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 #10]

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.

It is understandable that any number of individual human personalities might perceive it in that manner, but this in itself doe not mean that consciousness/mind is "immaterial".
It may simply be a case of we don't yet know how to detect its physical nature with current instruments of science.
This does not signify that in the meantime we are forced to think of it as "immaterial".
One clue as to it not being, is that we can detect an interaction between what we understand as being material, and mindfulness, and that in every other case, (of material interaction) such interaction is seen to be material interaction.

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.

This is where we differ. Are we able to exist outside of the mind we are? There appears to be no evidence that we are able to, so why should we think The Creator Mind is any different?

Given the literal grandiose nature of the "room" that is our universe experienced, how is it that we need assume The Creator Mind is unable to also have unlimited "rooms" within the "Mansion" that is The Creator Mind?
How is it we need/should assume that The Creator Mind is only capable of building and maintaining the grandiose outside of said Mind?

Does the Kalam explain why this "must have to" assumption is necessary?

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?

Making the Earth analogous with a plate is where you are veering away from reality.

Plates are not created to then create ants. With a doubt, the Earth is, because (we know) that is what the Earth has done/is doing/and will continue to do naturally, for a long time to come yet.

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

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 list I was referring to is the one I claimed that GPT (the mindless) would be able to (and did) provide.
That list is what I understand/agree with as being the easily understood evidence any mindful human being could also ascertain (by the evidence around them) and agree with the notion that said evidence can indeed support the notion that the planet is mindful.

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."

[The Tanager]

It is understandable that any number of individual human personalities might perceive it in that manner, but this in itself doe not mean that consciousness/mind is "immaterial".
It may simply be a case of we don't yet know how to detect its physical nature with current instruments of science.
This does not signify that in the meantime we are forced to think of it as "immaterial".

No, using clear language, the mind is immaterial. Brains are material. If minds are material, then we are really talking about the brain and the things minds produce (thoughts) would be material states of the brain.

One clue as to it not being, is that we can detect an interaction between what we understand as being material, and mindfulness, and that in every other case, (of material interaction) such interaction is seen to be material interaction.

That we materially observe many material things interacting materially with each other provides absolutely no clue to whether X (in this case the mind/brain) is material or not. The first has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the second.

This is where we differ. Are we able to exist outside of the mind we are? There appears to be no evidence that we are able to, so why should we think The Creator Mind is any different?

We aren’t talking about the Creator Mind existing outside of its Mind, but outside of its creation.

Given the literal grandiose nature of the "room" that is our universe experienced, how is it that we need assume The Creator Mind is unable to also have unlimited "rooms" within the "Mansion" that is The Creator Mind?
How is it we need/should assume that The Creator Mind is only capable of building and maintaining the grandiose outside of said Mind?

That isn’t what I was saying. I was saying that the Creator must exist outside of its creation. Even if creation is just thoughts in the mind of God, God exists outside of those thoughts. Or, in other words, God didn’t begin to exist only when those thoughts occurred. God was something prior to that created thought world.

Does the Kalam explain why this "must have to" assumption is necessary?

I didn’t say it did. I was saying logic does.

Making the Earth analogous with a plate is where you are veering away from reality.

Plates are not created to then create ants. With a doubt, the Earth is, because (we know) that is what the Earth has done/is doing/and will continue to do naturally, for a long time to come yet.

Okay, so your principle is more nuanced. It’s not just because mindful creatures exist on it, but because you have evidence/reasoning that the Earth has created other mindful entities. Please explain what you mean by this and share the evidence/reasoning, because I don’t see any evidence for that or don’t understand what you are actually claiming.

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 list I was referring to is the one I claimed that GPT (the mindless) would be able to (and did) provide.
That list is what I understand/agree with as being the easily understood evidence any mindful human being could also ascertain (by the evidence around them) and agree with the notion that said evidence can indeed support the notion that the planet is mindful.

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."

Doesn’t this all fit under my #3 (corrected by your nuance I noted above in this post)? You are arguing that the Earth is mindful because it created animals that can do these things, right? The Earth gave these things these abilities, right?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #12]

Using clear language, the mind is immaterial.

What evidence is there to support this claim/belief?

Brains are material.

Planets are also material. Everything is material, including The Creator Mind. There is logically no such actual thing as an immaterial thing.

If minds are material, then we are really talking about the brain and the things minds produce (thoughts) would be material states of the brain.

