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 Waterfall in post #80]

Are you saying that the earth is our God? Or something like that...

No.
I am saying that the earth mind plays the role of all of human Gods imagined/imaginable since the dawn of human mythology. We are the mindful aspects of the planet mind incarnated into the humans forms on the planet and that all life-forms are mindful (to different degrees depending of form) and all mindfulness is related in that way.

I am also saying with that idea, that we are not "created"...form is what is created. Mind is eternal (was never created)

The earth form was created. The Earth Mind is incarnate within the planet form, and is itself a mindful aspect of The Creator Mind.

[William]

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.

1. External Immaterial Creator Theory: Our universe is considered to exist because it was created by an immaterial creator external to our universe.

2. The Earth Creator Mind Theory: Earth is considered to be a self aware creator mind, which exists within the overall Creator Mind and is an aspect of the overall Creator Mind and that all which exists is within The Creator Mind and all mindfulness is an aspect of/is source with The Creator Mind.

Double Standard identified.
(Post #61)

No, but I can. Remember when I said there were three avenues for our discussion: (1) if a view is logically possible, (2) if a view fits with the evidence, and (3) if a view is actually true (i.e., the most reasonable view to believe). I said all the views you have been talking about are logically possible and seem to fit with the evidence, so I had nothing to say there, but could talk about (3) if you wanted to and you said you did. That requires you arguing it is actually the case. If you don’t want to do that, then I’m not sure we have anything to talk about here.

The Double Standard (DS).

The DS being that an immaterial creator (God) can be inferred as being behind the Big Bang Event and that is an acceptable inference.

Whereas the same personality who accepts (1) (without proof that the inference is actually the case), rejects (because of lack of proof) that (2) is actually the case.

[The Tanager]

The Double Standard (DS).

The DS being that an immaterial creator (God) can be inferred as being behind the Big Bang Event and that is an acceptable inference.

Whereas the same personality who accepts (1) (without proof that the inference is actually the case), rejects (because of lack of proof) that (2) is actually the case.

No, I infer an immaterial creator God by sound logical reasoning (the Kalam cosmological argument). I reject the mindful Earth theory because there is no sound logical reasoning. That's not a double standard.

[William]

Double Standard (DS) identified.

[Replying to The Tanager in post #83]

No, I infer an immaterial creator God by sound logical reasoning (the Kalam cosmological argument).

Why wouldn't that require you arguing it is actually the case? (That is the DS identified).
(Remember you wrote in the OP "logical possibility is not a deciding test of truth".
Rather, isn't it because it is what you believe is the actual case, rather than "sound logical reasoning" which simply may infer it might be the actual case?
(Remember, that is where the DS has been identified.)

I reject the mindful Earth theory because there is no sound logical reasoning.

None? I find that an interesting claim since you appeared to accept that it is at least a possibility that the earth is mindful.

On what grounds would you accept the possibility, if not for the sound logical reasoning I have been offering in my posts?

Further to that, why would your belief about there being an immaterial creator, have you rejecting as unreasonable, the evidence which infers the earth may be mindful?

Perhaps it (in part) has something to do with the recent description I offered re Position (2).

If I simply reworded that to be more aligned with the thread subject...

2. The Earth Creator Mind Theory: Earth is considered to be a self aware creator mind.

Would that now allow you to agree that a double standard has been identified?

Is it simply the case that you wrote the OP in a fashion that disallowed for any supporting evidence other than actual proven truth, and in doing so this allowed for you to reject anything I could (and have) offered in support of the idea?

Do you make the same standard for any support of the idea of an immaterial creator? If not, then that is the Double Standard.

(Please remember to quote me fully so as not to move away from the context.)

[The Tanager]

Why wouldn't that require you arguing it is actually the case? (That is the DS identified).
(Remember you wrote in the OP "logical possibility is not a deciding test of truth".
Rather, isn't it because it is what you believe is the actual case, rather than "sound logical reasoning" which simply may infer it might be the actual case?
(Remember, that is where the DS has been identified.)

Oh, that’s what you mean. We have discussed this before, so I was going off of that, but we can do it again. You know I like to do one step at a time.

