Is our biosphere God?

[Moontanman]

The idea of god is slippery to say the least but could our entire biosphere be likened to a colonial organism that is self aware in the way that ants and or termites colonies are aware?

 

Would such a super organism qualify as being a god?

 

The Earths biosphere could be alive and even aware in it's own way and trying to control the environment much like our bodies mechanisms control the conditions inside our bodies.

 

Quite possibly we are the brain of the organism but we are unaware of the over mind which only seeks to live and doesn't care who dies or suffers individually. It could communicate and control it's various parts through viruses and or feed back loops it controls but has no more conscious thoughts than our liver does...

 

Or maybe we are a cancer that developed in this organism and we are detrimental to it's existence..

[rigney]

The idea of god is slippery to say the least but could our entire biosphere be likened to a colonial organism that is self aware in the way that ants and or termites colonies are aware?

 

Would such a super organism qualify as being a god?

 

The Earths biosphere could be alive and even aware in it's own way and trying to control the environment much like our bodies mechanisms control the conditions inside our bodies.

 

Quite possibly we are the brain of the organism but we are unaware of the over mind which only seeks to live and doesn't care who dies or suffers individually. It could communicate and control it's various parts through viruses and or feed back loops it controls but has no more conscious thoughts than our liver does...

 

Or maybe we are a cancer that developed in this organism and we are detrimental to it's existence..

 

Believing as I do, your concept could be in accordance with my thoughts and right on the money. I swear! (pardon me); but there is so much shilly shallying in these forum posts that I can hardly keep up with them unless I read constantly. And then someone invariably beats hell out of me. Suppose we are those chosen "Bee Keepers" and don't know it? Drag this thing into deeper water so I might understand it better, or even worse; for that matter. Edited May 2, 2012 by rigney

[dimreepr]

The idea of god is slippery to say the least but could our entire biosphere be likened to a colonial organism that is self aware in the way that ants and or termites colonies are aware?

 

Would such a super organism qualify as being a god?

 

The Earths biosphere could be alive and even aware in it's own way and trying to control the environment much like our bodies mechanisms control the conditions inside our bodies.

 

Quite possibly we are the brain of the organism but we are unaware of the over mind which only seeks to live and doesn't care who dies or suffers individually. It could communicate and control it's various parts through viruses and or feed back loops it controls but has no more conscious thoughts than our liver does...

 

Or maybe we are a cancer that developed in this organism and we are detrimental to it's existence..

 

 

This idea was explored by Isaac Asimov in his book “foundation and earth” he takes the idea a stage further in that the planetary consciousness, Gaia, was aware and was shared via telepathy to every living entity on the planet. For this reason I’ve always opposed the idea, as telepathy would be the only viable way the idea could work, whether or not the consciousness was aware.

 

 

[rigney]

This idea was explored by Isaac Asimov in his book “foundation and earth” he takes the idea a stage further in that the planetary consciousness, Gaia, was aware and was shared via telepathy to every living entity on the planet. For this reason I’ve always opposed the idea, as telepathy would be the only viable way the idea could work, whether or not the consciousness was aware.

 

rigney here dimreeper. Thanks, I had no idea Asimov was into such weird stuff.

 

Holy Krap! Jostled through the prelim and realized just how much I didn't know, about what I didn't know.. Hopefully all of this stuff is, "Sci-Fi? Edited May 2, 2012 by rigney

[dimreepr]

rigney here dimreeper. Thanks, I had no idea Asimov was into such weird stuff.

 

 

 

He's one of my favourite authors, the foundation series is, IMO, a must read.

 

 

[ecoli]

in what way are ant and termite colonies self away? A set of individually acting automata is not necessarily conscious of emergent behaviors. I don't really see what benefit you get from framing the biosphere as 'god', besides for a weak philosophical point

[Airbrush]

As mentioned above the Gaia hypothesis is what you mean by "God". The Earth seems to regulate itself to allow life to thrive.