You are speaking about something akin to Emergence Theory. The theory is based upon a particular perspective (of belief).

One clue as to it not being, is that we can detect an interaction between what we understand as being material, and mindfulness, and that in every other case, (of material interaction) such interaction is seen to be material interaction.

That we materially observe many material things interacting materially with each other provides absolutely no clue to whether X (in this case the mind/brain) is material or not. The first has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the second.

That theoretic perspective has not been conclusively given the green light (shown to be true).

There are other perspectives to be examined.

This is where we differ. Are we able to exist outside of the mind we are? There appears to be no evidence that we are able to, so why should we think The Creator Mind is any different?

We aren’t talking about the Creator Mind existing outside of its Mind, but outside of its creation.

You may be talking about that, but I am talking about the Creation being within/inside The Creator Mind. If creations are within The Creator Mind, and The Creator cannot exist outside The Creator Mind, then everything including our mind(s) exist within and only within The Creator Mind.

If everything exists within The Creator Mind, then there is no "outside" of The Creator Mind, thus "The Creator Mind" and "The Creator" are not separate entities. The Creator does not "have a mind" - The Creator IS a Mind.

Thus, you and I (humans) don't have minds. We ARE minds.

Given the literal grandiose nature of the "room" that is our universe experienced, how is it that we need assume The Creator Mind is unable to also have unlimited "rooms" within the "Mansion" that is The Creator Mind?
How is it we need/should assume that The Creator Mind is only capable of building and maintaining the grandiose outside of said Mind?

That isn’t what I was saying. I was saying that the Creator must exist outside of its creation. Even if creation is just thoughts in the mind of God, God exists outside of those thoughts. Or, in other words, God didn’t begin to exist only when those thoughts occurred. God was something prior to that created thought world.

Thinking that about The Creator may have to do with how you perceive yourself and thus all other human beings.

There is no "prior state". The Creator Mind has always existed and has always created rooms to explore. That is the very essence of being an eternal Creator Mind.
What you are describing is some kind of emergence occuring re The Creator Mind somehow "coming to a place" where It "begins to think".
Whereas I am speaking to the concept that the very thoughts produce the rooms which can thus be experienced and that since these are all happening within The Creator Mind, they can be experienced as real, as is evidenced by us human personalities re the existence of The Earth.

Does the Kalam explain why this "must have to" assumption is necessary?

I didn’t say it did. I was saying logic does.

Logic is attached to belief.
I am presenting another logic which is attached to a different belief.

Your logic is attached to the belief that The Creator Mind has a Creator who creates things outside of His mind.

My logic is attached to the belief that There is no "Creator" outside of The Creator Mind.

Making the Earth analogous with a plate is where you are veering away from reality.

Plates are not created to then create ants. With a doubt, the Earth is, because (we know) that is what the Earth has done/is doing/and will continue to do naturally, for a long time to come yet.

Okay, so your principle is more nuanced.

It is based on what is being actually observed.

It’s not just because mindful creatures exist on it, but because you have evidence/reasoning that the Earth has created other mindful entities. Please explain what you mean by this and share the evidence/reasoning, because I don’t see any evidence for that or don’t understand what you are actually claiming.

In studying these lifeforms, one can ascertain not only that they have been mindfully designed, but that they all reflect an overall snapshot of the personality of the Creator-Mind which designed them.
The underflowing nuance altogether gives us an impression regarding the quality of nature of - in this case "The Creator Mind of The Planet".
This loops back to the idea of a "hierarchy" of Creator Minds, all which can only be sourced with The Creator Mind in which all "other" Creator Minds exist within.

Re that, I think the existence of both the lifeforms in the planet and Bible represent (for the sake of argument) having come from the same Creator Mind, which is to say, those stories re the Bible God are directly related. One exists because of the other, and the god-concept as represented through the stories is a reflection of the Mind of the Earth.

Doesn’t this all fit under my #3. "Things that house mindful creatures are, themselves, mindful."(corrected by your nuance I noted above in this post)? You are arguing that the Earth is mindful because it created animals that can do these things, right? The Earth gave these things these abilities, right?

Correct.

[The Tanager]

Planets are also material. Everything is material, including The Creator Mind. There is logically no such actual thing as an immaterial thing.

What is your logical argument that shows an immaterial thing is logically impossible?

You are speaking about something akin to Emergence Theory. The theory is based upon a particular perspective (of belief).

