Gaia hypothesis (split from other Lovelock thread)

Post Reply
Brain Man
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 12:59 am
About me: Formerly Mr jobby till i was relieved of my duties.
Contact:

Re: Gaia hypothesis (split from other Lovelock thread)

Post by Brain Man » Sun May 09, 2010 5:43 pm

born-again-atheist wrote:
Why is reproduction so important anyway ?
Because reproduction is change, progress, development, mutation.
There you go again, as if anything necessary has to be defined with these darwinistic terms.

To produce something ...let say an intelligent computer that has emotional modulations, you need to design (no im not a creationist) and build it. You can also build in the facility for the machine to alter itself, to unplug appendages, patch in new software. Take itself offline (or part of itself) while thats going on.

New forms of intelligence wont have to die, except that there might be constraints on their lifepsan for various reasons, and even their central core may become useless in the scheme of things. The point is that this is what life looks like it will be in maybe just 200 years from now. A short time consdering the billion years genetics took. None of this new form need adhere to darwinism except its likely there may be some vague systems theory type correlations...

so why presume then that darwinism should be a universal guide for living systems ?

These are systems theory terms, thats a far bigger tookit to work with than the few darwinism gives rise to...and these are just some. There are three times that many today.



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

A
Adaptive capacity: An important part of the resilience of systems in the face of a perturbation, helping to minimise loss of function in individual human, and collective social and biological systems.
Allopoiesis is the process whereby a system produces something other than the system itself.
Allostasis is the process of achieving stability, or homeostasis, through physiological or behavioral change.
Autopoiesis is the process by which a system regenerates itself through the self-reproduction of its own elements and of the network of interactions that characterize them. An autopoietic system renews, repairs, and replicates or reproduces itself in a flow of matter and energy. Note: from a strictly Maturanian point of view, autopoiesis is an essential property of biological/living systems.
[edit]
B
Black box is a technical term for a device or system or object when it is viewed primarily in terms of its input and output characteristics.
Boundaries: The parametric conditions, often vague, always subjectively stipulated, that delimit and define a system and set it apart from its environment.
[edit]
C
Cascading failure is failure in a system of interconnected parts, where the service provided depends on the operation of a preceding part, and the failure of a preceding part can trigger the failure of successive parts.
Closed system: A state of being isolated from the environment. No system can be completely closed; there are only varying degrees of closure.
Complexity: A systemic characteristic that stands for a large number of densely connected parts and multiple levels of embeddedness and entanglement. Not to be confused with complicatedness, which denotes a situation or event that is not easy to understand, regardless of its degree of complexity.
Culture: The result of individual learning processes that distinguish one social group of higher animals from another. In humans culture is the set of products and activities through which humans express themselves and become aware of themselves and the world around them.
[edit]
D
Development: The process of liberating a system from its previous set of limiting conditions. It is an amelioration of conditions or quality.
Dissipative structure: A term invented by Ilya Prigogine to describe complex chemical structures undergoing the process of chemical change through the dissipation of entropy into their environment, and the corresponding importation of “negentropy” from their environment. Also known as syntropic systems.
[edit]
E
Embeddedness: A state in which one system is nested in another system.
Emergence: The appearance of novel characteristics exhibited on the level of the whole ensemble, but not by the components in isolation.
