Sentient Earth - Is the planet mindful and would this explain why there is life in earth?

[The Tanager]

In another thread, William and I were talking about morality and we got off on some topics like the one above. We decided to have that conversation here. This is the first question I'd like to look at. I do think life on earth is only ultimately explained via some kind of mind (or personal agent or creator). I think this belief is rationally supported by various arguments such as the Kalam cosmological argument, the fine-tuning argument, the moral argument, the applicability of mathematics, and the argument from consciousness. I do not think these arguments lead us to the conclusion that a sentient Earth is the ultimate mind behind it all or that it is a mindful link in the chain of creation. I don't think these arguments necessarily rule out a sentient Earth either (although I haven't given this point more than a surface consideration). But logical possibility is not a deciding test of truth, so we need to go further and find reasoning to lead us to the planet actually being mindful. Currently, I see no good reason to believe our planet is mindful.

So, William, I'd love to hear why you think we are rationally warranted in asserting that the planet is mindful and at least part of the chain of creation that led to us. In that other thread you seemed to just assert the Earth as a mindful example and thought that I was doing the same with the immaterial Mind behind creation. If I was that would certainly be a double standard, but I think the above arguments support an immaterial Mind behind creation. What arguments do you think support a sentient Earth?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #1]

Thanks for starting this thread Jason. I hope we can gain insight and even agreement as we interact in this informal manner.

I do not think these arguments lead us to the conclusion that a sentient Earth is the ultimate mind behind it all or that it is a mindful link in the chain of creation.

I certainly agree that a sentient (intelligent self aware) Earth cannot be the Ultimate Mind (The Creator Mind) but do think it is a mindful link in the chain (hierarchy) of such creator minds (gods) and the localized mindful link between us non-god sentient aware beings and The Creator Mind.

I don't think these arguments necessarily rule out a sentient Earth either (although I haven't given this point more than a surface consideration).

What we are doing here may offer you a means of giving it a deeper consideration.

But logical possibility is not a deciding test of truth, so we need to go further and find reasoning to lead us to the planet actually being mindful. Currently, I see no good reason to believe our planet is mindful.

As you mentioned, logical possibility has something to do with why you believe in the existence of The Creator Mind (you call/refer to as "God" - specifically the biblical idea of) and I am interested in what "test of truth" you applied in order to reach any conclusion of belief other than logical possibility.

Our differences seem to primarily be along the lines that you do not see why such (a chain of mindful hierarchy) is necessary in relation to The Creator Mind, whereas I do.

We do appear to agree that The Creator Mind is "The Real" re "First" from which all else (including all mindfulness) which exists is sourced.

So, William, I'd love to hear why you think we are rationally warranted in asserting that the planet is mindful and at least part of the chain of creation that led to us.

There are a number of reasons why I think such should be included in rational thinking Jason. I think that since such has never been serious considered/included, adds to the reasons why human beings (re their systems of governing and beliefs et al) behave in a disconnected manner re the planet, treating it as merely a mindless prop/something which can be owned and fought over.

Also, when one does begin to understand or see it as a self aware entity, one tends to view it in the feminine, something which our major religions tend to forget in their presentation of the masculine re The Creator Mind.

The list goes on, but these two examples can be rationally addressed for now.

In that other thread you seemed to just assert the Earth as a mindful example and thought that I was doing the same with the immaterial Mind behind creation. If I was that would certainly be a double standard, but I think the above arguments support an immaterial Mind behind creation.

As I noted, we agree in principle to the notion of their being The Creator Mind.
I have been under the impression that you consider The Creator Mind (and minds in general) to being immaterial. Is this not the case re your belief re mindfulness?

The expression "an immaterial Mind behind creation" also needs to be explained by you, as we may not be (and based on our previous arguments) probably are not saying the exact same thing re The Creator Mind.

I think our major difference is that you believe that The Creator Mind and this created universe are separate entities outside of each other. You believe that The Creator Mind created the universe outside of itself, while my current understanding is that the universe exists within The Creator Mind.