That’s one form of it, yes, but I’m simply talking about the actual language. There is no physical evidence of a material “mind” that is completely separate from the brain that I’m aware of. Even if there were, the “mind” would be very different from what people have traditionally meant by the term ‘mind,’ so using that term with new meaning stifles communication and understanding.

That we materially observe many material things interacting materially with each other provides absolutely no clue to whether X (in this case the mind/brain) is material or not. The first has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the second.

That theoretic perspective has not been conclusively given the green light (shown to be true).

There are other perspectives to be examined.

What perspective? I’m logically analyzing the principle of reasoning you are using. The observation that we materially observe many material things interacting in a material way logically says nothing about whether there are immaterial things or not. That would be like saying that our observations about swans all being white shows that black swans can't exist.

You may be talking about that, but I am talking about the Creation being within/inside The Creator Mind. If creations are within The Creator Mind, and The Creator cannot exist outside The Creator Mind, then everything including our mind(s) exist within and only within The Creator Mind.

Okay, but it’s confusing when you respond to what I’m saying as though I am talking about that.

Thinking that about The Creator may have to do with how you perceive yourself and thus all other human beings.

There is no "prior state". The Creator Mind has always existed and has always created rooms to explore. That is the very essence of being an eternal Creator Mind.

I’m talking about being logically prior to, not temporally prior to. If God is just the sum of His thoughts, then those thoughts aren’t a creation; they just eternally exist (because self-causation is illogical). If God is producing the thought, then there is a thing outside of the thought having it.

Logic is attached to belief.
I am presenting another logic which is attached to a different belief.

Your logic is attached to the belief that The Creator Mind has a Creator who creates things outside of His mind.

My logic is attached to the belief that There is no "Creator" outside of The Creator Mind.

No, logic is logic, irrespective of the beliefs one is applying it to. My analysis here has nothing to do with and doesn't depend on my belief about the nature of God's creation.

In studying these lifeforms, one can ascertain not only that they have been mindfully designed, but that they all reflect an overall snapshot of the personality of the Creator-Mind which designed them.

I agree.

The underflowing nuance altogether gives us an impression regarding the quality of nature of - in this case "The Creator Mind of The Planet".
This loops back to the idea of a "hierarchy" of Creator Minds, all which can only be sourced with The Creator Mind in which all "other" Creator Minds exist within.

I don’t see why you jump from the previous point to this one. This is a statement that it gives us this impression, but it isn’t the actual evidence or reasoning to get us to the truth of that statement.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #14]

What is your logical argument that shows an immaterial thing is logically impossible?

I made it earlier. What is your logical argument for how a supposed immaterial thing can influence and shape material things, without it being material itself?

There is no physical evidence of a material “mind” that is completely separate from the brain that I’m aware of. Even if there were, the “mind” would be very different from what people have traditionally meant by the term ‘mind,’ so using that term with new meaning stifles communication and understanding.

In this case, what "stifles communication and understanding" is in clinging to concepts which are not even able to be explained logically. Just because people place an immaterial meaning to the fact of mindfulness, does not a truth make.

What perspective? I’m logically analyzing the principle of reasoning you are using. The observation that we materially observe many material things interacting in a material way logically says nothing about whether there are immaterial things or not. That would be like saying that our observations about swans all being white shows that black swans can't exist.

(The false analogy fallacy is the assumption that two things share multiple similarities simply because they have one thing in common. The expression about comparing apples to oranges alludes to this fallacy.)

Your belief is that mind is immaterial does not explain why minds influence matter...specifically The Creator Mind re the creation we are experiencing.
My understanding that we exist within The Creator Mind means that said mind would necessarily be physical since all things within said mind can be experienced physically.


This is not the only reason why I understand such as being the case. Reports from those who have NDEs and other related experiences are also factored in. So too, is frequency (sound) and how this affects the shaping of atomic particles into structures of form. WE cannot see atoms any more than we can see minds, but why should we claim one as "material" and the other as "immaterial"?

You may be talking about that, but I am talking about the Creation being within/inside The Creator Mind. If creations are within The Creator Mind, and The Creator cannot exist outside The Creator Mind, then everything including our mind(s) exist within and only within The Creator Mind.

Okay, but it’s confusing when you respond to what I’m saying as though I am talking about that.