Enantiostasis is the ability of an open system, especially a living organism, to stabilize and conserve function in spite of an unstable environment.
Entanglement: A state in which the manner of being, or form of existence, of one system is inextricably tied to that of another system or set of systems.
Entropy: In physics, entropy is a measure of energy that is expended in a physical system but does no useful work, and tends to decrease the organizational order of the system.
Environment: The context within which a system exists. It is composed of all things that are external to the system, and it includes everything that may affect the system, and may be affected by it at any given time.
Evolution: A tendency toward greater structural complexity, ecological and/or organizational simplicity, more efficient modes of operation, and greater dynamic harmony. A cosmic process specified by a fundamental universal flow toward ever increasing complexity that manifests itself through particular events and sequences of events that are not limited to the domain of biological phenomenon, but extend to include all aspects of change in open dynamic systems with a throughput of information and energy. In other words, evolution relates to the formation of stars from atoms, of Homo sapiens from the anthropoid apes, and the formation of complex societies from rudimentary social systems.
Evolutionary Systems: A form of systems design that responds to the need for a future-Design (ESD) creating design praxis, that embraces not only human interests and life-spans, but those on planetary and evolutionary planes as well. The primary vehicle for the implementation of ESD is the Evolutionary Learning Community (ELC).
[edit]
F
Feedback is a functional monitoring signal obtained from a given dynamic and continuous system. A feedback function only makes sense if this monitoring signal is looped back into an eventual control structure within a system. This monitoring shall be compared with a known desirable state. The difference between the feedback monitoring signal and the desirable state of the system gives the notion of error. The amount of error can guide corrective actions to the system in order to generate trends to bring the system gradually back to the desirable state.
[edit]
H
Heterarchy: An ordering of things in which there is no single peak or leading element, and which element is dominant at a given time depends on the total situation, often used in contrast to hierarchy, also a vertical arrangement of entities (systems and their subsystems), usually ordered from the top downwards rather than from the bottom upwards.
Holarchy: A concept invented by Arthur Köestler to describe behavior that is partly a function of individual nature and partly a function of the nature of the embedding system, generally operating in a bottom upwards fashion.
Holism: A non-reductionist descriptive and investigative strategy for generating explanatory principles of whole systems. Attention is focused on the emergent properties of the whole rather than on the reductionist behavior of the isolated parts. The approach typically involves and generates empathetic, experiential, and intuitive understanding, not merely analytic understanding, since by the definition of the approach, these forms are not truly separable (as nothing is).
Holon (philosophy): A whole in itself as well as a part of a larger system.
Homeorhesis is a concept encompassing dynamical systems which return to a trajectory, as opposed to systems which return to a particular state, which is termed homeostasis.
Homeostasis is that property of either an open system or a closed system, especially a living organism, which regulates its internal environment so as to maintain a stable, constant condition.
Human Activity Systems: Designed social systems organized for a purpose, which they attain by carrying out specific functions.
[edit]
L
Lowerarchy: A specific type of hierarchy involving a ‘bottom up’ arrangement of entities such that the few are influenced by the many.
[edit]
M
Metastability is the ability of a non-equilibrium state to persist for some period of time.
Model building: A disciplined inquiry by which a conceptual (abstract) representation of a system is constructed or a representation of expected outcomes/output is portrayed.
[edit]
O