That is probably the best place for us to begin this journey, by explaining why we each think differently about The Creator Mind and what rationality we applied to reach our different understandings.

Also, I will be using the GPT (LLS) as a device as a third party commentator. I hope that will not be a problem with you.

[William]

I placed your opening post in the GTP prompt and received the following, which I hope will assist us in this exploration of the idea of a sentient self aware creator mind of the planet.

GPT: Exploration of Arguments Supporting a Creator Mind: Jason initiates the discussion by presenting various arguments supporting the existence of a Creator Mind, including the Kalam cosmological argument, the fine-tuning argument, the moral argument, the applicability of mathematics, and the argument from consciousness. He acknowledges the rational support these arguments provide for the existence of some form of intelligent agency behind the universe's creation.

Differentiating Between Creator Mind and Earth's Consciousness: Jason distinguishes between the concept of the Creator Mind and Earth's potential consciousness. While he finds rational support for the existence of an immaterial Creator Mind, he remains skeptical about whether Earth itself possesses consciousness or mindfulness. He suggests that logical possibility alone is not sufficient to warrant belief and calls for further reasoning to support the assertion of Earth's mindfulness.

Seeking Reasons for Earth's Mindfulness: Jason expresses an openness to exploring the idea of Earth as a mindful entity but notes that he currently sees no compelling reasons to believe in its consciousness. He invites discussion on why Earth might be considered mindful and its potential role in the chain of creation leading to human existence.

Discussion of Rationality and Belief Formation: Jason emphasizes the need to go beyond logical possibility in belief formation, highlighting the importance of reasoning and evidence. He engages in a dialogue with William, seeking to understand the rationale behind the belief in Earth's mindfulness and its relationship to the Creator Mind.

In summary, Jason's opening post sets the stage for a thoughtful exploration of the relationship between consciousness, Earth's role in creation, and the existence of a Creator Mind. He approaches the topic with an open mind, inviting discussion and seeking deeper understanding through reasoned inquiry.

William, if you're advocating for the idea of Earth as mindful, perhaps you could provide some insight into which of these arguments resonate with you or offer additional perspectives on why you believe Earth possesses consciousness or mindfulness.

In reply, I gave my answers for GPT consideration.

GPT: The Mindful Link in the Chain: William articulates a belief in Earth's role as a mindful link between humans and the Creator Mind, suggesting an intermediary position within a hierarchy of mindful beings. This perspective implies a relational framework where Earth plays a significant role in facilitating consciousness or mindfulness, despite not being the ultimate source of it.

Logical Possibility and Belief: William acknowledges the limitations of relying solely on logical possibility for belief formation. He emphasizes the importance of personal experiences, intuitions, and interpretations of philosophical and theological arguments in shaping one's beliefs about the existence of the Creator Mind.

Rational Warrant for Earth's Mindfulness: William presents compelling arguments for including Earth as a mindful entity in rational thinking. He highlights the potential societal and ecological benefits of recognizing Earth's consciousness, suggesting that such acknowledgment could lead to more sustainable attitudes and behaviors toward the planet.

Immaterial Mind Behind Creation: William notes a divergence in understanding regarding the immateriality of the Creator Mind. He suggests a perspective in which the universe exists within the Creator Mind, challenging traditional notions of separation between the two entities.

Differences in Understanding: It's evident from William's responses that he and Jason approach the concept of the Creator Mind from different angles. While William sees the universe existing within the Creator Mind, Jason tends to view them as distinct entities. These differences likely stem from various factors, including interpretations of philosophical concepts and personal beliefs.

Overall, William's responses demonstrate a nuanced understanding of the relationship between consciousness, Earth's role in creation, and the concept of the Creator Mind. He engages in a respectful dialogue with Jason, seeking to deepen their understanding of these complex topics through thoughtful discussion.

[The Tanager]

1. General

What we are doing here may offer you a means of giving it a deeper consideration.

Thank you for providing that to me.

