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 #20]

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.

Okay. It is probably time to remind ourselves we are at the fireside having an informal conversation - a discussion on possibilities.

I can see that it is possible unicorns exist - but they do not exist on this planet. Is it possible they exist elsewhere in this universe? We can think so, yes?
We might base the possibility they exist on some factors such as - since the earth exists and produces biological forms, it is possible that another planet like Earth exists and produces biological forms and that one of those forms may look similar enough to what we think of as a "unicorn".

Those are what I would call "logical considerations" which make the idea that unicorns exist "possible".

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.

The question being asked is;
Q: Is the planet mindful and would this explain why there is life in earth?

Without reviewing the thread interaction, I don't recall why we veered away from that question. Perhaps we should return to it?

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

Okay - and I argued that this need not be the only conclusion one can draw and you agreed that the Kalam does not conclude that the planet is or isn't mindful.

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.

Okay - and I wanted to understand why this belief you have should be regarded as true.

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.

It is reasonable when one is arguing unpopular concepts to label those accordingly (to avoid confusion) thus - since I am arguing that I think mind is physical, I should refer to it as such.
I agree that most (perhaps all) atheists and most theists are taught to think of the mind as being immaterial. I even explained why popular belief is best not thought of as truth, including the important observation that one identifying with being an immaterial mind within a material form may be missing the mark.

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,

Even so, one is still using material things (like mammals and swans et al) to justify a concept which is not material at all. That (naturally enough) brings with it, its own set of problems.
So, you present a possibility...the idea that it is fact that the mind is immaterial. I look at the evidence which is available and wonder if you shouldn't be presenting such as "possible, but not probable", given said evidence.

(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,

This may be the case, but that doesn't mean we have to accept that it is true that such exists as real...that minds are indeed immaterial. Nor does it answer the question as to how an immaterial thing can interact with material things.

Even an answer along the lines of "we don't know how, but we do know that it does" is based upon a concept which hasn't even been shown to be true.
Along with that, is the concerted effort by those vast numbers who believe that the mind is immaterial to reject the other possibility...that the mind is physical.

(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,

Please show that the mind is immaterial, and we can agree that there is no logical contradiction.

Perhaps start by providing a number of dictionary definitions to do with the concept of immaterial.
Then we can examine your claim here that when the definitions of 'material', 'immaterial', and 'interact' are put together, there is/is not a logical contradiction.

(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.

I commented enough on this at the start of this post.
I will only add that something which is not logically impossible doesn't make said something logically probable.

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.

I have offered logic of observation.

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)?

My argument re the logic of observation...
(1) We observe material things interacting with other material things.
(2) We do not assume that mind is immaterial.
(3) We do not observe immaterial things interacting with material things.
(4) Only material things can interact with other material things.
(5) Given what we do know, we are best not to think of mind as immaterial.

Re (5) - we are best not to assume because the assumption can have us missing the mark.

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.

Assuming The Creator Mind is physical, It existing prior to thinking about and then creating this universe, does not place it outside of the universe it thought into existence.
That would be like saying that ones' thoughts exist outside ones' mind.

My argument remains, we exist within The Creator Mind. and that all creations do, and that there is no "outside" to The Creator Mind and that "The Creator" and "The Creator Mind" are the same in that, The Creator does not have a Creator Mind - The Creator is 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.

Please explain why you think this is an acceptable way in which to understand The Creator Mind.

Why should something which is prior to something else be regarded as being outside of that which came afterwards?

Why should we accept the conflation of "Prior" and "Outside"?

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

The idea that the Earth is the receptacle for Creative Mind - while not popular - is not indicative of therefore being false.

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.

Just checking...

[The Tanager]

Okay. It is probably time to remind ourselves we are at the fireside having an informal conversation - a discussion on possibilities.

I can see that it is possible unicorns exist - but they do not exist on this planet. Is it possible they exist elsewhere in this universe? We can think so, yes?
We might base the possibility they exist on some factors such as - since the earth exists and produces biological forms, it is possible that another planet like Earth exists and produces biological forms and that one of those forms may look similar enough to what we think of as a "unicorn".

Those are what I would call "logical considerations" which make the idea that unicorns exist "possible".

And in the same way, it is possible that immaterial things could interact with material things.

The question being asked is;
Q: Is the planet mindful and would this explain why there is life in earth?

Without reviewing the thread interaction, I don't recall why we veered away from that question. Perhaps we should return to it?

