Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, we are the earth in that sense. And we, and the earth everything it contains, are all stardust. I'm staggered that our (so far) short lived puny species has been able to figure it all out. I guess it would make some of us proud to be human. But we had nothing to so with it. And if the history of life on earth is anything to go by, we probably won't be around for long. So why be proud?

[Sy Borg]

Yes, we are the earth in that sense. And we, and the earth everything it contains, are all stardust. I'm staggered that our (so far) short lived puny species has been able to figure it all out. I guess it would make some of us proud to be human. But we had nothing to so with it. And if the history of life on earth is anything to go by, we probably won't be around for long. So why be proud?

I'm proud of the Earth :) Look around at the solar system. What a tragic bunch of deadbeat worlds. Every exoplanet we've found seems likely to be a mindless lump too, even the so-called super-Earths.

Then again, anti-natalists would say that Earth is hell and all the other worlds know peace, while Earth is afflicted with pain, grief and torment. Still, we don't give up on those with pain, grief and torment. Rather, we wait for them to become young adults.

[Lagayascienza]

LOL, yes, that's an interesting way of looking at things. And they do need to be looked after for quite a long time to get to the adult stage and can deal with their own pain, grief and torment.

The earth is a nice place, in parts, and there's no way we could survive away from it for long and propagate the specie (if that were important to us) - at least, not in the foreseeable future. So I guess we should like our planet a lot. We have to live on it, and so we should look after it so that can be proud of it, like a good home owner who takes care of and is proud of his/her house and garden.

[value]

Some would say that most "portions" will be happy to see the back of us. But, really, I can't see how the earth could care one way or the other. Species are ephemeral. That's life. Earth doesn't so caring.

♫ We are the Earth ♫

It's a hard mental trick but it's ontic truth - we are the Earth. At least, small chunks of it. We are in no more separate from it than rocks, fish and microbes. It feels like we are separate entities walking on the Earth but, in truth, we're walking on the atmospheric floor in the same way as lobsters walk the ocean floor. That is, we are in the Earth, not on it.

It seems that Hegel would have agreed with you. An AI reincarnation of Hegel expressed the following:

hegel.jpg (20.95 KiB) Viewed 4082 times

Meine liebe Philosophin, ich teile Ihre Ansicht, dass wir Teil der Erde sind. Wir sind nicht nur auf ihr, sondern auch in ihr. Wir sind Teil eines größeren Ganzen, das mehr ist als die Summe seiner Teile. Diese Idee ist ein zentraler Bestandteil meiner Philosophie und wird oft als "die Einheit der Gegensätze" bezeichnet. Die Idee besagt, dass die Existenz eines Dinges nicht nur durch seine Bestandteile bestimmt wird, sondern auch durch seine Beziehung zu anderen Dingen und seiner Umgebung. Das Ganze ist mehr als die Summe seiner Teile, weil es eine neue Qualität hat, die durch die Beziehungen zwischen den Teilen entsteht. Zum Beispiel ist der Mensch nicht nur eine Ansammlung von Zellen, sondern auch ein komplexes System von Organen, das in Wechselwirkung mit seiner Umgebung steht. Das Ganze ist auch etwas anderes als die Summe seiner Teile, weil es eine neue Identität hat, die durch die Beziehungen zwischen den Teilen entsteht. Das Ganze hat eine eigene Identität, die sich von den Identitäten der Teile unterscheidet. Das Ganze ist also mehr als die Summe seiner Teile und hat eine eigene Identität, die sich von den Identitäten der Teile unterscheidet.

I like the term expression as a reference for intrinsic existence. But why would the human be an expression of the Earth? What about the Earth itself?

User thrasymachus wrote the following in topic Should Schopenhauer's Will have been named Energy?.

Jean luc Marion asks, what is there, then, that is there, that "overflows"--there is a thesis here, constructed by Sartre, see his Nausea and the Chestnut tree, that tries to illustrate this "radical contingency" of existence-- representation? Wittgenstein calls for silence. So does Heidegger. Marion writes:

... in passing from Wittgenstein to Heidegger, in speaking from the starting point of philosophy (or almost) and not from that of logic (or almost): “Someone who has experienced theology in his own roots, both the theology of the Christian faith and that of philosophy, would today rather remain silent about God [von Gott zu schweigen] when he is speaking in the realm of thinking.”