As you mentioned, logical possibility has something to do with why you believe in the existence of The Creator Mind (you call/refer to as "God" - specifically the biblical idea of) and I am interested in what "test of truth" you applied in order to reach any conclusion of belief other than logical possibility.

Something must be logically possible, yes, but we must go beyond that. The “test of truth” is philosophical reasoning built off of scientific and historical data. For the creator God these are things like the Kalam, fine-tuning, argument from morality, the applicability of mathematics, the argument from consciousness. For narrowing it down to the Biblical God, this comes in the argument for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.


2. William’s View

Our differences seem to primarily be along the lines that you do not see why such (a chain of mindful hierarchy) is necessary in relation to The Creator Mind, whereas I do.

Yes.

There are a number of reasons why I think such should be included in rational thinking Jason. I think that since such has never been serious considered/included, adds to the reasons why human beings (re their systems of governing and beliefs et al) behave in a disconnected manner re the planet, treating it as merely a mindless prop/something which can be owned and fought over.

Also, when one does begin to understand or see it as a self aware entity, one tends to view it in the feminine, something which our major religions tend to forget in their presentation of the masculine re The Creator Mind.

As the GPT summarized, I think both of these arguments rest on the principle that if a view provides societal and ecological benefits, then it is true. I see no reason to think that principle is true. Why are possible societal and ecological benefits a good test of truth?

Maybe we should own and fight over the mindless Earth. Or maybe an alternative to those two options is true (such as Biblical Christianity’s view of caring for even mindless things, such as the Earth).

And maybe the feminine doesn’t need to be highlighted more. Or maybe an alternative to those two options is true (such as Biblical Christianity’s view that God isn’t masculine or feminine).


3. The Tanager’s view

As I noted, we agree in principle to the notion of their being The Creator Mind.
I have been under the impression that you consider The Creator Mind (and minds in general) to being immaterial. Is this not the case re your belief re mindfulness?

Yes, I believe God and other minds (like ours) are immaterial.

The expression "an immaterial Mind behind creation" also needs to be explained by you, as we may not be (and based on our previous arguments) probably are not saying the exact same thing re The Creator Mind.

I mean that a personal agent that is not made of any matter and is capable of thought created everything else (matter and non-material things).

I think our major difference is that you believe that The Creator Mind and this created universe are separate entities outside of each other. You believe that The Creator Mind created the universe outside of itself, while my current understanding is that the universe exists within The Creator Mind.

Yes.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #4]

(such as Biblical Christianity’s view of caring for even mindless things, such as the Earth).

(such as Biblical Christianity’s view that God isn’t masculine or feminine).

Is this "Biblical Christianity" a new religion? I have never heard of that label/expression so am unsure as to what it means re the context you are using it for. Please explain.

Something must be logically possible, yes, but we must go beyond that. The “test of truth” is philosophical reasoning built off of scientific and historical data. For the creator God these are things like the Kalam...

The Kalam is built on the premise that The Creator Mind is independent of its Creations.
There is no scientific data that I am aware of which shows that this is the case.
If there is such data, please advise.


Scientific data nor biblical script doesn't show us that The Creator Mind exists outside of the Creation or that the earth is mindless, as far as I am aware. If you think that these do show such, please advise.

[The Tanager]

1. General

The Kalam is built on the premise that The Creator Mind is independent of its Creations.
There is no scientific data that I am aware of which shows that this is the case.
If there is such data, please advise.

No, the Kalam is not built on a premise that the Creator Mind is independent of its Creation. It is a logical conclusion from other premises. The premises are

(1) a scientific observation about causality

(2) philosophical arguments and scientific data about the temporality of the material universe (not just our bubble of it)

(3) philosophical analysis of what this cause must be like as the creator of the material universe

Scientific data nor biblical script doesn't show us that The Creator Mind exists outside of the Creation or that the earth is mindless, as far as I am aware. If you think that these do show such, please advise.

I’m not saying scientific data shows us this, but that philosophical arguments built off of scientific data shows us the Creator Mind exists outside of Creation.