I was responding specifically to your alluding to the notion (as true) that The Creator exists outside of The Creator's mind.
If that is not what you meant, or is no longer what you believe, then we can move on...

I’m talking about being logically prior to, not temporally prior to. If God is just the sum of His thoughts, then those thoughts aren’t a creation; they just eternally exist (because self-causation is illogical). If God is producing the thought, then there is a thing outside of the thought having it.

Again, you are conflating The Creator Mind as being something a Creator has, rather than something The Creator is.

Your argument implies this God you believe exists, has a form in which His mind occupies. Are you also going to claim that the form this mind occupies, is immaterial? I ask because you have argued that re the Kalam.

Logic is attached to belief.
I am presenting another logic which is attached to a different belief.

Your logic is attached to the belief that The Creator Mind has a Creator who creates things outside of His mind.

My logic is attached to the belief that There is no "Creator" outside of The Creator Mind.

No, logic is logic, irrespective of the beliefs one is applying it to. My analysis here has nothing to do with and doesn't depend on my belief about the nature of God's creation.

What I am getting at then, is logic is shaped by belief.
I think that we both have come to the conclusion that we exist within a created thing and have done so through logic. I think it is not a process which involves logic alone, but also personal experience.

This may be why we differ in regard to the nature and function of The Creator Mind. We can reach the conclusion we exist within a creation, through observation (experience) and logic.
Belief about the nature of said creation can be placed to one side, but what then are we looking at once belief is removed and only logic applied?

What can we say about the logic of existing on the planet in the universe we are experiencing?
Logic should have some explanatory power, so what is the logic of this existence being experience, when the belief is taken out of the equation?

In studying these lifeforms, one can ascertain not only that they have been mindfully designed, but that they all reflect an overall snapshot of the personality of the Creator-Mind which designed them.

I agree.

Why do your agree?

The underflowing nuance altogether gives us an impression regarding the quality of nature of - in this case "The Creator Mind of The Planet".
This loops back to the idea of a "hierarchy" of Creator Minds, all which can only be sourced with The Creator Mind in which all "other" Creator Minds exist within.

I don’t see why you jump from the previous point to this one. This is a statement that it gives us this impression, but it isn’t the actual evidence or reasoning to get us to the truth of that statement.

"Been given the impression" is different from "the idea of a hierarchy of Creator Minds", how/why?

[The Tanager]

What is your logical argument that shows an immaterial thing is logically impossible?

I made it earlier.

I did not see it. Please repost it.

What is your logical argument for how a supposed immaterial thing can influence and shape material things, without it being material itself?

The argument would be that there is no logical contradiction (like we get with a square circle). An immaterial thing is simply something that isn’t made out of matter. Material things are things that are made of matter. There is nothing in those definitions that tell us one can’t influence the other. No logical contradiction.

In this case, what "stifles communication and understanding" is in clinging to concepts which are not even able to be explained logically. Just because people place an immaterial meaning to the fact of mindfulness, does not a truth make.

You’ve conflated two things here. One, the concept of an immaterial thing is perfectly understandable. That is shown by countless texts between people disagreeing over whether it exists or not; not simply texts of opponents saying “I don’t comprehend what you are claiming”.

Two, whether such a thing is true. And here I wasn’t arguing it’s true just because we can make sense of the concept.

My understanding that we exist within The Creator Mind means that said mind would necessarily be physical since all things within said mind can be experienced physically.

Here you assume one thing and then talk about what follows. Sure, but I’m asking for evidence of the thing you are assuming at the start. And, in that regard, your reasoning that we observe material things interacting materially with other material things is not rational support of that.

This is not the only reason why I understand such as being the case. Reports from those who have NDEs and other related experiences are also factored in. So too, is frequency (sound) and how this affects the shaping of atomic particles into structures of form. WE cannot see atoms any more than we can see minds, but why should we claim one as "material" and the other as "immaterial"?

Because of scientific observations that atoms are material things. We don’t have that for a “physical mind”.

I was responding specifically to your alluding to the notion (as true) that The Creator exists outside of The Creator's mind.
If that is not what you meant, or is no longer what you believe, then we can move on...

I never alluded to the Creator existing outside of the Creator’s mind. You misunderstood me talking about the Creator existing outside of the Creator’s creation (which is what I said) as the Creator existing outside of the Creator’s mind.

Again, you are conflating The Creator Mind as being something a Creator has, rather than something The Creator is.