Open System Model (basics)
Open system: A state and characteristics of that state in which a system continuously interacts with its environment. Open systems are those that maintain their state and exhibit the characteristics of openness previously mentioned.
[edit]
P
Process is a naturally occurring or designed sequence of changes of properties or attributes of an object or system.
Process model: An organized arrangement of systems concepts and principles that portray the behavior of a system through time. Its metaphor is the “motion-picture” of “movie” of the system.
[edit]
R
Reductionism: One kind of scientific orientation that seeks to understand phenomena by a) breaking them down into their smallest possible parts: a process known as analytic reductionism, or conversely b) conflating them to a one-dimensional totality: a process known as holistic reductionism.
[edit]
S
Self-organization is a process in which the internal organization of a system, normally an open system, increases in complexity without being guided or managed by an outside source.
Self-organizing systems typically (though not always) display emergent properties.
Steady state is a more general situation than Dynamic equilibrium. If a system is in steady state then the recently observed behaviour of the system will continue into the future. In stochastic systems, the probabilities that various different states will be repeated will remain constant.
Strong emergence is a type of emergence in which the emergent property is irreducible to its individual constituents.
Subsystem: A major component of a system. It is made up of two or more interacting and interdependent components. Subsystems of a system interact in order to attain their own purpose(s) and the purpose(s) of the system in which they are embedded.
Suprasystem: The entity that is composed of a number of component systems organized in interacting relationships in order to serve their embedding suprasystem.
Sustainability: The ability of a system to maintain itself with no loss of function for extended periods of time. In human terms it is the creative and responsible stewardship of resources — human, Management natural, and financial — to generate stakeholder value while contributing to the well-being of current and future generations of all beings.
Synchrony: Also synchronicity. In engineering; concurrence of periods and/or phases; simultaneity of events or motions: contemporaneous occurrences. In evolutionary systems thinking; a fortunate coincidence of phenomenon and/or of events.
Synergy: Also system. Synergy is the process by which a system generates emergent properties resulting in the condition in which a system may be considered more than the sum of its parts, and equal to the sum of its parts plus their relationships. This resulting condition can be said to be one of synergy.
Syntony: In evolutionary systems thinking; evolutionary consonance; the occurrence and persistence of an evolutionarily tuned dynamic regime. Conscious intention aligned with evolutionary purpose; more loosely, the embodiment and manifestation of conscious evolution; a purposeful creative aligning and tuning with the evolutionary flows of one’s milieu. In traditional radio engineering; resonance.
Syntropy The process of negentropy-importation. A syntropic system is a dissipative structure.
Systems design A decision-oriented disciplined inquiry that aims at the construction of a model that is an abstract representation of a future system.
Soft Systems Methodology:
[edit]
W
Weak emergence is a type of emergence in which the emergent property is reducible to its individual constituents.
White box is a technical term for a device or system analyzed or tested based on knowledge of its internal structure (compare to Black box).
Wholeness: In reference to systems, the condition in which systems are seen to be structurally divisible, but functionally indivisible wholes with emergent properties.

Trolldor
Gargling with Nails
Posts: 15878
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 am
Contact:

Re: Gaia hypothesis (split from other Lovelock thread)

Post by Trolldor » Sun May 09, 2010 6:34 pm

So much bullshit, and you don't even understand it.
Recreation, reproducing
Humongous difference. Reproducing is a biological function, recreating is a mechanical one.
if you had the option of another 100 years would you refuse it ?
Yes. To what extent, or to what purpose would I need another 100 years? I've still got an average of 60 left and I'm unsure of how I'm going to pass the time.
till our brain starts sealing itself up in our mid 20's, then we have 10-35 years of good functioning and creativity from that time on, then its all over.
You need to take some psychology courses. The brain is still making new connections until, well, death. Children learn faster, but the brain never stops taking in new information.
to evalute life and how we define it.
No, what you have is a disgusting romanticism.
undoing of genes themselves.
Utter trite bullshit. Take some biology courses. The brain only forms the way it does because of genes. So does the rest of our body.
Copied maybe
More bullshit. If this information was only ever copied, we would not have changed or advanced as a civilisation in several millenia. The information is taken in, modified, and applied. If it is successful it flourishes, if it fails it dies out.
non genetic methods to transcribe and define this cultural information.
No there isn't. Every human interaction is sourced specifically to a Darwinian origin. Emotions, Art, Science, all Darwininan.
presume then that darwinism should be a universal guide for living systems ?
The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Please use the proper title, the term "darwinism" is not only nonsense you haven't even capitalised it as you should have.
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."

Brain Man
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 12:59 am
About me: Formerly Mr jobby till i was relieved of my duties.
Contact:

Re: Gaia hypothesis (split from other Lovelock thread)

Post by Brain Man » Sun May 09, 2010 7:47 pm

born-again-atheist wrote:Humongous difference. Reproducing is a biological function, recreating is a mechanical one.
Conceptually you can look at biology in terms of mechanics. They do that in bioinformatics centres all round the world.
Yes. To what extent, or to what purpose would I need another 100 years? I've still got an average of 60 left and I'm unsure of how I'm going to pass the time.
A product of your age, as is your overconfident manner. this really serves the points no further. Not everybody your age is so unsure.