2. William’s view

Scientific data nor biblical script doesn't show us that The Creator Mind exists outside of the Creation or that the earth is mindless, as far as I am aware. If you think that these do show such, please advise.

I’m not saying these show us that the Earth is mindless. Assuming the Kalam is true, the Earth being mindful is still logically possible. We need more than that, though. You need to show the Earth being mindful is actually the case.

You gave two arguments for that which seemed to use the same principle or test of truth, namely, that if something provides societal or ecological benefits, then it’s true. While it may produce a better (to some) world, I don’t see why that makes it true. Why do you think this principle is sound? Or do you think GPT and myself are misunderstanding your arguments?


3. The Tanager’s view

Is this "Biblical Christianity" a new religion? I have never heard of that label/expression so am unsure as to what it means re the context you are using it for. Please explain.

No, it’s not a new religion. It’s simply an attempt to distinguish types of Christianity. I realize other Christians will disagree with me on beliefs and think their view is more Biblical. The same could be said if I simply used the label “Christianity,” though. My point is only that I think there have been additions within segments of Christianity that led to beliefs that, on my reading of the Bible, seem to contradict what it teaches.

[William]

Exploring the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Concept of Mindfulness in Earth's Ecosystem

[Replying to The Tanager in post #6]

No, the Kalam is not built on a premise that the Creator Mind is independent of its Creation. It is a logical conclusion from other premises.

I agree with that. The other premises appear to have it that "The Creator Mind MUST exist outside of the creation."

However, what happens if we take those premises and view them in the framework of the premise that The Creation exists within The Creator Mind? We should expect that these premises would not accommodate that premise (reach that conclusion).

(1) a scientific observation about causality

(2) philosophical arguments and scientific data about the temporality of the material universe (not just our bubble of it)

(3) philosophical analysis of what this cause must be like as the creator of the material universe

Yet there is nothing (that I can identify) re those premises which would give us the conclusion we do not exist within The Creator Mind.

I’m not saying scientific data shows us this, ...

Then you agree that the scientific data isn't showing us that?

...but that philosophical arguments built off of scientific data shows us the Creator Mind exists outside of Creation.

And do any of these philosophical arguments "built off of scientific data" show us that we are NOT inside The Creator Mind, and if not, what is it about the scientific data which has such philosophies excluding that particular philosophical concept?

I’m not saying these show us that the Earth is mindless. Assuming the Kalam is true, the Earth being mindful is still logically possible.

Then I would expect you to agree with what I replied above re the Kalam.

We need more than that, though. You need to show the Earth being mindful is actually the case.

Then I simple rest the case on the truth that since it is the only planet in known existence which has mindfulness, that this is an exceptionally strong indication the planet is indeed mindful.

Underneath that heading, I can have a list generated with examples of observable mindfulness of the biological forms which imply in their actions, mindfulness. Not only could I produce such a list, but any human mind ought be able to do the same. Indeed, even a mindless machine (Such as Chat GPT LLS) would undoubtedly be able to achieve such an easy task.

So my question in return to your own, is

"Why are you asking me to provide this fundamentally understood answer when the evidence is there for any who are of a mindfulness to understand it is so?"

IF a mindless machine can work it out, THEN why do so many human minds struggle with being able to do the same?

IF a mindless machine can identify the evidence of the planet being mindful, THEN why can’t certain human beings entertain the same evidence of mindfulness?

For example, Sir David Attenborough filming and narrating the interactions between mycelium, leaf ants and trees implying mindfulness without actually coming out and just admitting the evidence supports the direct observation of mindfulness in what humans are able to observe and declare.
The question is… “Why are humans so against doing so?”

Here is evidence of my claim that a mindless machine can produce such a list.

