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?

[The Tanager]

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)

We apparently have very different ideas of what it means to be conversational. To me it simply means to exchange ideas without some firm structure like there is in a debate. It can include critiques, it can simply be positive exploration without critique, or it can include both. I’m fine with both; you only want to do the latter.

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 was fine with the phrasing you chose and, since you offered it, I figured you were fine with it. You were asking me to start the thread and I didn’t want to keep delaying it since we seemed to agree, so I started it. I don’t understand why you think I should assume that you would offer an example you didn’t like without making it clear that you don’t actually want to use that example. In fact, to me, saying we must hash out the wording before starting the conversation is what one does for a debate, not a conversation. Conversations seem, to me, to allow for clarifying as we go along, if we find we aren’t on the same page with terms, then we decide to keep conversing or go our separate ways.

The wording you offered was a good one to cover some of the topics we laid out, namely my #5: “What is the evidence for the Earth being mindful” and your desire to talk about whether the theory logically fits with common observations. Conversations aren’t one-sided, so it made sense to me to make sure we include what both of us wanted to talk about. I didn’t have much to say on the latter because I think it’s a clear “Yes”, but I figured you would have some thoughts and I could respond to it.

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.

It was not “clearly never your intention from the go-get”. When I say, hey we could talk about what the evidence for the Earth being mindful is and you offer a title suggestion that includes “Is the planet mindful” which, to me, is referring to whether that is true or not. I have no idea what “Is the planet mindful” could mean other than “is that theory true?”. You even said my #5 “needs to have its own thread,” which seems to say you would be willing to talk about it. Now, the point here isn’t to argue about who is correct about what it means, just that you should be able to see and admit that your intentions were not clear.

And asking me to bring it down to a conversational level was very confusing since I thought I was doing that all along.

I understand that we were talking past each other with some terms (we always seem to) and that it took some time for us to realize how we were doing that. At that point we simply say “Hold on, that’s not what I meant” and try to clarify what we mean. Then we decide if we want to continue the discussion or not. Through the posts and then PM, we both reached the conclusion (amicably, I thought) that we were at cross purposes.

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.

I understand that, but I shouldn’t be faulted for you misremembering something. I shouldn’t be accused of misrepresenting who came up with the phrasing unless you have clear proof that I did so. You should have said something like “I thought you came up with the wording, why did you think it was my wording?”

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

Jason wrote:

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. 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.

I honestly don’t have any idea what else it could mean than that. I’m open to you clarifying what you meant by that, but that seems the natural way to take that phrase to me and how every other conversation I have with others would read a statement like that.

As to my quote, it has a wider context which I included. I said there were three avenues, but that I had nothing to say about two of them (since we agree it is logically possible and fits with the observations you brought up), which left whether the view was actually true. So, if you wanted to talk about anything that I had a thought on, you’d have to walk that avenue, which involves arguing it is actually the case.


All of this to say, I don't care what terms are used, but welcome the opportunity to clarify phrases, offer you that opportunity, and am willing to continue engaging ideas.

What do you want to talk about? I have nothing to say in response to the posts you gave to Waterfall beyond, yeah, I think I understand the view and it seems possible…unless you are willing to talk about why one should think they are actually true. Do you want to keep going down your accusation of a double standard? If so, why am I using a double standard when I am willing to offer reasons to believe the immaterial Creator is actually true and asking you for the same? Do you want to drop that and have me defend the truth of the Kalam? Do you want to end our conversation? Do you want to talk about something else?

[William]

I have offered many reasons for why we can think that the earth is mindful, and will continue to do so as opportunity is made available to do so re any discussion (as is the case with Waterfall). You appear to have no particular interest in that type of discussion and as long as you are fine overall with what I have offered and are not asking me to show or argue for the case being actually true, then I can agree there is no double standard but rather just the usual miscommunication between us.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #89]

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.

Both of these men are/were Christians and so will have within their theories, Christian-based influences which is why they argued "literally nothing existed before the singularity" which in itself is an unproven statement rather than something which can said to be actually true.

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).

"Rejected" by whom and what "scientific reasons" are these supposed rejections based upon?

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.

I don't interpret these as speaking specifically to the material the universe consists of as having a beginning.
(also you did not provide any video)

But that is just where science is currently pointing. Science has its limitations and it can’t rule out an eternal universe.

If I am not mistaken, when scientists speak about "The Universe" they are speaking about the thing that became what is it today, and the reference to that thing beginning has to do with the singularity from where the material came out of, not that the material itself never existed up until that point.
The universe as it is today hasn't existed eternally, but that is not what I am rejecting. I am not accepting the idea that the material the universe consists of "had a beginning".
Sure, Scientists influenced by modern Christian philosophy may be currently pointing in that direction...but I would be mistaken to accept what they are pointing to and not point out where they are being misled/misleading.