You need to take some psychology courses. The brain is still making new connections until, well, death. Children learn faster, but the brain never stops taking in new information.
Once a person becomes aware that time is finite in life, (either through knowledge of terminal illness or past middle age), the ability to encode novel information reduces and imagination starts to fill in gaps. This is known as SST theory. Its hardly a theory now, having been replicated in countless studies from neuropsychological to populations across the world. You hear a lot about older learning, in fact the information you got on that was derived from cognition studies on memory in older adults that are part of SST.
Utter trite bullshit. Take some biology courses. The brain only forms the way it does because of genes. So does the rest of our body.
And so....? surely you dont think genes will be the sole format by which brains can be built in the future ?

broadly speaking though our brains are built by societies. I could tell you the mechanics of brain formation in great detail. Nuclear Factor genes, Radial glial, transcription factors for guidance, Robo, Slit, Neutrins...Cilia driving Neurogenesis, i can even give you some pretty educated guesses at to which of these are under selective pressure. But there is no point because overarching all that small scale stuff, Females select men on the basis of how their behaviour (product of the brain) lets them fare in their social groups. Women arent being gene sensitive, they are trait sensitive to what men are able (or not) to do in their environment, and for humans, that is a social matter.

Most mutations for example which give rise to particular talents, can also render a persons behaviour useless, depending on the context they find themselves in. i.e Genes which give rise to mood disorders, might fare better in a religious society, where mania and delusion are recieved positively. Many more, but again a subject in itself. For example you present yourself as rigid, all knowing and intolerant of alternative views, even in the scientific realm, yet you are only 20. In some context that could be maladaptive, in others such as accountancy and teaching its a plus.

More bullshit. If this information was only ever copied, we would not have changed or advanced as a civilisation in several millenia. The information is taken in, modified, and applied. If it is successful it flourishes, if it fails it dies out.
Copied at the point of education was the point.


Every human interaction is sourced specifically to a Darwinian origin. Emotions, Art, Science, all Darwininan
.

I can then say every human interaction is sourced specifically to a quantum origin, and some scientists can prove such an idea. It doesnt actually get us anywhere. You can just as easily say the bulk of human patterns are governed by day night cycles or gravity. Its known the hippocampus where you have your linear sequence of memory has evolved to deal with planning for seasons. None of this helps going so far below or above, and thats why systems theorists keep emphasizing the point that each level of a system has to be tied to that level.
The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Please use the proper title, the term "darwinism" is not only nonsense you haven't even capitalised it as you should have.
You seem to think youre the great enforcer, but just another of the hordes of cheeky pups with an online power craving and a rigid fixation on darwinism as their sole bible to fixate on reality. That fixation will be a hinderance if you actually play a major role in the higher levels of biology. If by now with the above material on the subject presented to you, derived from some of the finest minds who are actually working, solving problems at the top level in natural and bioscience today reduces you to the above kind of interaction, then i can only presume there is not much i can do.

Its your loss basically. :dono:

But you are young and can be forgiven not having the time lived in life to build a complex depth of knowledge to understand these matters across many levels... :biggrin:

Trolldor
Gargling with Nails
Posts: 15878
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 am
Contact:

Re: Gaia hypothesis (split from other Lovelock thread)

Post by Trolldor » Mon May 10, 2010 3:30 am

You make enormous leaps of logic and fail, again, to understand what the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is. By calling it "Darwinism" you label it a philosophy.
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."