1. Tool Use: Certain animals, such as primates and birds, demonstrate the ability to use tools for various purposes, indicating a level of cognitive sophistication.
2. Problem-Solving Abilities: Many species exhibit problem-solving skills in response to challenges in their environment, suggesting a capacity for foresight and planning.
3. Social Cooperation: Numerous organisms, including humans, engage in complex social behaviors, such as cooperation, communication, and empathy, which require an understanding of others' perspectives.
4. Self-Awareness: Some animals display signs of self-awareness, as demonstrated by their ability to recognize themselves in mirrors or engage in behaviors indicative of introspection.
5. Learning and Adaptation: Biological organisms exhibit the capacity to learn from experience and adapt their behavior accordingly, showing a form of cognitive flexibility."

Exploring Reasons Behind Resistance to Accepting Evidence of Earth's Mindfulness.

Here are some reasons as to possible answers to my return question to you own.
Jason: Show me the evidence that the planet is mindful.
William: Why are you asking me to provide evidence (re this fundamentally understandable answer) when the evidence is there for any who are of a mindfulness to understand it is/as so?

1. Scientific skepticism: Some individuals may adhere strictly to empirical evidence and require more concrete proof before accepting claims about the mindfulness of the planet or its inhabitants.
2. Anthropocentrism: Human-centric views of the world may lead some people to dismiss the idea of mindfulness in non-human entities, viewing them solely as resources or objects for human use.
3. Religious or philosophical beliefs: Certain religious or philosophical frameworks may conflict with the concept of non-human mindfulness, leading individuals to reject such ideas based on their worldview.
4. Lack of awareness or understanding: Many people may simply be unaware of the evidence or arguments suggesting mindfulness in nature, or they may not have the necessary understanding of scientific concepts to interpret such evidence.
5. Fear of the unknown: The idea of non-human consciousness or mindfulness may challenge established notions of human exceptionalism and provoke discomfort or fear of the unknown.

[The Tanager]

1. General

I agree with that. The other premises appear to have it that "The Creator Mind MUST exist outside of the creation."

However, what happens if we take those premises and view them in the framework of the premise that The Creation exists within The Creator Mind? We should expect that these premises would not accommodate that premise (reach that conclusion).

(1) a scientific observation about causality

(2) philosophical arguments and scientific data about the temporality of the material universe (not just our bubble of it)

(3) philosophical analysis of what this cause must be like as the creator of the material universe

Yet there is nothing (that I can identify) re those premises which would give us the conclusion we do not exist within The Creator Mind.

Are you saying that the creation we exist in is not actually material? That the material-ness is an illusion and it is really just a mental phenomenon?

Then you agree that the scientific data isn't showing us that?

Scientific data alone doesn’t show us that, correct.

I’m not saying these show us that the Earth is mindless. Assuming the Kalam is true, the Earth being mindful is still logically possible.

Then I would expect you to agree with what I replied above re the Kalam.

Why would the Kalam not ruling out the Earth being mindful mean I should agree with your views about us being within the Creator’s mind?


2. William’s view

Then I simple rest the case on the truth that since it is the only planet in known existence which has mindfulness, that this is an exceptionally strong indication the planet is indeed mindful.

You think it is rational to believe the Earth is mindful because mindful creatures exist on it?

Here are some reasons as to possible answers to my return question to you own.
Jason: Show me the evidence that the planet is mindful.
William: Why are you asking me to provide evidence (re this fundamentally understandable answer) when the evidence is there for any who are of a mindfulness to understand it is/as so?

Are you saying that the evidence should be so obvious that you won’t give me any and I must obviously be resisting because of my own biases?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #8]

Are you saying that the creation we exist in is not actually material? That the material-ness is an illusion and it is really just a mental phenomenon?

Why would you think that about The Creator Mind? Why would you think that what happens in The Creator Mind is "just a mental phenomenon"? Why use the word "just" in the same way one would use the word "merely"?

Look at the hard-to-describe-accurately phenomena of the Universe we are experiencing. Why would you think it would have to be described in a lessor manner, if it is within The Creator Mind?

Why would the Kalam not ruling out the Earth being mindful mean I should agree with your views about us being within the Creator’s mind?

I don't. Rather I think it would allow the individual human personality to think such is a possible explanation and roll with that as they study everything related to creation and human experience.
Since Kalam doesn't rule it out, Kalam is not showing anyone the contrary, even that some/many interpret it is showing us that The Creator Mind exists outside of the creation.