 

"The Gaia theory posits that the Earth is a self-regulating complex system involving the biosphere, the atmosphere, the hydrospheres and the pedosphere, tightly coupled as an evolving system. The theory sustains that this system as a whole, called Gaia, seeks a physical and chemical environment optimal for contemporary life.[1]

 

"Gaia evolves through a cybernetic feedback system operated unconsciously by the biota, leading to broad stabilization of the conditions of habitability in a full homeostasis. Many processes in the Earth's surface essential for the conditions of life depend on the interaction of living forms, especially microorganisms, with inorganic elements. These processes establish a global control system that regulates Earth's surface temperature, atmosphere composition and ocean salinity, powered by the global thermodynamic desequilibrium state of the Earth system....."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

Edited May 2, 2012 by Airbrush

[Moontanman]

This idea was explored by Isaac Asimov in his book “foundation and earth” he takes the idea a stage further in that the planetary consciousness, Gaia, was aware and was shared via telepathy to every living entity on the planet. For this reason I’ve always opposed the idea, as telepathy would be the only viable way the idea could work, whether or not the consciousness was aware.

 

 

On a planetary scale things like chemical messages, pheromones, virus particles or other completely real world things could be involved, no need for telepathy. An ant colony is aware of and reacts to it's surroundings even if the individual ants are not.

 

in what way are ant and termite colonies self away? A set of individually acting automata is not necessarily conscious of emergent behaviors. I don't really see what benefit you get from framing the biosphere as 'god', besides for a weak philosophical point

 

 

Termite and ant colonies are indeed aware, the emergent behaviors they display show this even though the individuals are not.

[questionposter]

The idea of god is slippery to say the least but could our entire biosphere be likened to a colonial organism that is self aware in the way that ants and or termites colonies are aware?

 

Would such a super organism qualify as being a god?

 

The Earths biosphere could be alive and even aware in it's own way and trying to control the environment much like our bodies mechanisms control the conditions inside our bodies.

 

Quite possibly we are the brain of the organism but we are unaware of the over mind which only seeks to live and doesn't care who dies or suffers individually. It could communicate and control it's various parts through viruses and or feed back loops it controls but has no more conscious thoughts than our liver does...

 

Or maybe we are a cancer that developed in this organism and we are detrimental to it's existence..

 

While I suppose it is theoretically possible to have a single organism as big as a biosphere, I'd think it would be kind of in-cohesive due to the tremendous reaction time delay at large distances.

The idea about control seems a little too abstract. Wouldn't we constantly have an immune response? Wouldn't we eventually evolve to develop a resistance to it? How is this organism actually communicating? And why would it control the environment yet allow us to nuke it and have the capability to destroy the entire world a few times over (which we also came close to doing)?

 

While it is possible individual ant and termites have consciousness, I don't see a way they could be physically connected to act as one organism seeing as how they are always moving around and away from each other.

Edited May 2, 2012 by questionposter

[dimreepr]

On a planetary scale things like chemical messages, pheromones, virus particles or other completely real world things could be involved, no need for telepathy. An ant colony is aware of and reacts to it's surroundings even if the individual ants are not.

 

 

Termite and ant colonies are indeed aware, the emergent behaviors they display show this even though the individuals are not.

 

 

The ant/termite colony uses, as you say, chemical messages and pheromones to co-ordinate responses to external stimuli. Group or herd intelligence is a well known phenomenon and depends on the individuals, within the herd/colony being essentially, stupid; the individual has a limited capability of deciding a response for itself. This however doesn't translate to animals with a higher consciousness; the groups therein rely on co-operation rather than chemically induced or automatic reactions. For your idea to work, without telepathy, would require the flora and fauna of the planet to communicate directly in some way, I would at some level be influenced by, let's say, ants in my decision process. Instead what we have is a kind of balance in that each organism has found a way to live in the environment in which they find themselves. Even inorganic material can display emergent qualities that can appear to have a consciousness.