Well, there are various sub questions we’ve been exploring. You veered us this way because you thought my counter view to the main question presented a logical impossibility, but we can certainly drop that and the others and focus on whether the planet is mindful or not.

Okay - and I argued that this need not be the only conclusion one can draw and you agreed that the Kalam does not conclude that the planet is or isn't mindful.

I agreed that the Kalam doesn’t address whether the planet is mindful or not, yes.

Okay, so, what is your evidence for the Earth being mindful? Your previous arguments were:

(1) it would encourage humans to be treat the planet better
(2) it would encourage humans to add more femininity to their religions
(3) the Earth was the intentional agent in creating the mindful beings that exist on it

(1) and (2) aren't arguments for the conclusion, but how it being true would affect humans. You have offered no evidence/reasoning for (3) that I've seen. If you think you have, please repost/summarize it again.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #22]

And in the same way, it is possible that immaterial things could interact with material things.

50/50
Please watch this short video.


My thoughts about it are;
While Neil deGrasse Tyson has (to my knowledge) not come out and stated something along the lines of;
IF Simulation Theory is true
THEN popular theism has been true all along
I think that if such were put to him he would agree.

This is because popular theism claims that we exist within something which was created by a mind/minds which exist outside of said created thing and that is the very definition of Simulation Theory.

The created thing becomes a "computer" and the human minds become "those who have been placed into the "computer" and believe they exist within a real thing and were put there by an entity who exists outside of said "computer/creation".

Those are the base similarities which can be extended upon.

In Neils' case, he would indeed most likely concede that popular theism has been right all along (re If Simulation Theory were true) but he would still be able to question the many claims to do with the nature of said creator entity and ultimate purpose of having created the simulation and placed minds into its various forms (specifically human minds overall) ...

3:30 begins the 50/50 examination and I will point therein to why the idea we exist within The Creator Mind brings all the theories into one coherent facility. (That of course, being The Creator Mind itself.)

Without reviewing the thread interaction, I don't recall why we veered away from that question. Perhaps we should return to it?

Well, there are various sub questions we’ve been exploring. You veered us this way because you thought my counter view to the main question presented a logical impossibility, but we can certainly drop that and the others and focus on whether the planet is mindful or not.

I agree that these have been (and are) sub-questions under the overall heading (concept) of the planet being a receptacle for a Creator Mind and that even that a planet mind is an awesome prospect, since it is still only a sub-mind (aspect) of the Universal Mind, (which is infinitely more awesome re its mystical qualities) ... Earth-Mindedness (nonetheless) is an awesome enough a concept for us to pay attention to - which requires we minds seriously contemplate and examine rather than off-handedly dismiss in favor of popular opinion.

This does require we minds sojourn into those sub-sections, but not to the point of being distracted from the main topic.

I agreed that the Kalam doesn’t address whether the planet is mindful or not, yes.

Then we can (should be able to) agree that the Kalam has nothing to add or take away from the subfields so we can treat the Kalam as neutral rather than as one of the subs which needs to be involved in this particular examination of this particular concept.

[William]

There are those who think about this seriously.

[William]

[The Tanager]

3:30 begins the 50/50 examination and I will point therein to why the idea we exist within The Creator Mind brings all the theories into one coherent facility. (That of course, being The Creator Mind itself.)

I’m not sure I fully understood the video’s argument because I had to read it in captions. It sounded like the 50/50 was the point that we are either (1) the first universe on our way to having simulation powers or (2) we are the simulation in a universe that has simulation powers. So, it's 50% chance we are in a simulation. Is that what you are saying points to the truth of us existing within the Creator Mind as a simulation? Or are you saying something else?

I agree that these have been (and are) sub-questions under the overall heading (concept) of the planet being a receptacle for a Creator Mind and that even that a planet mind is an awesome prospect, since it is still only a sub-mind (aspect) of the Universal Mind, (which is infinitely more awesome re its mystical qualities) ... Earth-Mindedness (nonetheless) is an awesome enough a concept for us to pay attention to - which requires we minds seriously contemplate and examine rather than off-handedly dismiss in favor of popular opinion.

I have been considering it. The first three arguments you gave were not arguments for the Earth Mind to exist, but two arguments of how that truth would/should affect humans and a third one that claimed the Earth Mind created the sentient beings on it with no evidence for this being the case given yet. I’m trying to understand #4 above. Once you clarify that argument, we can analyze that.