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

Do you agree or should we go into the support?

None? I find that an interesting claim since you appeared to accept that it is at least a possibility that the earth is mindful.

On what grounds would you accept the possibility, if not for the sound logical reasoning I have been offering in my posts?

I said I reject the mindful Earth theory (i.e., I don’t think it is true), not its logical possibility. Those are two different things. Logical possibility alone is not a reason to accept the mindful Earth theory. And I accepted it as possible before we even made this thread, much less any reasoning you have offered. I’ve never questioned its logical possibility.

Further to that, why would your belief about there being an immaterial creator, have you rejecting as unreasonable, the evidence which infers the earth may be mindful?

I never said those had anything to do with each other. I don’t reject the Earth Mind theory because I believe there is an immaterial Creator. I reject it because I’ve seen no sound reasoning in its favor.

If I simply reworded that to be more aligned with the thread subject...

2. The Earth Creator Mind Theory: Earth is considered to be a self aware creator mind.

Would that now allow you to agree that a double standard has been identified?

Is it simply the case that you wrote the OP in a fashion that disallowed for any supporting evidence other than actual proven truth, and in doing so this allowed for you to reject anything I could (and have) offered in support of the idea?

Do you make the same standard for any support of the idea of an immaterial creator? If not, then that is the Double Standard.

(Please remember to quote me fully so as not to move away from the context.)

No, it wouldn’t lead me to believe a double standard has occurred. I believe in an immaterial Creator because of arguments like the Kalam. I don’t think you have offered positive reasoning for the Earth Mind theory being actually true. I think you’ve talked about what would follow if it were true (not why it is true) and how the theory fits with certain observations (but not how it fits better than alternative theories that also fit that same data).

Is it simply the case that you wrote the OP in a fashion that disallowed for any supporting evidence other than actual proven truth, and in doing so this allowed for you to reject anything I could (and have) offered in support of the idea?

Do you make the same standard for any support of the idea of an immaterial creator? If not, then that is the Double Standard.

(Please remember to quote me fully so as not to move away from the context.)

How did my OP make it so I could just reject anything offered in support, disallowing for any actual sound reasoning? I simply asked for any arguments you wanted to give in support. That is so open-ended and doesn’t discount anything from being offered.

[William]

I don’t think you have offered positive reasoning for the Earth Mind theory being actually true.

This is where the Double Standard appears to be Jason.

If it were the case that Kalam's logical reasoning showed that the case for an immaterial creator was actually true, then it would be so. Everyone would agree. There would be no atheists and scientist would base their theories on that.

I have given examples and have (in my interaction with Waterfall) continued to do so, for the purpose of discussion. Unfortunately your stipulation in the OP (and in many of your posts following that) is that I have to show that the earth being mindful is actually true, curtails any discussion between us, which explains why no discussion has been forthcoming.

I take some responsibility for that being the case, as it has only recently become obvious to me that your demand for me to show it is actually true hadn't been apparent to me from the go-get and I understand now why you continued to respond as you did, when I requested that you think about being less confrontational with your replies and treat the thread as a friendly fireside chat, rather than strictly a debate.

So I apologize for my belated misunderstanding re that, but still think that your demand to be shown that the idea of a mindful earth is actually true, when you do not set the standard-bar as high for the Kalam - is a case of Double Standards on your part.

Clearly we are not going to agree on this, so we can only agree to disagree and I will have to be extremely careful in the future re interacting with you.

[The Tanager]

This is where the Double Standard appears to be Jason.

If it were the case that Kalam's logical reasoning showed that the case for an immaterial creator was actually true, then it would be so. Everyone would agree. There would be no atheists and scientist would base their theories on that.

That’s not true at all. Humans aren’t forced to be logical. Just like we aren’t forced to get math sums correctly.

I have given examples and have (in my interaction with Waterfall) continued to do so, for the purpose of discussion. Unfortunately your stipulation in the OP (and in many of your posts following that) is that I have to show that the earth being mindful is actually true, curtails any discussion between us, which explains why no discussion has been forthcoming.