Your argument implies this God you believe exists, has a form in which His mind occupies. Are you also going to claim that the form this mind occupies, is immaterial? I ask because you have argued that re the Kalam.

I am not doing that. I see those as identical statements and it changes nothing I’ve said. There is still a logical priority of the Mind to the Mind’s thoughts. Unless you are equating Mind with thoughts and, in that case, the thoughts aren’t a creation by the Mind (which you have been arguing).

I have no idea why you think I’ve argued that God has a form that has a mind in the Kalam. That is a misunderstanding.

What I am getting at then, is logic is shaped by belief.

It’s not; it shapes belief (or we ignore logic for our beliefs).

I think that we both have come to the conclusion that we exist within a created thing and have done so through logic. I think it is not a process which involves logic alone, but also personal experience.

This may be why we differ in regard to the nature and function of The Creator Mind. We can reach the conclusion we exist within a creation, through observation (experience) and logic.
Belief about the nature of said creation can be placed to one side, but what then are we looking at once belief is removed and only logic applied?

What can we say about the logic of existing on the planet in the universe we are experiencing?
Logic should have some explanatory power, so what is the logic of this existence being experience, when the belief is taken out of the equation?

I follow logic to other aspects of the nature and function of the Creator Mind as well; where we disagree on those conclusions.

Why do your agree?

Because I think logic leads me to that conclusion. I don’t understand what you are asking me here.

I don’t see why you jump from the previous point to this one. This is a statement that it gives us this impression, but it isn’t the actual evidence or reasoning to get us to the truth of that statement.

"Been given the impression" is different from "the idea of a hierarchy of Creator Minds", how/why?

No, I’m saying that you said we get the impression of this hierarchy instead of showing the evidence that gives you that impression. I’m asking for the evidence/reasoning.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #16]

What is your logical argument that shows an immaterial thing is logically impossible?

I made it earlier.

Please repost it.

The gist of it is that there is no logical reason to believe otherwise since we all know that it is matter which interacts with matter. There is no evidence to support that anything immaterial exists or that we ourgh think of the mind as being immaterial.

The argument would be that there is no logical contradiction (like we get with a square circle). An immaterial thing is simply something that isn’t made out of matter. Material things are things that are made of matter. There is nothing in those definitions that tell us one can’t influence the other. No logical contradiction.

Yes there is. Until an explanation accompanies the claim, there is no logical reason to believe it is true that an immaterial thing exists and is simply something that isn’t made out of matter.

To even refer to it a a some thing is similar to arguing square circles are also things.

And if one argues that square circles are not things, why argue that immaterial things exist?

You’ve conflated two things here.

One, the concept of an immaterial thing is perfectly understandable. That is shown by countless texts between people disagreeing over whether it exists or not; not simply texts of opponents saying “I don’t comprehend what you are claiming”.

I do comprehend what you are claiming. You are claiming that the mind exists as an immaterial thing.
I agree with you that the mind does exist, but not that it is immaterial.
I understand that "immaterial" is another way of saying "does not exist" whereas, you are saying the mind does exist, but does not exist as something material.

Two, whether such a thing is true. And here I wasn’t arguing it’s true just because we can make sense of the concept.

The concept is senseless. One cannot "make sense of it" because "one requires one's senses to detect it". Otherwise we would not call it anything, because we would not know that it existed.

Specifically, IF we are minds within human forms, THEN we have no logical need or reason to require we believe we are immaterial.

Rather, it would enough to understand that we are hard to detect (with human senses) yet (fully?) aware we are minds and that we are able to interact with other forms of matter, because we minds are material in nature and thus naturally enabled.

My understanding that we exist within The Creator Mind means that said mind would necessarily be physical since all things within said mind can be experienced physically.

Here you assume one thing and then talk about what follows. Sure,

And you assume another thing and speak from that perspective, sure.

but I’m asking for evidence of the thing you are assuming at the start.

Are you referring to the Thread Subject, or something else here?

And, in that regard, your reasoning that we observe material things interacting materially with other material things is not rational support of that.

In support of what? The thread subject or something else?

Because of scientific observations that atoms are material things. We don’t have that for a “physical mind”.

Something must have been the cause of said atoms to have clumped to the point where humans are able to measure them as material things. It is reasonable to assume there is no change in this natural pattern to the point where we have to believe in the conjured immaterial supernatural concepts as being the only satisfactory answer in the mean-time/present.