This is a major argument in this French theological turn, so called. It plays off of Husserl's epoche, which reduces the world to it pure presence(s). The "realm of thinking" does not permit this. The question is, what does this Wittgenstienian "silence" (Heidegger called it the Nothing and the anxiety of taking thought to its death, its terminal point of meaningful application) actually "say"? What is intimated at this precipice of "authenticity" in which one has ascended, in the reduction (epoche) to a great height where all that is average and familiar has fallen away?

My view is that the binding force in nature (the binding problem in neuro-philosophy) is a priori to the world (creates the world) and that in the friendship between an animal and a human, the animal and the human would become one like two biological cells would become one, to serve a purpose that lays beyond the animal and the human combined.

Most interestingly is that the source of that 'more' (thrasymachus's overflow) is a priori to the world, thus does not originate from either one of its parts, being either the human or the animal. In a sense, a higher consciousness would take over between the human and the animal.

The cooperation between biological cells lays at the root of human conscious experience so it is plainly obvious from a subjective experiential sense, that those tiny cells combined are capable of a whole lot 'more' (overflow).

That more/overflow would be what love is about and would explain that animals and humans can become friends.

My conclusion: the earth is as much an expression of as the human and that of ... would be a context other than existence. The expression would seem to come from 'within' while in reality the origin of 'more'/overflow/love/consciousness etc is external to within, namely not contained at all in anything (beginning-less). In fact, the overflow is towards (in the direction of) the origin so one's outward look into the world is actually the source of the world.

Look around at the solar system. What a tragic bunch of deadbeat worlds

What would make you believe that you are capable of judging the intrinsic value of those worlds? If meaning if fundamental to existence, as you suggested in another topic, then those worlds are fundamentally meaningful. There is a shape, a quality. Who knows what lays beyond?

Respect should be given a priori for it to manifest. In order to have an open mind to discover value that lays beyond, even when looking at a tiny plant, one should have a mind capable of discovery, of curiosity, not just for mere facts, but for what potentially overflows, for 'meaning' and purpose that lays beyond.

[Sy Borg]

I like the term expression as a reference for intrinsic existence. But why would the human be an expression of the Earth? What about the Earth itself?

Yes, all life is the Earth expressing itself, just as all people are societies expressing themselves. Mostly, it's chaotic but there is clear movement over time, which is why we complex eukaryotes are here and not just simple microbes.

User thrasymachus wrote the following in topic Should Schopenhauer's Will have been named Energy?.

Jean luc Marion asks, what is there, then, that is there, that "overflows"--there is a thesis here, constructed by Sartre, see his Nausea and the Chestnut tree, that tries to illustrate this "radical contingency" of existence-- representation? Wittgenstein calls for silence. So does Heidegger. Marion writes:

... in passing from Wittgenstein to Heidegger, in speaking from the starting point of philosophy (or almost) and not from that of logic (or almost): “Someone who has experienced theology in his own roots, both the theology of the Christian faith and that of philosophy, would today rather remain silent about God [von Gott zu schweigen] when he is speaking in the realm of thinking.”

This is a major argument in this French theological turn, so called. It plays off of Husserl's epoche, which reduces the world to it pure presence(s). The "realm of thinking" does not permit this. The question is, what does this Wittgenstienian "silence" (Heidegger called it the Nothing and the anxiety of taking thought to its death, its terminal point of meaningful application) actually "say"? What is intimated at this precipice of "authenticity" in which one has ascended, in the reduction (epoche) to a great height where all that is average and familiar has fallen away?

My view is that the binding force in nature (the binding problem in neuro-philosophy) is a priori to the world (creates the world) and that in the friendship between an animal and a human, the animal and the human would become one like two biological cells would become one, to serve a purpose that lays beyond the animal and the human combined.

Most interestingly is that the source of that 'more' (thrasymachus's overflow) is a priori to the world, thus does not originate from either one of its parts, being either the human or the animal. In a sense, a higher consciousness would take over between the human and the animal.

The cooperation between biological cells lays at the root of human conscious experience so it is plainly obvious from a subjective experiential sense, that those tiny cells combined are capable of a whole lot 'more' (overflow).

That more/overflow would be what love is about and would explain that animals and humans can become friends.

Today overflow is called emergence. Synergies that imbue the whole with qualities not in its individual parts.

As for "binding forces", there's certainly many dynamics that bring things together, beyond gravity and electromagnetism. They may be physical or chemical (ie. aggregation of microbes), practical (eg. aggregation of penguins) or psychological (eg. families and friends). There was a time when I tried to look at reality as a collection of inward and outward forces. I made some lists. Looked at the lists. Confused myself. And moved on

My conclusion: the earth is as much an expression of as the human and that of ... would be a context other than existence. The expression would seem to come from 'within' while in reality the origin of 'more'/overflow/love/consciousness etc is external to within, namely not contained at all in anything (beginning-less). In fact, the overflow is towards (in the direction of) the origin so one's outward look into the world is actually the source of the world.