I take some responsibility for that being the case, as it has only recently become obvious to me that your demand for me to show it is actually true hadn't been apparent to me from the go-get and I understand now why you continued to respond as you did, when I requested that you think about being less confrontational with your replies and treat the thread as a friendly fireside chat, rather than strictly a debate.

So I apologize for my belated misunderstanding re that,

No. You phrased the question of this thread. That question explores two issues. (1) Is the planet mindful? (2) Would the planet being mindful explain why there is life in earth?. On (2), I think it would explain it and immediately said as such. Thus, there was nothing for us to discuss there; we agreed. That leaves (1), which is directly about whether the Earth being mindful is actually true or not. That was your phrasing. I didn’t curtail anything, but followed your form of the question.

but still think that your demand to be shown that the idea of a mindful earth is actually true, when you do not set the standard-bar as high for the Kalam - is a case of Double Standards on your part.

That is the exact same standard-bar I have for the Kalam. I think it absolutely shows the idea of an immaterial Creator is actually true. I’m ready to argue it is the actual case. I’ve started doing that. Do you accept P1?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #87]

If it were the case that Kalam's logical reasoning showed that the case for an immaterial creator was actually true, then it would be so. Everyone would agree. There would be no atheists and scientist would base their theories on that.

That’s not true at all.

It is actually true.

Humans aren’t forced to be logical. Just like we aren’t forced to get math sums correctly.

Not what I argued.
This is what I am referring to Jason, when I point out that you take things I actually write, and place your own spin on that.

You phrased the question of this thread.

Please review our private messaging and adjust (or delete) your comment above to better suit the actual truth.

Do you accept P1?

Premise 1 has it that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

I know of no thing which begins to exist which doesn't have a cause so until I have such knowledge, I can accept premise 1.

However, I do not accept Premise 2 (the universe began to exist.)

There is no scientific evidence that material (which is what the universe consists of) had a beginning. Even the Big Bang Theory does not claim the singularity was immaterial.

[The Tanager]

Humans aren’t forced to be logical. Just like we aren’t forced to get math sums correctly.

Not what I argued.
This is what I am referring to Jason, when I point out that you take things I actually write, and place your own spin on that.

Then clarify what you meant. That is something I’ve often said in our interactions and it always holds. If I misunderstand you, I’m not trying to misrepresent you, so please correct my mistakes.

You said that if the Kalam’s reasoning showed the conclusion were true, then “everyone would agree. There would be no atheists and scientist would base their theories on that.” That very much sounds like a principle “If X is sound reasoning, then everyone would agree it is true.” I gave counter examples that show that principle is false. Humans are very capable of making disagreeing on logic and math sums even though there are clear truths in those fields.

If you meant something else, then clarify.

Please review our private messaging and adjust (or delete) your comment above to better suit the actual truth.

I reviewed it before posting to make sure I was remembering correctly. Did you? My message on April 24 at 8:14 didn’t use the language this thread title uses. Post it here and quote where I do, if you think differently.

Related to your view I wrote this: “What is the evidence for the Earth being mindful? Here, you have only seemed to assert it is an example, with no argument/evidence for it. And you claim I’m doing the same (the double standard bit), but I’m not, for I would point to arguments like the above. They could be wrong, but it’s different than just asserting it.” Nowhere in that is the phrasing I used to title this thread. You responded to thread in general at 12:30.

I responded at 4:23 with this: “Okay, I'm fine with doing it in the fireside chat without the role play. I love the creative aspect of that, but I felt it complicated things. I forget, are you the only one that can start a thread there? Regardless, I'd love it if you started a thread there and kick us off.”

Then at 4:58 you sent a message that clarified the question I had about starting a thread in this forum. And then you wrote: “What we can do though is agree to what the threads will be titled - for example;

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

That’s the exact wording of this thread and you wrote it in our exchange. So, either bring to my attention an earlier message from me that I missed or, to stay consistent with what you asked of me, adjust (or delete) your comment above to better suit the actual truth.

Premise 1 has it that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

I know of no thing which begins to exist which doesn't have a cause so until I have such knowledge, I can accept premise 1.

However, I do not accept Premise 2 (the universe began to exist.)

