, Including scales much larger than exists here on earth. But if you claim that we humans are not intelligent enough to address the topic you wish to discuss then is there any point I try?

25 minutes ago, backwardmachine said:

This is how I see humanity and the level of intelligence we have, all prescribed to a single thread of logic.

Unless you claim to be non human then the limitations you state applies to your ideas and comments as well as mine. 

 

16 minutes ago, backwardmachine said:

I haven't even got started but if these kind of questions are intimidating to your academic education

I'm not intimidated at all. 

[Strange]

18 minutes ago, backwardmachine said:

That's another way to shake the fact that you gave me fungus as an example 

It was just an example of something which is is undoubtedly alive. 

I also gave the example of the whole universe, which has been considered by many to be alive. However, despite this apparently being consistent with your idea, you seem reluctant to discuss it. Have you heard of John Wheeler's "participatory universe", for example? Or Philip Goff's "panpsychism"?

 

The OP has reached their 5 post limit for the first day. Let us hope that they take the time to consider their approach and come back with a more constructive discussion.

Here is an overview article that might give the OP some ideas to think about / research: https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-universe-may-be-conscious-prominent-scientists-state

Quote

Then there's a third option which is gaining ground in some scientific circles, panpsychism. In this view, the entire universe is inhabited by consciousness.

A handful of scientists are starting to warm to this theory, but it's still a matter of great debate. 

 

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, backwardmachine said:

That's another way to shake the fact that you gave me fungus as an example and berate my posts with smarm to excuse it.

And that's another way to concede a point... Here at least. 

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, backwardmachine said:

That's another way to shake the fact that you gave me fungus as an example and berate my posts with smarm to excuse it.

To me, it seemed more like Strange was being overly polite regarding your unsupported position rather than attempting any kind of smarm. The fact that you're spending your time arguing about how we're arguing doesn't help support the understanding you're trying to foster. We're willing to be persuaded by strong arguments, and so far I've seen none. And the whole "My ideas challenge your hidebound preconceptions!" bit is worthless here. The rules are extremely clear about supporting speculative ideas. If you have evidence, let's see it!

[Sensei]

4 hours ago, backwardmachine said:

So why can't most people conceive of a planet as "life"?

Life forms can eat to gain mass and energy and replicate itself. The majority of living beings are replicating by cloning. 

Planets or stars don't do that. They just follow gravitational force law and nuclear reactions at higher temperatures and pressures caused by gravitation. 

You should first come up with some definition of life.

 

You seem to be making equality sign between "following rules", "following physical laws", "following program" and "being alive"..

Is your computer program alive?

It might behave like life form if it is enough complex program.

Did you hear about Game of Life? 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life

 

4 hours ago, backwardmachine said:

Not a single one of them is going to say "hmm, I wonder what the program is?"

Actually they do. Just using different words. Complex program for programmer's convinence and readability must be split to well known small blocks of code ("functions", "methods", "procedures"). Computer program function takes arguments ("parameters") and calculates something and outputs result. Which can be used in other functions and so on. Newtonian gravitational law is just such function taking two masses and distance between them as parameters and outputs force. Repeat it in a loop with varing positions  (thus different distances) and you will get vector field.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_field

 

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Sensei said:

Life forms can eat to gain mass and energy and replicate itself.

I guess the argument would be that that is a definition based on (small) biological life and that maybe it should be broadened to encompass larger possibilities. (I am always wary of that because if you make the definition to broad, you end up needing a new word to describe what we currently consider to be "life".)

[backwardmachine]

14 hours ago, Strange said:

I guess the argument would be that that is a definition based on (small) biological life and that maybe it should be broadened to encompass larger possibilities. (I am always wary of that because if you make the definition to broad, you end up needing a new word to describe what we currently consider to be "life".)

It's the idea. It's a programming perspective. If we can have nested functions inside our own programs then you can have nested functions in life.

In DNA and molecular science you have peculiar determinations ie.

AAAAAA is the same as AAA and AAA
AAA is the same AAA somewhere else
If you're any kind of programmer you know this is wrong as soon as you read it. Most of DNA research is butchery and botchery because they decided to tackle a long sequence of code with laboratory instruments instead of collaborative efforts from many fields ie. music, art, programming, mechanics. Nearly everything I taste that is GMO tastes foul or bland and that's nature's way of telling us we're doing things the wrong way. There are skill gaps in the field of science that mean people with tiny minds get to butcher an entire planet's ecosystem with cut and paste technology.

I'd like to talk about universes etc but it's pie in the sky if people don't understand a basic idea and don't care because they're mired in quantum physics and Einsteinisms. 

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, backwardmachine said:

It's the idea. It's a programming perspective. If we can have nested functions inside our own programs then you can have nested functions in life.

Yes, you can. It doesn’t mean to do though. 

That is why science depends on evidence. 

6 minutes ago, backwardmachine said:

In DNA and molecular science you have peculiar determinations ie.

AAAAAA is the same as AAA and AAA
AAA is the same AAA somewhere else

But those wouldn’t necessarily be the same in DNA. Context is vital. The same sequence could mean different things depending where it was 

8 minutes ago, backwardmachine said:

I'd like to talk about universes etc but it's pie in the sky if people don't understand a basic idea and don't care because they're mired in quantum physics and Einsteinisms. 

Clearly, you think you are smarter than everyone here, and no one here is worth talking to, so maybe you should find an alternative.

If you only want to lecture people who already agree with you, rather than discuss your ideas, then maybe a blog would be better. 

[backwardmachine]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Yes, you can. It doesn’t mean to do though. 

That is why science depends on evidence. 

But those wouldn’t necessarily be the same in DNA. Context is vital. The same sequence could mean different things depending where it was 

Clearly, you think you are smarter than everyone here, and no one here is worth talking to, so maybe you should find an alternative.

If you only want to lecture people who already agree with you, rather than discuss your ideas, then maybe a blog would be better. 

You are threatened by someone who can think outside of your little cosy box of formulas. That you have so many posts and pay so little attention to new ideas tells everybody what they need to know about you. You continue to derail my posts. If you weren't threatened by my ideas you would lift the 5 post limit like you had a pair but I can see this forum is mired by tiny minds. Carry on, I'm done here.

[Prometheus]

22 hours ago, Strange said:

It depends. If you approach it scientifically (ie. using evidence) it is a scientific question. 

If you approach it analytically, using rational debate and logic, it is a philosophical question.

If you approach it on the basis of personal belief, then it is a religious question.

I'd add one more, spiritual - but that's a loaded word for some, maybe experiential is better.

Although we mostly experience our existence as something separate from the universe, it is possible to experience the self not as something separate but as a whole with all else.

No idea if that is what the OP is referring to. Guess we'll never know.

[Strange]

49 minutes ago, backwardmachine said:

You are threatened by someone who can think outside of your little cosy box of formulas

I am not threatened at all. I am commenting on (not criticising or dismissing) your ideas and trying to get you to enter into a discussion. You seem uninterested in discussing them though. 

50 minutes ago, backwardmachine said:

If you weren't threatened by my ideas you would lift the 5 post limit like you had a pair but I can see this forum is mired by tiny minds.

The five post limit is only for the first day to try and deter spammers (I'm not sure it works very well) and I have no control over it.

Anyway, you are past the limit and are now free to discuss your idea in as much depth as you wish. So, we are all here waiting, with open minds, to hear what you have to say.

What's that? You just came here to insult people? Oh, OK.

52 minutes ago, backwardmachine said:

Carry on, I'm done here.

OK. Maybe others will carry on a discussion of this interesting idea.

 

16 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

I'd add one more, spiritual - but that's a loaded word for some, maybe experiential is better.

I think that is a good point. People differ in where, and how, they draw the line between their "self" and the outside world. Some people see themselves as very much an "island", a self-contained entity with well defined borders. Others don't draw much of a distinction between themselves and the rest of the world. (And, as with all these things, there is a complete spectrum.) I guess the latter type might be more likely to say that the universe is conscious because we are part of the universe.

 

[Bufofrog]

On 2/18/2020 at 4:09 AM, backwardmachine said:

Out of 8 billion people I have yet to meet somebody who can describe a planet or anything bigger than a dinosaur as a living being,

A Blue Whale is bigger than any dinosaur that ever lived.  There you go, out of 8 billion people I have fulfilled your desire to meet me.  Hello!

I imagine there are probably many several billion people that also know this but I guess you have not met them.  Planets aren't alive based on the generally accepted definition of life.  

Edited February 19, 2020 by Bufofrog

[dimreepr]

40 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Planets aren't alive based on the generally accepted definition of life.  

But we (life) are an integral part of the planetary system and we (life) depend on that system; I'm not sure there's a qualitive difference between the two.

The ecosystem that is me, may as well be a planet to the life that depends on me; even a virus, that is trying to kill me, needs me to live, or at least provide a suitable enviroment.

[swansont]

6 hours ago, backwardmachine said:

Carry on, I'm done here.

!

Moderator Note

Very well

 

edit: people who want to pursue this discussion are free to start a new thread, free from the distractions inherent in the OPs posting style and post content.