umm last time I checked it falls under the category of sci-fiction/fantasy.....so yeah sure a deity could be logical.

For a sci-fi/fantasy story, it was a more plausible 'world intelligence' than most, the result of the interactions of an actual world-wide connected network of communicating and sensitive organisms.

If you are going to get a 'world-God', that's the sort of thing you need, rather than some purely disembodied 'spirit' thing like the supernatural critter of the Abrahamic religions.

Even the Pantheist idea is more plausible than a supernatural God, but wouldn't work well because the Universe is not a tightly interconnected thing, and communication across it is tenuous and slow, even where it is possible, ie between things flying away from each other at light-speed or greater.

I was impressed with the way they relied on actual physical connections through a bundle of fibres between the Navi and their beasts, and the trees, rather than a 'woo' like psychic channel. They appeared to have actually thought about how such an intelligence might actually work. It could have come across as too mechanical, but they managed to present in a way which wasn't too much like an ordinary plug-and-socket, what with the animated writhing fibres lin a flower-like appendage.

And wasn't being presented as infinite and all-powerful or any of that other omni-crap.

But my point was that that Avatar actually showed an explicit physical analogue for our nervous system, that is not present in the Gaia hypothesis. So to that extent it had far more substance to support a world-consciousness.

I understand what is proposed in Gaia, and there could well be a level at which it works, in the way whole eco-systems and species interact, as there certainly are feedback mechanisms, which can lead to a measure of self-regulation, but not to anything worth regarding as a conscious intelligence in any meaningful way. Unfortunately for Gaia, there are also positive feed-back mechanisms as well, which drive things like the ice-age cycles. Gaia is a vastly over-hyped idea.

Well, as far as the movie went, I kind of like the nervous system analogy, apart from the fact that it did not seem to be fully connected. When a blue dude wants to ride what amounts to a blue horse, they pair up and sort of become a single entity. Ditto for the dragon things that they rode and so on. So at least that much of the system was isolated nodes that connect sporadically. But whatever on that.

It seemed to me more that it was the plants that provided the consistent networking, with the animals only joining in periodically and then in isolated network segments at best. Being the pervert that I am, I have to wonder how that idea applies to sex. Would not creating a neural link between a mating pair of blue people be part of foreplay? That would give a whole new meaning to the idea of a beast with two backs. [/rimshot]

As far as the Terran concept of gaia, I don't quite buy the idea that such a creature can exist. The most obvious issue that I see is that there is no nervous system. Sure there are feedback loops. However, they are pretty much chemical in nature.

At the risk of stretching the analogy too far, that seems to me to be pretty similar to hormonal signaling. It seems to me to be fairly improbable that a planet sized creature could exist with such a signaling system.

I think James Cameron has read The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever. I'm rereading the first chronicles now, and the part where the tree was destroyed is quite powerfully written.

AVATAR, meanwhile, was an entertaining lightweight piece of escapism, which is all I was expecting of it.  Internally consistent, solid plotting, some surprises, some good acting, adequate characterization, good story flow after an offputting start that tries too hard to be world-weary and cynical.

A planetary consciousness or even a symbiosis among all its organisms is a long way from the deity in the holy books. The dude who wrote ten commandments, five of which are "worship me only," would probably trash that planetary consciousness out of jealousy.

Meh I was joking really, I hear the plot sux anyway probably why I haven't bothered to watch it yet.

Ah no, penicillin is not the right drug for leprosy. What matters is that leprosy is related to tuberculosis and requires similar treatment. Basically, a three drug cocktail that has to be taken for at least a year. If you do not follow up on the deal, it doesn't get cured and the disease can become resistant to the drugs.

So it is still a public health issue.

In the case of Thomas Covenant, the disease was never fully treated but rather, it became latent in him.

As far as the movie goes, no spoilers but well... the word coffee comes to mind. You will know when you see it.

The same basic concept that you describe exists in Sid Meier's AC; where a vast, fungal organism essentially functions as a *massive* central nervous system operating over much of "Chiron's" surface. It is the dominant life form there the same way we are the dominant life form on Earth -and it also represents a very real, semi-natural "Planetary God" the way "Gaea" represented a fertile, life-giving Earthmother deity.

The developers of the game themselves said this concept is -within itself- based on "The Jesus Incident": in the book, like the game, a native, sessile organism basically forms a global neural network.

Back in the game: the "xenofungus" literally controls the entire ecology of Chiron, and even makes some notable attempts at assimilating the latest migrants to its world: humans. In this way, people begin to call "Chiron" "Planet" shortly after their landings on this strange world -because that is the exact same moniker the fungus uses to refer to its native world. The fungus does all of this via "psi", the fundamental element behind intelligent thought (which humans eventually learn to harness through artificial means.)

MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD! You have been warned.

The world-building borrowed heavily from other good (and no-so-good) books. It struck me most like the planet from Midworld, by Alan Dean Foster (who tells good stories, but is not the most accomplished writer).

As far as the movie itself: it was decent. The story wasn't bad. Cameron does know how to direct action, though some of the scenes were a bit drawn out. Overall, decent pacing, brilliant (both in the meaning of 'intelligent' and 'brightly-colored') visuals, and fairly decent -- if shallow -- characterization.

What sucked: the natives being so much like American natives. What the fuck was up with that? I thought we'd had enough of the SF stereotyping trope with George Lucas's horrible movies? Everything else in the movie was smartly done, if a bit derivative. Why the hell did he cop out and make them so like the Dances With Wolves tribe?

Anyway, as far as the world-encompassing intelligence goes, I was rather impressed with the execution. It puts to shame the whole Gaia hypothesis.

Cool - passenger pigeons.  Too bad they're extinct.

I was only thinking that they must have been the author's inspiration.  I'm guessing the original passenger pigeons were just as dumb as the Indian Rock pigeons.

When I saw it, it felt to me like an effort to minimize the moral ambiguity of the situation in the film. Where if there was nothing to their tribal religion, the Na'vi could be seen as simply xenophobic and ignorant in their refusal to deal with humanity, by making the their "god" a massive living being, it makes it harder to sympathize with the (already flat and bordering on caricature) antagonists. Just one more thing to harden the anvil the film wanted to drop.

But it misses something in the way it deals with what could have been an interesting concept. An actual network of nerves or similar linking an entire ecosystem's flora (and, somehow, fauna) would be an extraordinary thing, but since the focus of the movie was elsewhere, the thing and its implications weren't really explored.

As to if such a thing were rational or irrational, well, yes and no. The movie sidesteps questions of the supernatural by inventing a scientific reason for apparently supernatural beliefs If it's looking to make a real case for spirituality of any stripe, though, it shoots itself in the foot. Of course if there were a verifiable phenomenon behind x or y belief it would be rational to accept the phenomenon and at least give the belief due consideration. But 1) that tends not to be true in real life 2) just because a thing is real doesn't mean the myth behind it is, too (see also: lightning, earthquakes). As I said, the film doesn't really explore the Na'vi religion adequately (nor the friction sure to come from the inevitable scientific inquiry into their "mother/god/thing"), and it doesn't make any points regarding spirituality that are applicable to reality, so there's not much to say.

Yeah, I later researched it over the 'net.

edit; nevermind, I just now noticed the "movie" portion of your post.