Edited May 3, 2012 by dimreepr

[Moontanman]

The ant/termite colony uses, as you say, chemical messages and pheromones to co-ordinate responses to external stimuli. Group or herd intelligence is a well known phenomenon and depends on the individuals, within the herd/colony being essentially, stupid; the individual has a limited capability of deciding a response for itself.

 

 

I'd like to see some evidence of that, i have never read where that the individual has to be stupid.

 

 

 

This however doesn't translate to animals with a higher consciousness; the groups therein rely on co-operation rather than chemically induced or automatic reactions. For your idea to work, without telepathy, would require the flora and fauna of the planet to communicate directly in some way, I would at some level be influenced by, let's say, ants in my decision process. Instead what we have is a kind of balance in that each organism has found a way to live in the environment in which they find themselves. Even inorganic material can display emergent qualities that can appear to have a consciousness.

 

Again some evidence of this would be good, I see no reason why human level consciousness couldn't be influenced by pheromones and other factors by the bio-sphere. naked moles rates live in a colony ruled by a queen who is the only one that reproduces and they are mammals and not insect like automatons

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_mole_rat

[rigney]

I'd like to see some evidence of that, i have never read where that the individual has to be stupid.

 

 

 

 

 

Again some evidence of this would be good, I see no reason why human level consciousness couldn't be influenced by pheromones and other factors by the bio-sphere. naked moles rats live in a colony ruled by a queen who is the only one that reproduces and they are mammals and not insect like automatons

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_mole_rat

 

I honestly wonder if the entire planet isn't issued a daily dose of subliminal thought control??? At least, weekly!

[dimreepr]

I'd like to see some evidence of that, i have never read where that the individual has to be stupid.

 

 

 

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Swarm_intelligence#Taxonomy_of_Swarm_Intelligence

 

 

The typical swarm intelligence system has the following properties:

 

· it is composed of many individuals;

 

· the individuals are relatively homogeneous (i.e., they are either all identical or they belong to a few typologies);

 

· the interactions among the individuals are based on simple behavioral rules that exploit only local information that the individuals exchange directly or via the environment (stigmergy);

 

· the overall behaviour of the system results from the interactions of individuals with each other and with their environment, that is, the group behavior self-organizes

 

 

 

Wildebeest as well as naked mole rats fall into this definition. In the wiki link you provide the term eusocial is used to describe the naked mole rat. The same term is also used for ants, termites bees and wasps.

 

"Stigmergy is a form of self-organization. It produces complex, seemingly intelligent structures, without need for any planning, control, or even direct communication between the agents. As such it supports efficient collaboration between extremely simple agents, who lack any memory, intelligence or even individual awareness of each other."

/edit quote from wikipedia

 

 

I see no reason why human level consciousness couldn't be influenced by pheromones and other factors by the bio-sphere.

 

 

I see no reason why humans would be; perhaps you could provide some evidence. That is pheromones produced by non human entities.

 

Edited May 3, 2012 by dimreepr

[hydrogen2oxygen]

The idea of god is slippery to say the least but could our entire biosphere be likened to a colonial organism that is self aware in the way that ants and or termites colonies are aware?

 

Would such a super organism qualify as being a god?

 

The Earths biosphere could be alive and even aware in it's own way and trying to control the environment much like our bodies mechanisms control the conditions inside our bodies.

 

Quite possibly we are the brain of the organism but we are unaware of the over mind which only seeks to live and doesn't care who dies or suffers individually. It could communicate and control it's various parts through viruses and or feed back loops it controls but has no more conscious thoughts than our liver does...

 

Or maybe we are a cancer that developed in this organism and we are detrimental to it's existence..

 

What the Bible says:

But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built! (1 Kings 8:28 - New International Version)

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing. (Isaiah 40:26)

 

Is a supposed Super-Organism like God?

A super-organism would for sure have a kind of collective consciousness, something bigger than the sum of the individuals. If ... IF humanity would have a well working (or awaken) collective consciousness, than for sure there would be no wars, no wide spread egoism and crime, because a collective consciousness (super-mind) would represent a great obstacle against secrets, crimes, egoism and so on.