There is no scientific evidence that material (which is what the universe consists of) had a beginning. Even the Big Bang Theory does not claim the singularity was immaterial.

The standard Big Bang model (the Friedman-Lemaitre model) does claim that matter came into existence at the initial cosmological singularity. John Barrow (English cosmologist and theoretical physicist) and Frank Tipler (American mathematical physicist and cosmologist) state “At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo.” (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 1986.

Cosmologists have brought out many speculations to try to get around this scientifically, but their theories have been rejected for scientific reasons or still lead to the beginning of material (not necessarily at the Big Bang, but still ultimately a beginning). The standard model has been adjusted but the beginning is still there scientifically. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theory shows that any universe which is (on average) in a state of cosmic expansion can’t be infinite in the past but mast have a beginning. Vilenkin has gone on to claim that “We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed.” Here is that article. Here is a video by Vilenkin.

But that is just where science is currently pointing. Science has its limitations and it can’t rule out an eternal universe. But logic does rule it out. That’s why the two philosophical arguments offered in support of premise 2 are better evidence for the premise being true.

I'll stop there for your thoughts.

[William]

What I have decided to do in reply, is present the whole conversation so that one can get an appreciation for the idea of setting up a conversational thread in the Fireside Forum. (specific to the blue text)
The red text is specific to my making a suggestion of a possible heading as an example and saying that we could agree to thread headings.

There was no further interaction between us on that as when you returned from your trip away with your wife, you simply informed me that you had created a thread.

I did not realise at the time, that the heading you used was the one I had suggested as an example (not as something we agreed upon together) until it became apparent well into the thread that you were arguing I should prove the truth that the earth was mindful (which had clearly never been my intention from the go-get) and my continually asking you to bring it down to a conversational level verifies that this was the expectation based upon the content of our PM prior to the thread being created.

I was surprised that you had gone ahead and started a thread, but didn't see it as a problem since I was excited to be part of something I assumed was a deviation from debate as per our PM interaction. That was my mistake - and I will own that, as I was expecting us to be involved in informal discussions and I had been expecting us to continue with working toward agreeing to a suitable heading first and - like I said - I didn't remember that the heading you used was the one I had suggested as an example and was under the impression that you had just made the heading yourself.
Indeed, the heading itself is not implying that proof of it actually being true is somehow required, but you have used it that way anyhow, telling me that I will have to argue it is actually the case or else you see not reason why you should continue in this (what was always intended to be) a fireside discussion - I quote

That requires you arguing it is actually the case. If you don’t want to do that, then I’m not sure we have anything to talk about here.

(Post #61)

Sent: Wed Apr 24, 2024 8:14 am
From: The Tanager
Recipient: William

As far as format goes, I'm not huge into debates, but I love discussions/conversations. So it makes sense to me to either (1) just have a series of threads, moving from one discussion to the next (and adding new ones as they come up in our discussions) or (2) doing a H2H, but not treating it like a debate...if you want to keep the discussion just between us. I'm not against having others come in, but we do run the risk of it being derailed by people, like all threads are vulnerable to, and if that bugs you then we could do this option (2). But I'm fine doing (3) a debate, if you want. Thoughts?

As far as content, I pulled out 8 topics I saw and I've tried to put them in the order that makes sense to me, but I may be missing different connections you see that would cause a different order to be best. The first four are more general:

1. What does observing reality tell us about the Mind that created it? Here, for my thinking, we would need to discuss arguments like the Kalam, fine-tuning, the argument from consciousness, and morality.

2. Did this Mind have to create the kind of world we see? Such as one that contains epochs of evolution like ours does or one that contains some moral agents? I don’t think it did, you seem to think it did.

3. Is this Mind able to experience being an agent of morality only if it creates something like the Earth? I don’t think so, you seem to think so.

4. Does having a human body necessitate the human mind to be an agent of morality? I don’t think so, you seem to think so.

Then 1 related to your view:

5. What is the evidence for the Earth being mindful? Here, you have only seemed to assert it is an example, with no argument/evidence for it. And you claim I’m doing the same (the double standard bit), but I’m not, for I would point to arguments like the above. They could be wrong, but it’s different than just asserting it.