How one sees this is directly related to how one sees oneself, since it is mind we a speaking about.

I was responding specifically to your alluding to the notion (as true) that The Creator exists outside of The Creator's mind.
If that is not what you meant, or is no longer what you believe, then we can move on...

I never alluded to the Creator existing outside of the Creator’s mind. You misunderstood me talking about the Creator existing outside of the Creator’s creation (which is what I said) as the Creator existing outside of the Creator’s mind.

Given what you know is my position on the matter, you were so alluding to that.
You believe that The Creator Mind exists outside of Its creation.

Again, you are conflating The Creator Mind as being something a Creator has, rather than something The Creator is.

Your argument implies this God you believe exists, has a form in which His mind occupies. Are you also going to claim that the form this mind occupies, is immaterial? I ask because you have argued that re the Kalam.

I am not doing that. I see those as identical statements and it changes nothing I’ve said.

You see "The Creator Mind has form" and "The Creator Mind in said form" as "identical statements"?

There is still a logical priority of the Mind to the Mind’s thoughts. Unless you are equating Mind with thoughts and, in that case, the thoughts aren’t a creation by the Mind (which you have been arguing).

No. I have been arguing that The Creator Mind is what everything exists within.

I have no idea why you think I’ve argued that God has a form that has a mind in the Kalam. That is a misunderstanding.

Then is that something extra you believe which you use to support the Kalam, or is the Kalam something extra which you use to support your belief? Something else?

What I am getting at then, is logic is shaped by belief.

It’s not; it shapes belief (or we ignore logic for our beliefs).

Which is the interactive aspect I am pointing at, whichever way it is looked at.

I follow logic to other aspects of the nature and function of the Creator Mind as well; where we disagree on those conclusions.

Where we disagree appears to be in the nature of mind. How can we discuss the questions "Sentient Earth - Is the planet mindful and would this explain why there is life in earth?" when we cannot even agree to the nature of mind/creative mindfulness and how mind is able to do what it does with itself (or as you would argue - with something (matter) other than itself (immaterial).

[The Tanager]

The gist of it is that there is no logical reason to believe otherwise since we all know that it is matter which interacts with matter.

That’s begging the question, which is a logical fallacy.

There is no evidence to support that anything immaterial exists or that we ourgh think of the mind as being immaterial.

Even assuming there is no evidence or reasoning (which isn’t true; you may think it isn’t rational reasoning, but there is evidence and reasoning offered), that doesn’t support the claim that an immaterial thing is logically impossible, which was your claim.

Yes there is. Until an explanation accompanies the claim, there is no logical reason to believe it is true that an immaterial thing exists and is simply something that isn’t made out of matter.

That’s not the claim I made and you asked me to support. You asked me for a logical argument for how an immaterial thing could influence and shape material things.

To even refer to it a a some thing is similar to arguing square circles are also things.

And if one argues that square circles are not things, why argue that immaterial things exist?

We don’t logically argue that square circles aren’t things because we don’t have evidence to support them existing. We logically argue square circles aren’t things because the definitions of the concepts logically contradict. We don’t have that with immaterial things interacting with material things; nothing in their definitions contradict.

I do comprehend what you are claiming. You are claiming that the mind exists as an immaterial thing.
I agree with you that the mind does exist, but not that it is immaterial.
I understand that "immaterial" is another way of saying "does not exist" whereas, you are saying the mind does exist, but does not exist as something material.

No, “immaterial” is not another way of saying “does not exist”. Look up any dictionary and this is clear. The countless texts and professional discussions show that ‘immaterial’ is perfectly understandable as something not made out of matter. Those that disagree still understand that is what they are rejecting as existing.

The concept is senseless. One cannot "make sense of it" because "one requires one's senses to detect it". Otherwise we would not call it anything, because we would not know that it existed.

What sense do we use to detect our moral beliefs? Love? Making sense of something isn’t only through physical senses. This is demonstrably false. The truth that “all truth comes through the physical senses” itself doesn’t come through the physical senses.

And you assume another thing and speak from that perspective, sure.

No. I don’t assume anything unless the other poster’s critique assumes it to make the critique. I have offered rational reasons for every single claim I have made. Without exception.

but I’m asking for evidence of the thing you are assuming at the start.

Are you referring to the Thread Subject, or something else here?

Here I was referring to your specific claim that the immaterial logically can’t interact with the material.