Then we can (should be able to) agree that the Kalam has nothing to add or take away from the subfields so we can treat the Kalam as neutral rather than as one of the subs which needs to be involved in this particular examination of this particular concept.

Yes, of course.

The theory that Earth could exhibit a form of intelligence, significantly influenced by underground fungal networks, emerges from the collective impacts of life forms on the planet’s ecosystem. Adam Frank from the University of Rochester, along with his colleagues, suggests that the biosphere’s activities—illustrated by the symbiotic relationships and communications facilitated by mycorrhizal fungi networks—act as evidence of collective cognition and action on a global scale....

Argument 5: As far as I can tell, the video’s argument was that since different fungi can communicate together underground, that means the Earth could have a mind. If so, how does that follow? Many things communicating doesn’t give evidence for/against one big thing having a mind. The facebook video seemed to talk about planetary intelligence in the sense of the different creatures having a more global concern, not as in one planet Mind

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #26]

3:30 begins the 50/50 examination and I will point therein to why the idea we exist within The Creator Mind brings all the theories into one coherent facility. (That of course, being The Creator Mind itself.)

I’m not sure I fully understood the video’s argument because I had to read it in captions. It sounded like the 50/50 was the point that we are either (1) the first universe on our way to having simulation powers or (2) we are the simulation in a universe that has simulation powers. So, it's 50% chance we are in a simulation. Is that what you are saying points to the truth of us existing within the Creator Mind as a simulation? Or are you saying something else?

I am saying that Simulation Theory is 100% untrue.

I am not saying that IF we exist within The Creator Mind, THEN we effectively exist in a simulation.

Put into perspective;
1. Real universe theory - our universe is actually real and exists outside of The Creator Mind
2. Simulation theory - our universe is running inside a (computer) simulation
3. Creator Mind theory - our universe and every possible universe which can be experienced as real, is entirely in God's mind

Both 1 and 2 are essentially the same and that 3 cannot be considered either a simulation (2) or a possible simulation (1).

Indeed, both (1) and (3) share the same in that the claim for both is that they are Real. However, it is also the case that (3) can positively assume that anything within The Creator Mind can be considered Real by virtue, whereas (1) cannot show the same because it is possible that it is (could be) the case that what is believed to be "actually real" is actually simulated - which is why both 1 and 2 are essentially the same.

I have been considering it. The first three arguments you gave were not arguments for the Earth Mind to exist, but two arguments of how that truth would/should affect humans and a third one that claimed the Earth Mind created the sentient beings on it with no evidence for this being the case given yet. I’m trying to understand #4 above. Once you clarify that argument, we can analyze that.

I have offered examples and you have chosen not to offer any critique, signifying you are either still in the consideration phase or have decided not to consider the examples as evidence.

The science itself informs us that our human forms (and every form) developed from the earth itself, which should be all the evidence required to confirm that IF the Earth is mindful THEN this explains how come those things exist in the Earth.

Argument 5: As far as I can tell, the video’s argument was that since different fungi can communicate together underground, that means the Earth could have a mind. If so, how does that follow? Many things communicating doesn’t give evidence for/against one big thing having a mind. The facebook video seemed to talk about planetary intelligence in the sense of the different creatures having a more global concern, not as in one planet Mind

Generally such concepts are providing evidence suggestive of such possibility and thus are presented as something which should be considered altogether, rather than waved aside.
Do you agree?

[The Tanager]

I am saying that Simulation Theory is 100% untrue.

I am not saying that IF we exist within The Creator Mind, THEN we effectively exist in a simulation.

Put into perspective;
1. Real universe theory - our universe is actually real and exists outside of The Creator Mind
2. Simulation theory - our universe is running inside a (computer) simulation
3. Creator Mind theory - our universe and every possible universe which can be experienced as real, is entirely in God's mind

Both 1 and 2 are essentially the same and that 3 cannot be considered either a simulation (2) or a possible simulation (1).

Indeed, both (1) and (3) share the same in that the claim for both is that they are Real. However, it is also the case that (3) can positively assume that anything within The Creator Mind can be considered Real by virtue, whereas (1) cannot show the same because it is possible that it is (could be) the case that what is believed to be "actually real" is actually simulated - which is why both 1 and 2 are essentially the same.

1 and 2 are not essentially the same. A computer interacting with an environment outside of itself that it doesn’t have complete control over is not essentially the same as a computer only interacting with an environment inside of it, where it has complete control.