Trolldor
Gargling with Nails
Posts: 15878
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 am
Contact:

Re: Gaia hypothesis (split from other Lovelock thread)

Post by Trolldor » Mon May 10, 2010 3:46 am

Copied at the point of education was the point.
Again, nonsense, or your education was rather bland at best. The moment you recieve information there are only two paths. Either you accept it unquestioningly, unthinkingly, or you analyse, assess, question, test.
A product of your age, as is your overconfident manner. this really serves the points no further. Not everybody your age is so unsure.
You should ask them, then, what their plans are for the next 60 years. How many will be able to account for all 60? None of them. Not one. They will say "get a job, have a family, see the world", but that says nothing about how they will pass the 60 years, only their ideals and wishful thinking for a fraction of them.
Once a person becomes aware that time is finite in life, (either through knowledge of terminal illness or past middle age), the ability to encode novel information reduces and imagination starts to fill in gaps.
Nonsense. The imagination is constant, that is where creativity and revolution come from. No human creation, no scientific theory, would exist without imagination. It is the ability to envision something which allows you to test and experiment. The ability to encode novel information never fades, and the "gaps" filled by the "imagination" are a constant from birth. The phenomenon of infantile amnesia is evidence of that. Your memories themselves, all your knowledge, is the imagination at play. You do not 'record' moments in time, you reproduce them.
that is a social matter.
Darwinian. The best male partner, that which appeals to them in a way which is most likely to provide for their offspring. If it were 'societal' there would be an objective standard, but there isn't.
an also render a persons behaviour useless
If the mutation is beneficial and conducive to survival, and the behaviour is thereby superceded, then yes. If the behaviour lost is more effective for continual survival then no.
you present yourself as rigid, all knowing and intolerant of alternative views
Nice to see your imagination is working quite well.
Conceptually you can look at biology in terms of mechanics.
You could, but it would be wrong. Mechanics are based off biology. The way a robotic arm moves, how a plane flies, vaccines. Replications of that which is found in nature.
genes will be the sole format by which brains can be built in the future ?
They are the only format by which a biological brain may be formed. Even artificially created, so long as it is biological it must have a genetic base. A robotic brain will be based on the genetic formation of a human brain. The way it processes information comes from the genetic origins of the way the organic brain processes information.
I can then say every human interaction is sourced specifically to a quantum origin, and some scientists can prove such an idea.
Which provides no contrary explanation to human behaviour in Darwinistic terms.
but just another of the hordes of cheeky pups with an online power craving
Image

Image

Why do you assume you are correct if not for your arrogance and presumption that your position is the more sound one?
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74151
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Gaia hypothesis (split from other Lovelock thread)

Post by JimC » Mon May 10, 2010 7:24 am

A critique of the viewpoint that the biosphere can be regarded as an organism, is not a critique of systems theory in general, nor is it a knee-jerk example of reductionist science or ultra-selectionist thinking.

It is simply a statement that categories are important, and wooly thinking is best left to disciples of post modernism...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

Brain Man
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 12:59 am
About me: Formerly Mr jobby till i was relieved of my duties.
Contact:

Re: Gaia hypothesis (split from other Lovelock thread)

Post by Brain Man » Mon May 10, 2010 11:41 am

JimC wrote:A critique of the viewpoint that the biosphere can be regarded as an organism, is not a critique of systems theory in general, nor is it a knee-jerk example of reductionist science or ultra-selectionist thinking.

It is simply a statement that categories are important, and wooly thinking is best left to disciples of post modernism...
I can accept that for some it isn't, but not everybody feels the same way. There is still a divide at the higher levels of bioscience in regards to systems theory which is being battled out at the highest level conferences, and in the grant funding boards.

We could probably sit here with most groundbreaking theories and show how they started off in a vague manner as they form. They generally feel their way into things and are refined later. Not all of course..e.g. Garret Lisi kicks off with accurate mathematical predictions for all the quantum particles, but that was a rare one. Initally when the ideas were forming he was surfing while taking the odd day off to play about, one foot in advanced physics and the other in new age sacred geometry..