 

But the biosphere, the physical framework for a collective consciousness, is not the creator of the universe.

[Moontanman]

What the Bible says:

But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built! (1 Kings 8:28 - New International Version)

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing. (Isaiah 40:26)

 

Is a supposed Super-Organism like God?

A super-organism would for sure have a kind of collective consciousness, something bigger than the sum of the individuals. If ... IF humanity would have a well working (or awaken) collective consciousness, than for sure there would be no wars, no wide spread egoism and crime, because a collective consciousness (super-mind) would represent a great obstacle against secrets, crimes, egoism and so on.

 

But the biosphere, the physical framework for a collective consciousness, is not the creator of the universe.

 

 

You seem to be asserting that God has to be the Christian God, not all gods or pantheons of gods have the creation of the universe attributed to them.

[hydrogen2oxygen]

You seem to be asserting that God has to be the Christian God, not all gods or pantheons of gods have the creation of the universe attributed to them.

 

I refer to God the creator of the heaven and the earth, not a human made god or some image of a beast, mythological figure, egyptian miaaauuu or woof woof, indian mooooo or similar low things

[dimreepr]

I refer to God the creator of the heaven and the earth, not a human made god or some image of a beast, mythological figure, egyptian miaaauuu or woof woof, indian mooooo or similar low things

 

 

In fairness the gaia hypothesis is much more likely than your invisible cloud talking fire hazard.

[hydrogen2oxygen]

In fairness the gaia hypothesis is much more likely than your invisible cloud talking fire hazard.

 

no, I'm right, you are wrong.

[dimreepr]

no, I'm right, you are wrong.

 

 

I have a feeling I’m going to regret this, but I’m genuinely interested in your answer. Would you care to provide some evidence to back up your assertion?

 

 

[hydrogen2oxygen]

I have a feeling I'm going to regret this, but I'm genuinely interested in your answer. Would you care to provide some evidence to back up your assertion?

 

Regret!

 

No I'm joking, just joking.

 

Evidence:

 

... since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal human beings and birds and animals and reptiles.(Roman 1:20)

 

1) You're mother told you to clean your room when you was a young kid (or girl). My mother told me this too. No one could ever provide evidence that the room was cleaned up by pure coincidence. Claiming the contrary would be like a "foolish thinking". So order cannot emerge out of chaos. Well, yes, there is the phenomenon of "emergence", but where emergence occurs some order is already existent, just not visible. And then claiming that something can derive from nothing is also foolish, because never ever something like that occurred ... oh yes, quantum fluctuation ... but nothing can fluctuate if nothing exist, and space is not nothing.

 

2) The law of conservation of energy, the fact that energy itself can never be destroyed, that something eternal exist (don't you dare to write now "define energy" or something similar, because I got your IP now and I know where you live ... joking), is just ignored by a certain kind of human, the materialist. A materialist is a denier. He loves to contradict whatever seems to be created by a superior being, he hates responsibility, he loves reductionism, analyzing everything until there is nothing more left, ignoring the broader picture, ignoring the facts, instead playing the skeptic game, pseudoskepticism, scientism, whatever ... but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

 

3) Where is the meaning of life for a materialist, a atheist? No God, no love, no meaning. Everything in nature seems to be created with love, everything is united, not isolated. From the huge galaxy clusters till to the smallest particles, unity is observable and a evidence (one of many) that it was not pure change what brought us here in a world full of order (despite your room, it's still in chaos). But the materialist believes in chaos, in Cush the god of confusion, in Nimrod the god of rebellion, in Satan the antagonist, in the Devil the father of the lie.

 

Saying that all, my conclusion, ... no not mine, that of another man wrote long time ago:

 

The wicked one according to his superciliousness makes no search.

All his ideas are: “There is no God.” (Psalm 10:4)

 

[Moontanman]

Regret!

 

No I'm joking, just joking.