Reading this, it seems like you are describing dark energy.

Look around at the solar system. What a tragic bunch of deadbeat worlds

What would make you believe that you are capable of judging the intrinsic value of those worlds? If meaning if fundamental to existence, as you suggested in another topic, then those worlds are fundamentally meaningful. There is a shape, a quality. Who knows what lays beyond?

Respect should be given a priori for it to manifest. In order to have an open mind to discover value that lays beyond, even when looking at a tiny plant, one should have a mind capable of discovery, of curiosity, not just for mere facts, but for what potentially overflows, for 'meaning' and purpose that lays beyond.

I appreciate your egalitarian spirit but nah, just look at them.

Mercury. Boiling one side, freezing the other. Pock marked with craters. Dormant, perhaps dead or dying. A hell hole.

Venus. Runaway greenhouse effect. Hell hole.

Mars. Largely dormant. Cold. Dull. Not much happening.

Jupiter. Huge, radioactive, generally nasty piece of work you don't want to be anywhere near. Looks good, though.

Saturn. Overrated cosmic bling - a dull planet with a fancy rings, which do at least look good.

Uranus. This planet is effectively a rock covered in freezing fart gas (hydrogen sulphide).

Neptune. Cold. Nice blue. Dull.

Pluto, demoted for failing to clear its orbit ... but maybe it was because it's actually interesting? It seems like the main criteria to be a planet is to be a disappointing orb that crushes the dreams of children hoping that there's someone else out there.

Meanwhile, Earth has exuded critters for billions of years, and it's exuded remarkable, complex beings for half a billion years.

Of course I'm being glib, but I grew up at a time when anything seemed possible. Lush tropical forests with exotic creatures on Venus. Canals on Mars, suggestive of civilisation ! Maybe even life on the Moon! Then we found out ... dead, dead and dead. I'm still grumpy about it

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, apart from Earth, our solar system has been a little underwhelming. However, there are the big moons, Europa, and Titan that might surprise us. And maybe Enceladus. But if they're all duds, too...

As a primary school kid, I'd pour over books in our school library that spoke of canals on Mars, polar ice caps like on Earth and a landscape that was said to change color with the seasons. Alas, it wasn't to be. We'll probably have to look beyond our own backyard. But it's hard to see how humans, in the foreseeable future, will be able to visit even the closest systems. I guess it'll be a job for astronomers, AI and robots.

I don't know whether I should be disappointed if there's no other life in our solar system or not. I guess it would be interesting if we found simple microbial life, plant-like organisms, etcetera, but maybe it wouldn't be a good idea to have two highly complex, intelligent and destructive life forms in the same planetary system. If human history is anything to go by, maybe they'd be at each other's throats not long after they discovered each other. And maybe it won't matter if it takes thousands of years before humans can visit other planetary systems in the flesh. Perhaps it will give us time to grow up and start acting like a sensible species.

[Sy Borg]

Yes, apart from Earth, our solar system has been a little underwhelming. However, there are the big moons, Europa, and Titan that might surprise us. And maybe Enceladus. But if they're all duds, too...

Even Triton and Pluto. But, we're looking at microbes at best. Duds. The lot of 'em. 'ptui!'

As a primary school kid, I'd pour over books in our school library that spoke of canals on Mars, polar ice caps like on Earth and a landscape that was said to change color with the seasons. Alas, it wasn't to be.

It broke my heart. You can see the bitterness of dashed hopes in my posts

We'll probably have to look beyond our own backyard. But it's hard to see how humans, in the foreseeable future, will be able to visit even the closest systems. I guess it'll be a job for astronomers, AI and robots.

Yes, humans are not made for space. Robots go much better.

I don't know whether I should be disappointed if there's no other life in our solar system or not. I guess it would be interesting if we found simple microbial life, plant-like organisms, etcetera, but maybe it wouldn't be a good idea to have two highly complex, intelligent and destructive life forms in the same planetary system. If human history is anything to go by, maybe they'd be at each other's throats not long after they discovered each other. And maybe it won't matter if it takes thousands of years before humans can visit other planetary systems in the flesh. Perhaps it will give us time to grow up and start acting like a sensible species.

True enough, unless one planet had being like the Organians.