Brain Man
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 12:59 am
About me: Formerly Mr jobby till i was relieved of my duties.
Contact:

Re: Gaia hypothesis (split from other Lovelock thread)

Post by Brain Man » Mon May 10, 2010 12:09 pm

Again, nonsense, or your education was rather bland at best. The moment you recieve information there are only two paths. Either you accept it unquestioningly, unthinkingly, or you analyse, assess, question, test.
Eveything you cant see is nonsense apparently.. :hehe: Now you came out with that sounding so sure of yourself. What about the option many people take, which is to put new information on hold to be looked at later ? Its neither accepted or thought about, until a later stimulus recalls it. The facility to be able to do that is a test of intelligence in itself.

.


Nonsense. The imagination is constant, that is where creativity and revolution come from. No human creation, no scientific theory, would exist without imagination. It is the ability to envision something which allows you to test and experiment. The ability to encode novel information never fades, and the "gaps" filled by the "imagination" are a constant from birth. The phenomenon of infantile amnesia is evidence of that. Your memories themselves, all your knowledge, is the imagination at play. You do not 'record' moments in time, you reproduce them.
Again the nonsense and so sure of yourself. Making blanket statements, then denying known science. I can cite studies on encoding here and show you the stats on encoding with age, as ive worked on that topic at thesis level ? Sounds to me like you are filling in all the gaps with imagination here. I would say you know little of the brain, which you just recommended i take a refresher course in. Again you need to evaluate why you are so sure of yourself and consider trying to make the effort to sound somebody out before jumping in..? Well thats being young and i suppose you can just call this a brash form of sounding out.

You have encoding/recall systems in the brain, but ill spare u the technical details, except to tell you the most important thing is that they compete with each other on a see saw axis..so they have difficulty operating at the same time. (google Septotemporal Axis) and that we all have different encoding/recall ratios..but in general statistics as we age nearly all of us move towards the recall end of the axis (and thereby reduce encoding)...this is because the recall is part of your emotional regulation system, where as encoding induces mild anxiety, something you seel to avoid as you age. You know that saying you cant teach an old dog new tricks ?

Infantile amnesia occurs BTW, because these encoding systems are undeveloped.
Darwinian. The best male partner, that which appeals to them in a way which is most likely to provide for their offspring. If it were 'societal' there would be an objective standard, but there isn't.
Thats right, and whoever provides, has to do so within the rules and constraints of society which are objective standards.


You could, but it would be wrong. Mechanics are based off biology. The way a robotic arm moves, how a plane flies, vaccines. Replications of that which is found in nature.
Biology itself can be viewed as mechanical. I mean in biosciences itself. Its dealt with in a mechanical level, its looked at as molecular machinery. emotions are viewed as mechanisms, protein guidance systems are understood with physics and logic, the genetics themselves are understood in terms of advanced computations etc.
They are the only format by which a biological brain may be formed. Even artificially created, so long as it is biological it must have a genetic base. A robotic brain will be based on the genetic formation of a human brain. The way it processes information comes from the genetic origins of the way the organic brain processes information.
You are very sure of that. I know some people in Ai who will tell you differently, that there may be entirely new means for machines to think. I disagree myself. They need to transcribe and better the human brain at least to start off with. It doesnt need to have a genetic base to do that though. The brain does not process the way it does because of genes, it processes the way it does in spite of genes. You can say that about most of what we are. Does your arm look like or resemble a gene in any way ?
I can then say every human interaction is sourced specifically to a quantum origin, and some scientists can prove such an idea.
Which provides no contrary explanation to human behaviour in Darwinistic terms.
Exactly. Circular reasoning...it all has to come back to that..which i think is where we started with all this stuff.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Gaia hypothesis (split from other Lovelock thread)

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon May 10, 2010 2:46 pm

Then the only way out is to get off the planet.

Let's have a Manhattan Project for space exploration and colonization.