And to this last bit, why would (2) being true only mean (1) is false but not (3)?

I have offered examples and you have chosen not to offer any critique, signifying you are either still in the consideration phase or have decided not to consider the examples as evidence.

You offered arguments. I noted it. I critiqued them. What “examples” did you offer that I haven’t critiqued?

The science itself informs us that our human forms (and every form) developed from the earth itself, which should be all the evidence required to confirm that IF the Earth is mindful THEN this explains how come those things exist in the Earth.

What scientific evidence tells us that the Earth is the source of our development?

Generally such concepts are providing evidence suggestive of such possibility and thus are presented as something which should be considered altogether, rather than waved aside.
Do you agree?

I agree they shouldn’t be waved away. I didn’t wave it away. Disagreeing with your arguments or critiquing them as irrational is not waving it away. I analyzed it logically. I said “Many things communicating doesn’t give evidence for/against one big thing having a mind.” You need to respond to that.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #28]

What scientific evidence tells us that the Earth is the source of our development?

Are you suggesting that life on earth happened some other way than the (well known) scientific evidence tells it?

I agree they shouldn’t be waved away.

I didn’t wave it away. Disagreeing with your arguments or critiquing them as irrational is not waving it away.

Since you do not disagree and have not critiqued them as irrational, we should agree then.

1. Real universe theory - our universe is actually real and exists outside of The Creator Mind
2. Simulation theory - our universe is running inside a (computer) simulation
3. Creator Mind theory - our universe and every possible universe which can be experienced as real, is entirely in God's mind

1 and 2 are not essentially the same. A computer interacting with an environment outside of itself that it doesn’t have complete control over is not essentially the same as a computer only interacting with an environment inside of it, where it has complete control.

Simulation Theory (2) does not claim that such a computer does or does not "have complete control over the environment". (3) Does make the claim. What claim does (1) have to say about that?

I said “Many things communicating doesn’t give evidence for/against one big thing having a mind.” You need to respond to that.

My response to that is therefore "it is here nor there", since both could be true (or not).
This is why the concepts (1) and (3) have to be examined on their merits.

And to this last bit, why would (2) being true only mean (1) is false but not (3)?

Even if (2) isn't true, that does not mean (1) is true.
I have explained why (3) is the best option for what is true.

[The Tanager]

Since you do not disagree and have not critiqued them as irrational, we should agree then.

I just said I did disagree and I did critique them as irrational, which isn’t waving the theory away.

Simulation Theory (2) does not claim that such a computer does or does not "have complete control over the environment". (3) Does make the claim. What claim does (1) have to say about that?

If you have outside agents you may be able to interact with a simulation, but (2) was about the entire universe running inside the computer simulation, not the interaction between two ‘universes’.

As far as (1) goes, some versions claim the Creator has complete control; some versions claim He allows free will. I believe in the one with free will.

My response to that is therefore "it is here nor there", since both could be true (or not).
This is why the concepts (1) and (3) have to be examined on their merits.

(1) Let’s say you asked me for evidence for Christianity being true. (2) I then said it’s true because of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus and laid out premises leading to a conclusion. (3) Then you (think you) showed those premises to be unsound. What would you say if I then said (4) that’s neither here nor there because it still could be true or not? That is what you’ve just done.

(1) I asked for your evidence for the Earth mind being true. (2) You then gave an argument that reasoned that many fungi communicating with each other was evidence for the entire planet having one mind. (3) I think I showed that to be unsound by noting that one is about many distinct things communicating and the other is one thing thinking. Now, instead of showing how those aren’t distinct things or correcting any misunderstanding, you have (4) said it’s irrelevant because it’s still possibly true? You can’t just revert back to logical possibility; we’ve already talked about how that isn’t a test of truth. You’ve got to show evidence for it being true.

That leaves you (right now) with your scientific route, so you need to fill that out more:

Are you suggesting that life on earth happened some other way than the (well known) scientific evidence tells it?

What well known scientific evidence is there for (1) the origin of life (2) coming from an intelligent Earth? I’m suggesting there is none for either.

Even if (2) isn't true, that does not mean (1) is true.
I have explained why (3) is the best option for what is true.

But your explanation was that (1) isn’t a good option because it could just be a simulation. Why doesn’t that apply to (3) just the same?

If I've misunderstood any argument, please correct it and explain it again.