 

Evidence:

 

... since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal human beings and birds and animals and reptiles.(Roman 1:20)

 

1) You're mother told you to clean your room when you was a young kid (or girl). My mother told me this too. No one could ever provide evidence that the room was cleaned up by pure coincidence. Claiming the contrary would be like a "foolish thinking". So order cannot emerge out of chaos. Well, yes, there is the phenomenon of "emergence", but where emergence occurs some order is already existent, just not visible. And then claiming that something can derive from nothing is also foolish, because never ever something like that occurred ... oh yes, quantum fluctuation ... but nothing can fluctuate if nothing exist, and space is not nothing.

 

2) The law of conservation of energy, the fact that energy itself can never be destroyed, that something eternal exist (don't you dare to write now "define energy" or something similar, because I got your IP now and I know where you live ... joking), is just ignored by a certain kind of human, the materialist. A materialist is a denier. He loves to contradict whatever seems to be created by a superior being, he hates responsibility, he loves reductionism, analyzing everything until there is nothing more left, ignoring the broader picture, ignoring the facts, instead playing the skeptic game, pseudoskepticism, scientism, whatever ... but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

 

3) Where is the meaning of life for a materialist, a atheist? No God, no love, no meaning. Everything in nature seems to be created with love, everything is united, not isolated. From the huge galaxy clusters till to the smallest particles, unity is observable and a evidence (one of many) that it was not pure change what brought us here in a world full of order (despite your room, it's still in chaos). But the materialist believes in chaos, in Cush the god of confusion, in Nimrod the god of rebellion, in Satan the antagonist, in the Devil the father of the lie.

 

Saying that all, my conclusion, ... no not mine, that of another man wrote long time ago:

 

The wicked one according to his superciliousness makes no search.

All his ideas are: “There is no God.” (Psalm 10:4)

 

H2O, none of what you have asserted is evidence but besides that your argument has been debunked he many many times. Believe it or not you have presented nothing new and many of us on here are very familiar with your argument. You are off topic and proselytizing, this is against the rules you agreed to follow when you signed up here. If you want to assert your 'evidence" of god there are many threads already here to do that. This thread is not about debating the existence of your favorite fairy tale.

[hydrogen2oxygen]

H2O, none of what you have asserted is evidence but besides that your argument has been debunked he many many times. Believe it or not you have presented nothing new and many of us on here are very familiar with your argument. You are off topic and proselytizing, this is against the rules you agreed to follow when you signed up here. If you want to assert your 'evidence" of god there are many threads already here to do that. This thread is not about debating the existence of your favorite fairy tale.

 

Disagreements about beliefs should never be in the form of attacks on the believers

 

==> "Fairy Tale"

 

The point is, scientists and laymen who are interested in science are just human and many of them forget that science is just a method to discover the truth. Despite the evidence found in nature, people claims that something could derive from nothing. How could ever come space out of nothingness? Before the supposed Big Bang there was no space and no time, no spacetime. How could there fluctuate "something", what was this something if there was just nothing? Many now would argue with "we don't know" (what is true) and "it's not our job to know" (what is a lie). So many are not aware of the truth, they play the "relativism game", a political game ... not scientific, because despite the knockout criteria they continue to claim there is no creator. A politician is someone who says "let's define our own reality" and then they build a framework for a new reality and propagate them through massive propaganda campaigns in order to build a consensus reality. For this kind of people the truth simply doesn't count, they want (WANT) their own reality propagated and they would never allow the truth to be propagated.

 

In what does this all differ, this scientism, comparing it to the catholic church during the dark age? Scientists who propose the right questions loose their job, laymen are told to be quit because they are not qualified to make assertions about nature. If a layman says "Nature is full of order, harmonious, united, ... I have never seen evidence of a evolutionary process through pure chance, never seen order come out of chaos, never ever seen something come out of nothing, how can you claim that 'science' is right???" ... then the so called "scientists" (or the so called "experts") tells them to be quit, because they don't know all the scientific details. The same game that was played long time ago with the church. Some people began to doubt in a existence of a hell and questioned it, asking the priests for evidence ... but the church told them to be quit and never put in doubt the doctrine of the church. This is dogmatism, not a genuine search for the truth.