User avatar
Mr P
FRA of Mystery
Posts: 2139
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 8:04 am
About me: International man of mystery and all-round good egg.
Location: Beneath a halo.
Contact:

Re: Gaia hypothesis (split from other Lovelock thread)

Post by Mr P » Mon May 10, 2010 3:40 pm

Mr Jobby wrote:
Mr P wrote:WTF has this shit got to do with Lovelocks Gaia hypothesis?
Gaia is a complex systems theory, one of many, which has met with fierce resistance from prominent darwinists like dawkins. If you have read the book i presume you will have done some background reading in the history of systems theory, so it does not need explained how far reaching that is.
Then why does Lovelock explicitly state in his book Gaia (you know the one where he actually sets out his hypothesis) that his theories are an extension of Darwinism?

Brain Man
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 12:59 am
About me: Formerly Mr jobby till i was relieved of my duties.
Contact:

Re: Gaia hypothesis (split from other Lovelock thread)

Post by Brain Man » Mon May 10, 2010 8:02 pm

Mr P wrote:
Mr Jobby wrote:
Mr P wrote:WTF has this shit got to do with Lovelocks Gaia hypothesis?
Gaia is a complex systems theory, one of many, which has met with fierce resistance from prominent darwinists like dawkins. If you have read the book i presume you will have done some background reading in the history of systems theory, so it does not need explained how far reaching that is.
Then why does Lovelock explicitly state in his book Gaia (you know the one where he actually sets out his hypothesis) that his theories are an extension of Darwinism?
Because hes been under extreme pressure to make it fit these definitions, and is the type of man who needs peer approval. Not every scientist has the strength to stick two fingers up at paradigms that dont fit their findings. Also there is a change in the general climate of science. Its become tighter, overcrowded, more rigid and harder to innovate. There simply isnt that lets explore and see what we find freedom, there was say in Einsteins day.

The effect of rejection by scientists like dawkins and others had a major effect on Lovelock. What you read was the book written after first having his articles ignored for 5 years, then being rejected by the scientific community for another four. Gaia has little if anything to do with darwinism. Like Memetics its being shoehorned to darwin format keep the paradigm fixators happy. Its primary proposal is homestasis within complexity. Reproduction is not required, so where does that leave selection, except as a vague analogy to feedback trying to contol entropy. Similarly mutations or changes within the earth system are better concpetualized as a process arising from the inner battle between emergent properties of the system.

The history of human endevour right up to this day is marked with groups fixating on paradigms and thinking that is the only answer. Clearly we see this at play now as darwinism is turning out not to be sufficient to describe many aspects of complexity and the natural world. It was a good start, and a revolution for that there is no doubt, but its old hat due to be replaced by systems theory at a conference near you soon.

User avatar
Mr P
FRA of Mystery
Posts: 2139
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 8:04 am
About me: International man of mystery and all-round good egg.
Location: Beneath a halo.
Contact:

Re: Gaia hypothesis (split from other Lovelock thread)

Post by Mr P » Tue May 11, 2010 1:32 am

To suggest that Lovelock's vulnerable to peer pressure is simply paranoid conspiracy theory because you've been caught out by your own argument. Lovelock's thrived on the fringes of scientific acceptability for decades and the impression I get from reading his works and reading about him is that he's made of sterner stuff than you're prepared to give him credit for.

You're prepared to cast aspertions on anothers character simply to support your unsupportable assertion. Lovelock has categorically stated that Gaia is based on and an extension of existing Darwinian theory and you are just going to have to put your paranoid fantasies aside and deal with it.

FFS 'the Darwinian mafia got to him' :funny: talk about clutching at straws.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74151
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Gaia hypothesis (split from other Lovelock thread)

Post by JimC » Tue May 11, 2010 6:49 am

Mr P wrote:To suggest that Lovelock's vulnerable to peer pressure is simply paranoid conspiracy theory because you've been caught out by your own argument. Lovelock's thrived on the fringes of scientific acceptability for decades and the impression I get from reading his works and reading about him is that he's made of sterner stuff than you're prepared to give him credit for.