Of course, the theories will vary being limited not only by the veil which hides everything which may have always existed before the event from which the universe as we know it today, arose - but also by the philosophies which these scientists allow themselves to be influenced by.

But logic does rule it out.

If the logic is based upon influencing philosophies, then it won't be ruled out, even if it should and must be ruled out.
If they are NOT ruled out, then one can expect such absurdities as "God is immaterial" to be argued as logical and relevant.
Further to that, there is ZERO reference that the Bible God is immaterial. That is an invention based upon errant interpretation of biblical passages referring to God.
As far as I am aware, all biblical references to God have it that God has form.

That’s why the two philosophical arguments offered in support of premise 2 are better evidence for the premise being true.

Perhaps considered "better evidence" according to prior beliefs that we exist within a created thing, and the creator of that thing is immaterial.
However, since it has not been established as actually true, there is no requirement for anyone not under the influence, to accept premise 2.

I'll stop there for your thoughts.

Those are my thoughts.

[The Tanager]

I have offered many reasons for why we can think that the earth is mindful, and will continue to do so as opportunity is made available to do so re any discussion (as is the case with Waterfall). You appear to have no particular interest in that type of discussion and as long as you are fine overall with what I have offered and are not asking me to show or argue for the case being actually true, then I can agree there is no double standard but rather just the usual miscommunication between us.

Yes, I think there is the usual miscommunication. Help me wrap my brain around what you are saying above. I don’t understand what you mean by saying you’ve offered reasons for why we can think the earth is mindful when you also say that you aren’t arguing for the case being actually true. Those sound like the same thing to me.

[The Tanager]

Both of these men are/were Christians and so will have within their theories, Christian-based influences which is why they argued "literally nothing existed before the singularity" which in itself is an unproven statement rather than something which can said to be actually true.

First off, rejecting their arguments because they have a particular worldview is a textbook genetic fallacy. Their arguments are not true or false based on their worldview. Also, this would apply to everyone, including yourself, to where no one’s thoughts should always be rejected simply because they hold a conclusion influenced by their worldview.

Secondly, they do not argue for nothing prior to the singularity because of their Christian-based influences. They use scientific evidence.

Third, Tipler was an atheist until convinced by the science.

"Rejected" by whom and what "scientific reasons" are these supposed rejections based upon?

By scientists as scientists. Different theories are rejected for different reasons.

(also you did not provide any video)

Sorry, I forgot to transfer the code to make that work. Let me try again. and https://inference-review.com/article/th ... e-universe

If I am not mistaken, when scientists speak about "The Universe" they are speaking about the thing that became what is it today, and the reference to that thing beginning has to do with the singularity from where the material came out of, not that the material itself never existed up until that point.

No, scientists disagree on whether matter is eternal or not. Many believe matter itself came into existence either at the Big Bang or at some point prior to the Big Bang. Others are trying to hold on to its eternity. That’s why so many theories are consistently provided to avoid the conclusions of Big Bang cosmology. They hardly ever consider the philosophical arguments against it being eternal.

If the logic is based upon influencing philosophies, then it won't be ruled out, even if it should and must be ruled out.
If they are NOT ruled out, then one can expect such absurdities as "God is immaterial" to be argued as logical and relevant.

No, the logic is simply based on logic. And logic rules it out. God being immaterial is not absurd or illogical.

Further to that, there is ZERO reference that the Bible God is immaterial. That is an invention based upon errant interpretation of biblical passages referring to God.
As far as I am aware, all biblical references to God have it that God has form.

Why is that interpretation errant and not yours?

Perhaps considered "better evidence" according to prior beliefs that we exist within a created thing, and the creator of that thing is immaterial.
However, since it has not been established as actually true, there is no requirement for anyone not under the influence, to accept premise 2.

No, they aren’t better because of any prior beliefs, but on their own merit. They rise or fall on their own reasoning and the belief of the one who believes it (or rejects it) doesn’t matter (that’s the textbook genetic fallacy again).

Yes, in this forum, those arguments haven’t been established as actually true. They haven’t been offered. We are going a step at a time and that requires patience instead of jumping to responses like this. So, can we discuss the first philosophical argument? Or do you want to look at scientific theories more in detail first?

[William]

I have offered many reasons for why we can think that the earth is mindful, and will continue to do so as opportunity is made available to do so re any discussion (as is the case with Waterfall). You appear to have no particular interest in that type of discussion and as long as you are fine overall with what I have offered and are not asking me to show or argue for the case being actually true, then I can agree there is no double standard but rather just the usual miscommunication between us.