Something must have been the cause of said atoms to have clumped to the point where humans are able to measure them as material things. It is reasonable to assume there is no change in this natural pattern to the point where we have to believe in the conjured immaterial supernatural concepts as being the only satisfactory answer in the mean-time/present.

How one sees this is directly related to how one sees oneself, since it is mind we a speaking about.

It is not rational to reason that since some things are material that all things are material (if that is what you mean).

If you are saying that I’m saying we can just assume the supernatural is the only satisfactory answer, then you are simply wrong. I always give reasoned arguments (even if you disagree with their soundness) for my belief in the immaterial. This thread (so far) has not been about me providing support for that belief. You said it was illogical and we are analyzing that.

I was responding specifically to your alluding to the notion (as true) that The Creator exists outside of The Creator's mind.
If that is not what you meant, or is no longer what you believe, then we can move on…

I never alluded to the Creator existing outside of the Creator’s mind. You misunderstood me talking about the Creator existing outside of the Creator’s creation (which is what I said) as the Creator existing outside of the Creator’s mind.

Given what you know is my position on the matter, you were so alluding to that.
You believe that The Creator Mind exists outside of Its creation.

You see this, right? You said I alluded to the Creator existing outside of the Creator’s mind. I said I didn’t allude to that, but meant what I said concerning the Creator existing outside of the Creator’s creation. Now you have switched from mind to creation. Yes, I believe the Mind exists outside of its Creation. Why am I wrong there?

Again, you are conflating The Creator Mind as being something a Creator has, rather than something The Creator is.

No, I’m not. I don’t think the Creator is something else that has a Mind. I’ve already said this.

Again, you are conflating The Creator Mind as being something a Creator has, rather than something The Creator is.

Your argument implies this God you believe exists, has a form in which His mind occupies. Are you also going to claim that the form this mind occupies, is immaterial? I ask because you have argued that re the Kalam.

You see "The Creator Mind has form" and "The Creator Mind in said form" as "identical statements"?

No, you cut off the quote at the wrong place. I quoted the whole thing above. I was saying that I could use “God has a mind” and “God is a mind” to refer to the same concept. I should have explained more, though, (instead of trying to move on to the next point) in that, as you seem to mean those, I would agree God is a mind and isn’t a form that has a mind.

There is still a logical priority of the Mind to the Mind’s thoughts. Unless you are equating Mind with thoughts and, in that case, the thoughts aren’t a creation by the Mind (which you have been arguing).

No. I have been arguing that The Creator Mind is what everything exists within.

How is that different from saying everything that exists in the Mind was created by the Mind?

Then is that something extra you believe which you use to support the Kalam, or is the Kalam something extra which you use to support your belief? Something else?

I don’t believe God has a form that has a mind.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #18]

You asked me for a logical argument for how an immaterial thing could influence and shape material things.

Without an explanation, why should one believe that it is possible? (why do you believe that it is). Surely logic involves the requirement of these explanatory steps. I don't think it is possible to explain.
If that is not what you mean by "logical" then we are at cross purposes.

We don’t have that with immaterial things interacting with material things; nothing in their definitions contradict.

Certainly the contradiction is in the claim that an immaterial thing can shape the material universe.

Those that disagree still understand that is what they are rejecting as existing.

All I am rejecting is the belief that mind is immaterial. I gave rational reasons as to why I think this is the case.

I have offered rational reasons for every single claim I have made. Without exception.

You claimed that mind is immaterial. You gave no rational reason as to how something immaterial can create something material.

Here I was referring to your specific claim that the immaterial logically can’t interact with the material.

And I am arguing that the mind cannot be immaterial because it is able to interact and shape other material things. Do you deny the logic of this observation?

It is not rational to reason that since some things are material that all things are material

It is rational to reason that immaterial cannot interact with and shape material things, therefore the mind must be material.

Why am I wrong there?

Because you have reached the conclusion based on the belief that mind is immaterial, therefore you believe that The Creator Mind is immaterial.

I would agree God is a mind and isn’t a form that has a mind.

I see it that The Creator Mind contains all creations, that nothing exists outside of The Creator mind (because there is no "outside" of The Creator Mind) and that forms are made mindful through the act of The Creator Mind imbuing said forms (and this involves many forms simultaneously.) and that all things are physical/material, (even that they might appear to be immaterial) including The Creator Mind (and thus all that exists within The Creator Mind).