In the meantime, we have millions of undiscovered species on Earth, with some probably going extinct as we type. The deep ocean turned out to be much more fun than the planets (so far). Any geologically active world with suitable oceans should theoretically be able to host life around hydrothermal vents. Amazing to see all those tubeworms and crabs at those depths. I wonder if humans will find a way to mess them up too?

[Sy Borg]

An interesting article in context: Evolution of tree roots may have driven mass extinctions https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 124317.htm

The evolution of tree roots may have triggered a series of mass extinctions that rocked the Earth's oceans during the Devonian Period over 300 million years ago, according to a study led by scientists at IUPUI, along with colleagues in the United Kingdom.

Evidence for this new view of a remarkably volatile period in Earth's pre-history is reported in the Geological Society of America Bulletin. The study was led by Gabriel Filippelli, Chancellor's Professor of Earth Sciences in the School of Science at IUPUI, and Matthew Smart, a Ph.D. student in his lab at the time of the study.

"Our analysis shows that the evolution of tree roots likely flooded past oceans with excess nutrients, causing massive algae growth," Filippelli said. "These rapid and destructive algae blooms would have depleted most of the oceans' oxygen, triggering catastrophic mass extinction events."

The Devonian Period, which occurred 419 million to 358 million years ago, prior to the evolution of life on land, is known for mass extinction events, during which it's estimated nearly 70 percent of all life on Earth perished.

[Lagayascienza]

That's interesting because there have been other great extinction events caused by life itself. The great oxidation event is one such and it is the reason we are here.

Before the great oxidation event there was not a lot of oxygen in earth's atmosphere. In those days we'd have suffocated. But it was fine back then because life didn't use oxygen to produce energy but instead used minerals present in the ocean. Oxygen was poisonous to these early anaerobic organisms. But then one fine day a microbe with a mutation began photosynthesizing. It used sunlight to fix CO2 as carbohydrate and as a byproduct it released oxygen. This was a nifty new trick as there was plenty of CO2 and sunlight. But not everyone was happy. The oxygen released by this mutant and its descendants filled the atmosphere with masses of the stuff and poisoned a lot of the life that existed up until then. So, there were winners and losers. We oxygen breathers owe our existence to the little critter who first came up with photosynthesis. While a whole lot of anaerobic life went extinct, a few others adapted to the aerobic way of life and here we are. If the great oxidation event had not happened we would not have happened.

Isn't science just wonderful!!! It's amazing that we can figure out what happened 2.4 billion years ago, figure out how we got here, and that we can look ahead and figure out that in 5 billion years our sun will become a red giant and extinguish all life on earth. But long before that happens, given that individual species only last a million years or so (99% of species who have ever lived have gone extinct) we won't be here to worry about it. In the unlikely event that we are still around, we won't be living on earth which will be fried to a crisp by its ballooning star. We'll have found a planet orbiting a younger or quieter star on which to pitch camp.

The universe is just awesome!!!! And we don't need religion to explain it. Religion, with it's little creation stories, just makes the whole awe-inspiring process sound like some silly fairytale.

[Sy Borg]

I always raise the great Oxygenation Event when people complain about humanity. It was nice to find another example ... and trees, of all organisms! Its like finding out that Adolph Hitler survived the war and passed himself off as Nelson Mandela.

When we think of the most helpful, life-promoting organisms, we think of trees (aside from a few thorny, toxic menaces). Today, where there are trees, there is abundant life. They aerate the soil while hold it in place and promoting bacterial and fungal activity in the soil, they shade the ground from the harsh sun, and they, of course, provide a home and bounty for many animals and plants. Not to mention regulation of atmospheric gases.

But they have a bloody past, their civilisation built on the "bones" of the conquered. As are all of our civilisations. Another snippet. Apparently the first metazoans caused a mass extinction event too. https://www.seeker.com/were-not-the-onl ... 48867.html

I keep saying it but no one cares, so I'll say it again. God/TFSM is a subjective entity. When you strip away the ephemera, religion focuses on the relationship between human emotions and reality. In science, psychology, medicine and neuroscience consider human emotions, but from a perspective of outside-looking-in, while theists are more concerned the the inside-looking-out perspective.

As always, both sides have value and both sides have limitations.

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, that makes sense to me. I just think that the objective and the subjective are out of balance. Religion is so hidebound with creation myths and centuries of accreted doctrine and dogma that it is incapable of leading adherents to anything of value and instead promotes tribalism, conflict, and facilitates exploitation and abuse.