[Moontanman]

==> "Fairy Tale"

 

Can you show me anymore evidence for your God more than any other god or even fairy tale?

 

The point is, scientists and laymen who are interested in science are just human and many of them forget that science is just a method to discover the truth. Despite the evidence found in nature, people claims that something could derive from nothing. How could ever come space out of nothingness? Before the supposed Big Bang there was no space and no time, no spacetime. How could there fluctuate "something", what was this something if there was just nothing? Many now would argue with "we don't know" (what is true) and "it's not our job to know" (what is a lie). So many are not aware of the truth, they play the "relativism game", a political game ... not scientific, because despite the knockout criteria they continue to claim there is no creator. A politician is someone who says "let's define our own reality" and then they build a framework for a new reality and propagate them through massive propaganda campaigns in order to build a consensus reality. For this kind of people the truth simply doesn't count, they want (WANT) their own reality propagated and they would never allow the truth to be propagated.

 

This is a strawman, no one claims that something came from nothing, we simply don't know what the universe came from. Science does not claim there is no creator, just that there is no evidence for one. Science is not in the game of propaganda.

 

In what does this all differ, this scientism, comparing it to the catholic church during the dark age? Scientists who propose the right questions loose their job, laymen are told to be quit because they are not qualified to make assertions about nature. If a layman says "Nature is full of order, harmonious, united, ... I have never seen evidence of a evolutionary process through pure chance, never seen order come out of chaos, never ever seen something come out of nothing, how can you claim that 'science' is right???" ... then the so called "scientists" (or the so called "experts") tells them to be quit, because they don't know all the scientific details. The same game that was played long time ago with the church. Some people began to doubt in a existence of a hell and questioned it, asking the priests for evidence ... but the church told them to be quit and never put in doubt the doctrine of the church. This is dogmatism, not a genuine search for the truth.

 

 

Again with the strawmen, Scientism? Pure chance? Something from nothing? Evolutionary processes are not pure chance. Scientists who ask the right questions are persecuted? You seriously need to support those assertions. But you need to do it in another thread, in this on it is off topic...

 

I see no reason why humans would be; perhaps you could provide some evidence. That is pheromones produced by non human entities.

 

This is a good point, I'm not sure if any studies have been done to see if humans are being influenced by a Gaea type god. It may be more likely that we are more like a cancer, an uncontrolled growth of organisms that are taking over the earth.

 

There is also another possibility as well and this is even more far out but could humans be the way that a Gaea type organism would try to reproduce it's self? We have the ability to spread earth life with us as we spread into the solar system and the galaxy. Where ever we go we take our animals with us, it is one of the characteristics of humans. If we spread out via Terra forming other planets or artificial habitats we would probably take our ecosystems with us, admittedly on a smaller scale but with out intelligence Gaea cannot reproduce.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Moontanman

[Phi for All]

I refer to God the creator of the heaven and the earth, not a human made god or some image of a beast, mythological figure, egyptian miaaauuu or woof woof, indian mooooo or similar low things

!

Moderator Note

hydrogen2oxygen, please reread the OP. You are clearly derailing this thread with your own ideas. If you'd like to start your own thread, please do so, but don't post off-topic concepts in other member's threads. This is against the rules you agreed to when you joined.

 

Do NOT respond to this modnote.

[questionposter]

Now that I think about it, it is probably possible to have a very large system act as one large organism, but it seems likely the surface area it would have to cover could only be something like a very small moon, as after a certain point reaction time delay will become too great for cohesive processes. There's also the issue of why we haven't discovered this virus and why we don't have an immune response to it or why we wouldn't have developed a resistance to it. There is also little evidence to support the notion that humans can consciously respond to magnetic fields waves.

Edited May 9, 2012 by questionposter