Then there are 3 related to Christianity:

6. Whether Jesus taught that the subconscious is like unto the God-mind. It may be a question of terms, but my guess is that we disagree here.

7. Does Christianity teach that the Creator left us on our own? You seem to think my beliefs lead to yes, but I don’t.

8. Is the world physically better off because of Christianity? I think it is, overall, but I agree with you that Christians have done some terrible un-Christian things that were of their own minds, not of God’s plan.

What would you like to tackle and how?

Sent: Wed Apr 24, 2024 12:30 pm
by William

I think discussion (1) may be the best path to go. Generally, my interest is in critiquing ideas/beliefs (whatever we choose to refer to them as) and (where necessary) adjusting accordingly and while that does involve a certain amount of debate, it is primarily about learning (rather than "winning" arguments), which I think you too, enjoy.
I think that the fireside forum is set up for this type of thing. We can dispense with roleplay (apart from being the human personalities that we are, as it were) and use what is available there to create threads which are subject specific.

I think the first (4) are related and presently do not require their own threads although this may change and we can create knew threads and shift any tangents into those.

(5) needs to have its own thread. If you are not asserting God exists, then yes, I agree it is different. Otherwise, no.

I think those 3 things you refer to as being “related to Christianity” already open a pandora’s box of different beliefs and are most likely not going to go anywhere. You will be arguing from you particular “Christianity” and it will differ from another Christians “Christianity”.

However, the 3 do fit in with what I think about the Earth-Mind and I am certainly open to discussing these further.
Re (6) I think terminology has something to do with it. Jesus didn’t use the term “subconscious” but Jung (and other scientist which study the mind) did/do and what they have so far uncovered (as best they are able) fits in with what Biblical Jesus say’s about where we should be looking for the creator mind (within).
Re (7) I do not think the overall creator left us alone, but rather is right here with us, mindfully speaking, and this is connected to both “going within” and understanding the Earth as a mindful creator a type of “micro ambassador” to the overall creator mind.
Re (8) I argue that the world is not better off ONLY because of Christianity. I do not deny that throughout history those who identified as “Christians” didn’t contribute to that overall better-off-ness.
Also, I mentioned transhumanism and extinction events, something I would like to elaborate on, perhaps in relation to the Earth Mind.
From my perspective, all the above can be umbrellaed and explained by The Earth Mind concept, but we can treat such as separate threads for the time being.

Sent: Wed Apr 24, 2024 4:23 pm
by The Tanager

Okay, I'm fine with doing it in the fireside chat without the role play. I love the creative aspect of that, but I felt it complicated things. I forget, are you the only one that can start a thread there? Regardless, I'd love it if you started a thread there and kick us off.

Sent: Wed Apr 24, 2024 4:58 pm
by William

Anyone can start a thread in that forum. I think the ball is in your court re starting a thread since you have yet to reply to the post I made.
What we can do though is agree to what the threads will be titled - for example;

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

Thu Apr 25, 2024 12:07 pm
by The Tanager

William,

Okay, I'll do that. I'm actually leaving to do a 30 mile stretch of the Appalachian Trail with my wife over a long weekend, so it'll be the middle of next week before I get to it.

Jason

Thu Apr 25, 2024 1:06 pm
by William

The Tanager wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 12:07 pm
William,

Okay, I'll do that. I'm actually leaving to do a 30 mile stretch of the Appalachian Trail with my wife over a long weekend, so it'll be the middle of next week before I get to it.

Jason
Yep - I too have a long weekend travelling to hang out with the grandies.

We will pick this up when we return. Safe travels.

William

Wed May 01, 2024 4:15 pm
by The Tanager

William,

I hope the time with the grandkids went well. Here is the new thread: viewtopic.php?t=41626

Jason

Wed May 01, 2024 4:24 pm
by William

The Tanager wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2024 4:15 pm
William,

I hope the time with the grandkids went well. Here is the new thread: viewtopic.php?t=41626

Jason
Thanks Jason.
Yes - we (my wife Lindy and I) had much fun together with our grandies.

(Image of Grandchildren.)

Thanks for the link. I hope to read and reply asap.

William.