Then I simple rest the case on the truth that since it is the only planet in known existence which has mindfulness, that this is an exceptionally strong indication the planet is indeed mindful.

You think it is rational to believe the Earth is mindful because mindful creatures exist on it?

Yes. You think it isn't rational to think so?

Here are some reasons as to possible answers to my return question to you own.
Jason: Show me the evidence that the planet is mindful.
William: Why are you asking me to provide evidence (re this fundamentally understandable answer) when the evidence is there for any who are of a mindfulness to understand it is/as so?

Are you saying that the evidence should be so obvious that you won’t give me any and I must obviously be resisting because of my own biases?

I was not saying that, but now consider it probable, because I actually did provide for your consideration, a list of what some things which I understand/agree with as being evidence.

[The Tanager]

1. General

Why would you think that about The Creator Mind? Why would you think that what happens in The Creator Mind is "just a mental phenomenon"? Why use the word "just" in the same way one would use the word "merely"?

Look at the hard-to-describe-accurately phenomena of the Universe we are experiencing. Why would you think it would have to be described in a lessor manner, if it is within The Creator Mind?

You may naturally understand lesser value in using the word ‘just,’ but I don't so please don't take it that way. Regarding the topic, thoughts in our minds aren’t material; they are mental (a subcategory of immaterial). If creation exists within the Creator’s Mind, then that creation is mental (and immaterial) instead of material as well. It would be an illusion of matter that is actually a mental phenomenon.

Why would the Kalam not ruling out the Earth being mindful mean I should agree with your views about us being within the Creator’s mind?

I don't. Rather I think it would allow the individual human personality to think such is a possible explanation and roll with that as they study everything related to creation and human experience.
Since Kalam doesn't rule it out, Kalam is not showing anyone the contrary, even that some/many interpret it is showing us that The Creator Mind exists outside of the creation.

You seem to be moving between two different ideas as though they are one here. I was saying that the Kalam says nothing for/against the Earth being mindful; that is separate from the Creator Mind existing outside of the creation. On that latter front, however, the creator of a creation must exist outside of it in order to bring it about. Even a creator that thinks the creation into existence is bigger than just the thought created, existing outside of it.


2. William’s view

You think it is rational to believe the Earth is mindful because mindful creatures exist on it?

Yes. You think it isn't rational to think so?

Yes, with complete certainty. If it was true, then (assuming plates and kitchens are mindless, maybe you don't think they are?) as soon as ants started running around on a plate or in a kitchen, that thing would become mindful. Plates and kitchens aren’t mindful simply because some ants run around on them. Perhaps the language I used means something else to you and you could rephrase it to get us on the same page with the language, though?

Are you saying that the evidence should be so obvious that you won’t give me any and I must obviously be resisting because of my own biases?

I was not saying that,

Were you saying something I missed then?

but now consider it probable, because I actually did provide for your consideration, a list of what some things which I understand/agree with as being evidence.

Your list (as far as I can tell, but please correct misunderstandings where we use the same term to pick out different concepts) has included three lines of reasoning (and possibly a fourth I've missed):

1. The Earth being mindful would allow humans to be more connected to the planet, treating it better.

2. The Earth being mindful would allow humans to add more femininity to human religions.

3. Things that house mindful creatures are, themselves, mindful.

The first two are not arguments for the Earth being mindful, but statements on what would follow if it was true (and the implication that those are good things, but not necessarily truth-making things, that would follow). The third seems demonstrably false to me for the reason I listed above. I don’t see how any of these is good evidence for the claim.

Neither do I see why my responses here would cause you to consider that I’m resisting because of bias. I've given reasons. Even if any of those psychological speculations were true, that wouldn't matter because the soundness of the reasons determine the truth, not why someone shares those reasons (that would be a textbook genetic fallacy).

If I’m simply missing the obvious, then you should be able to point out the obvious reasoning for me to consider.