No. I have been arguing that The Creator Mind is what everything exists within.

How is that different from saying everything that exists in the Mind was created by the Mind?

It isn't. So are we in agreement re this?

I don’t believe God has a form that has a mind.

Are we speaking about the same thing when you say "God" and I say "The Creator Mind"?

[The Tanager]

Without an explanation, why should one believe that it is possible? (why do you believe that it is). Surely logic involves the requirement of these explanatory steps. I don't think it is possible to explain.
If that is not what you mean by "logical" then we are at cross purposes.

Whether something is actually the case or not is irrelevant to the question of logical possibility. One need not offer evidence that unicorns exist before saying whether they are logically possible or not. They are logically possible and do not exist. Therefore, logic doesn't require an explanation for its existence to say something is logically possible or not.

Certainly the contradiction is in the claim that an immaterial thing can shape the material universe.

Where, specifically, is the contradiction, then? I see none. What you’ve said so far is that it can’t because it isn’t material, which is begging the very question we are asking.

You claimed that mind is immaterial. You gave no rational reason as to how something immaterial can create something material.

No. I first claimed that the Kalam leads to the conclusion that an immaterial Mind exists. The Kalam is a rational argument for that.

I then said I believe our minds are immaterial to directly answer a question from you. That’s not claiming the mind is immaterial; just clarifying for you a belief I hold because you asked about it. I didn’t then use this as support to any claim I was making.

I then said that a “physical mind” should be called something else to avoid confusion since (here comes the rational reason I offered for this claim) the vast public discourse uses “mind” to talk about something immaterial. That’s two claims so far, both with reasoned support offered.

You then claimed that an immaterial thing isn’t even logically possible because everything has to be material with no support. I asked for support and you’ve said (1) we can’t see atoms and they are material, so why not the “physical mind”...which is fallacious reasoning because just because every mammal produces milk for their young, this doesn’t mean there can’t be other animals in existence,

(2) the concept of ‘immaterial’ isn’t understandable…but it clearly is, as the vast public discourse throughout history shows, with people accepting and rejecting that the immaterial exists (which requires them to understand what is being talked about in order to reject it); it is simply something that isn’t made out of matter and most people can and do understand that concept, to where every dictionary list some version of that as its meaning,

(3) immaterial things can’t interact with material things because this is a logical contradiction…which is false because there is no logical contradiction when the definitions of 'material', 'immaterial', and 'interact' are put together, while there is a logical contradiction when the definitions of 'square' and 'circle' are put together, and

(4) there is no evidence that the immaterial exists…which isn’t true (you may think it’s not good evidence, but there is evidence that gets talked about widely in the public discourse and either accepted or rejected…you can’t reject a thing you don’t think is there)...but even if it were…an argument from silence (there isn’t any evidence of its existence) doesn’t show a logical contradiction which is needed to show logical impossibility, just like no evidence of unicorns existing wouldn't mean the concept itself is logically impossible.

And I am arguing that the mind cannot be immaterial because it is able to interact and shape other material things. Do you deny the logic of this observation?

I deny you have offered any logic. You move from (1) we observe material things interacting with other material things to (3) only material things can interact with other material things. What is step (2)? What is the logic that connects (1) and (3)?

Yes, I believe the Mind exists outside of its Creation. Why am I wrong there?

Because you have reached the conclusion based on the belief that mind is immaterial, therefore you believe that The Creator Mind is immaterial.

I have not reached that conclusion based on the belief that the mind is immaterial. That is not a premise in my reasoning for believing the Mind exists outside of its Creation. Assuming the mind is physical, it would still be true that it would exist logically prior to its physical thought world creation. Without the Mind thinking the thoughts, the world can’t exist.

I see it that The Creator Mind contains all creations, that nothing exists outside of The Creator mind (because there is no "outside" of The Creator Mind)

That isn’t the problem I was just talking about. Yes, there is no logical contradiction here, but this is different than when I say that the Mind exists outside (i.e., logically prior to) its creation even if its creation is all in its Mind.

No. I have been arguing that The Creator Mind is what everything exists within.

How is that different from saying everything that exists in the Mind was created by the Mind?

It isn't. So are we in agreement re this?

We agree what your view is, yes, but not whether that view should be accepted as true.

Are we speaking about the same thing when you say "God" and I say "The Creator Mind"?

Well, we believe different things about it, but, yes, I think we are referring to the same basic referent.