You're prepared to cast aspertions on anothers character simply to support your unsupportable assertion. Lovelock has categorically stated that Gaia is based on and an extension of existing Darwinian theory and you are just going to have to put your paranoid fantasies aside and deal with it.

FFS 'the Darwinian mafia got to him' :funny: talk about clutching at straws.
You have hit the nail on the head... :tup:
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

Brain Man
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 12:59 am
About me: Formerly Mr jobby till i was relieved of my duties.
Contact:

Re: Gaia hypothesis (split from other Lovelock thread)

Post by Brain Man » Tue May 11, 2010 8:49 am

Mr P wrote:To suggest that Lovelock's vulnerable to peer pressure is simply paranoid conspiracy theory because you've been caught out by your own argument. Lovelock's thrived on the fringes of scientific acceptability for decades and the impression I get from reading his works and reading about him is that he's made of sterner stuff than you're prepared to give him credit for.

You're prepared to cast aspertions on anothers character simply to support your unsupportable assertion. Lovelock has categorically stated that Gaia is based on and an extension of existing Darwinian theory and you are just going to have to put your paranoid fantasies aside and deal with it.

FFS 'the Darwinian mafia got to him' :funny: talk about clutching at straws.
Ok since you insist on this I challenge, you..present me an aspect of Gaia and we will see where it fits darwin theory better than systems theory terms. He hasn't stated this since far later while his theory began in the 60's.

Here is one of earlier papers.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 864d581843

if you don't have academic access here is a later summary.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=L8Be ... 22&f=false

Nothing of darwin here, and this is ten years after he came up with theory and still being ignored. You will find that it is not a darwin theory and the shoehorning soon becomes apparent later to fit with critics like dawkins, as it was in memetics. We can unravel that damage, if you bring the relevant passages you are talking about here, we can soon took it apart to its basic form. I don't have the darwin friendly versions. I am interested in this subject based on the original works.

Paranoid conspiracy..BTW.. I didn't mention a conspiracy here did I. And where is the paranoia in any of this, except maybe you have a paranoia that people are paranoid ? People self organize round information and protect it. Its mostly out of laziness. Laziness, yes believe it or not laziness and cognitive rigidity is a common driver behind all this. No dramatic conspiracy needs to be invoked when laziness abounds and/or people are too busy doing other things.

The fact is that if you are a scientist today, you are forced to fit with existing knowledge, and this will start kicking in from the moment you start on PHD work. I work in science, I am privileged enough to know some of the worlds top scientists (who are innovative in the pure realm), and they will tell you the same thing. Have you ever had to go through the peer review process ? have you every carried out research on even the most tentative of proposals ? Do you work in science ? I do, and this is the way it is. Nobody wants pure theories, they want practical applications that provide jobs, based on what we know. New materials that replace zips, or magnetic nanoswitches that don't need power for memory. Even practical applications are preferred to be of the positive type only. Look how long global warming took to come to the forefront, and that actually predicts the most serious of dangers.

Save up your pennies, get out there and go to a real science conference. Talk to scientists instead of huddling together outside the game wondering what its like in here. Any scientist who does anything even the slightest bit different from accepted knowledge (and you will find many at these meetings who tried) will tell you the same thing.

But having said all that..its still an enormous buzz doing this stuff. I wouldn't want to put any of you guys off. Its not that bad, but you do need to have the mindset to kick people up the ass a bit. If you don't, then just pray you never come up with a pure science idea AND have a weak personality. It wont be easy.

Brain Man
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 12:59 am
About me: Formerly Mr jobby till i was relieved of my duties.
Contact:

Re: Gaia hypothesis (split from other Lovelock thread)

Post by Brain Man » Tue May 11, 2010 9:04 am

Whats this image about,

Image

it looks like you are flagellating yourself at the knees of richard dawkins here.

It is me who should be laughing that you cant get ur head out this guys ass.. name me one original piece of innovative science or even idea he got right that future generations will revere him for ?

you ought to be kicking his lazy ass, not licking it :hehe:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests