Display:
Would you say that it is unthinkable that the Earth system could perceive and follow various stresses, and have simple but effective reactions to it? All those chains of feedbacks, be it of various greenhouse gases and temperature, or connected tectonic faults, must have occurred only randomly or by inevitabilities of physical interactions, and in no way they could have organized themselves through re-occurring circumstances on variously large and local scales?

What if the Earth system is more complex than a reptile brain? Couldn't it be then comparably functional as well?

by das monde on Mon May 12th, 2008 at 05:47:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
At which point do you ascribe intentionality to a complex system?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 12th, 2008 at 05:55:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Teleonomy is related to past effects instead of present purpose.

First I would start to talk about functionality arising in the Form of a simple "reaction" to special circumstances. On the most primitive level, you have direct physical causation satisfying this Form. Then you have rigid "self-enforcing" chains of physical events forming that "automatically react" following the From; those chains that better enforce their own existence (say, because their interesting effects fit better into diverse longer such chains) would tend to persist and occur more frequently. Gradually, the Form becomes identifiable as "perception/reaction" cycle. Brain neurons are of the same Form! Event patterns would network themselves, with ever more meaningful functionality, etc.

by das monde on Mon May 12th, 2008 at 06:38:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you up to writing a diary on the difference between teleology and teleonomy?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 12th, 2008 at 06:55:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ok, I'll be posting soon (in a couple of weeks) parts of my hobby work on evolution, Darwinian selfishness, critical and teleonomic systems, Gaia and such. Writing goes much slower than I expected, and I am pretty satisfied that arguments get only better with lazy pondering.

At the moment, I would not explain teleonomy particularly better than the Wikipedia link above and its references.

by das monde on Mon May 12th, 2008 at 11:10:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
das monde:
What if the Earth system is more complex than a reptile brain? Couldn't it be then comparably functional as well?

No. Because the structures are completely different. And there's been no evidence to date at all that the Earth is anything other than a physical system, which has been frozen, attacked by space by debris, left to cook on a high heat and is currently in a semi-stable transition state.

An intentional Earth would look everso slightly different, I think.

Suggesting that the Earth is having earthquakes because we've been bad says a lot more about how narrative logic works than it does about the Earth.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon May 12th, 2008 at 07:05:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The biosphere is an entirely different animal, though.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 12th, 2008 at 07:33:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The rate of tectonic faulting is not correlated to changing concentrations of greenhouse gasses; atmospheric greenhouse gasses concentrations are correlated to the rate of tectonic activity - no need to switch cause and effect. Changes in surface temperature of which global warming speaks are irrelevant for geological processes.

It is simply a matter of scale. Earth's processes do not respond to surface changes linked to global warming because these changes are irrelevant to the scales whereupon earth's processes operate. Surface changes are way, way behind the comma of the physical laws and the material properties that govern tectonic processes involved in generating earthquakes/volcanic activity; they do not matter, period. And hence earth processes do not physically or chemically respond to them, let alone reorganise as result to them.

It's the earth's more sensitive host on the surface, the biosphere, that does respond. Because humans, in our eye-blink of time, are not used to a sudden increase in rates of earth activity, it doesn't make us special, nor does it allow us to assign anthropomorphological features to the earth.

by Nomad on Mon May 12th, 2008 at 08:49:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's a good counter-argument. But now enter self-organized criticality, or "living" on the edge of chaos bifurcations. Wouldn't these special boundary conditions possibly set themselves up to bridge physical phenomena of different scales?

What if the tectonic system (which is probably more ancient than biological life, and is just as unique to Earth for what we know), being more slow and clumsy by orders of magnitude, is set on a critical level within own parameters, and hereby teleonomically ready to receive a signal from the atmosphere or whatever, a signal to let an overhauling hell loose? It would be just another instance of consequential reaction to a special condition...

by das monde on Mon May 12th, 2008 at 11:06:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series