Yes, I think there is the usual miscommunication. Help me wrap my brain around what you are saying above. I don’t understand what you mean by saying you’ve offered reasons for why we can think the earth is mindful when you also say that you aren’t arguing for the case being actually true. Those sound like the same thing to me.

Not "we" as in you and I. "We" as in anyone who can accept the reasons (examples) as reasonable enough to think along those lines.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #95]

Both of these men are/were Christians and so will have within their theories, Christian-based influences which is why they argued "literally nothing existed before the singularity" which in itself is an unproven statement rather than something which can said to be actually true.

First off, rejecting their arguments because they have a particular worldview is a textbook genetic fallacy.

Presently I neither reject or accept that their Christianity played a part in their claim.

Their arguments are not true or false based on their worldview.

Stop wasting my time arguing stuff I am not saying.

If you believe that someone's beliefs simply do not affect how they see the world and translate that view through (in this case) science, then you may well be being naive.

Secondly, they do not argue for nothing prior to the singularity because of their Christian-based influences. They use scientific evidence.

Then present that scientific evidence.

Third, Tipler was an atheist until convinced by the science.

Convinced of what? That God was immaterial? Or that we exist within a created thing?

No, scientists disagree on whether matter is eternal or not. Many believe matter itself came into existence either at the Big Bang or at some point prior to the Big Bang. Others are trying to hold on to its eternity. That’s why so many theories are consistently provided to avoid the conclusions of Big Bang cosmology. They hardly ever consider the philosophical arguments against it being eternal.

Well how about that.

Perhaps they also disagree as to what they mean by matter. Perhaps some mean matter that is obviously matter, while others mean matter which has not formed into the identifiable objects we see in the universe.

Further to that, there is ZERO reference that the Bible God is immaterial. That is an invention based upon errant interpretation of biblical passages referring to God.
As far as I am aware, all biblical references to God have it that God has form.

Why is that interpretation errant and not yours?

Why is God portrayed as formful in every biblical encounter if that is error?

No, they aren’t better because of any prior beliefs, but on their own merit. They rise or fall on their own reasoning and the belief of the one who believes it (or rejects it) doesn’t matter (that’s the textbook genetic fallacy again).

Yes, in this forum, those arguments haven’t been established as actually true. They haven’t been offered. We are going a step at a time and that requires patience instead of jumping to responses like this. So, can we discuss the first philosophical argument? Or do you want to look at scientific theories more in detail first?

Then get to it Jason. Show me why I should accept premise 2 as true.

Sorry, I forgot to transfer the code to make that work. Let me try again.

Does the video specifically talk about the universe as the structure of objects we currently observe today - or does it also include the idea of matter perhaps having always existed before the big bang?

[William]

The way I understand it, if God can use donkeys locusts and other animals to express through, (and humans), then there is no reason why God cannot use a planet, stars or galaxies to do the same.

And doing so does not mean God is "immaterial".

Minds experience different realities and interact with these in a physical way (re NDE reports as example) That does not make mind immaterial.

One theory has it that mind is physical but vibrates at a very fine frequency which is not detectable to a mind within a human being (because of the design of the form and its vibrational rate).
This does not mean that we have to think of mind as immaterial, just because we are unable to measure it as physical.

[William]

What has me wondering is why any theist would deny God is material in composition and that God is not observed interacting within the creation rather than simply existing "elsewhere" aloof and separate (even to the point of being declared as "immaterial") from said creation.
What has me wondering is why any biologist can not see mindfulness at work within all the critters in the planet.
I do not subscribe to the claim that scientists (theist or atheist) are not viewing things through the lens of their belief systems nor do I care that philosophers have named a fallacy to discredit that thought because I do not subscribe to the idea that philosophers are not also viewing things through the lens of their belief systems.

[William]

Namaskaram...



Your friend forever

Waterfall

Hi Waterfall

The video you posted re the Gospel of Thomas starts off with something I understand is relevant to the idea that the planet is mindful.

Transcript

2:38
Jesus said let one who seeks not stop seeking until one finds when one finds one will be disturbed when one is Disturbed One will Marvel and will Reign Over All

(this saying emphasizes the importance of seeking spiritual knowledge and understanding even when the search is difficult or unsettling it suggests that those who persevere in their search will ultimately achieve a sense of wonder and Mastery over their lives)

Jesus said if your leaders say to you look the kingdom is in the sky then the birds of the sky will precede you if they say to you it is in the sea then the fish will precede you rather the kingdom is inside of you and it is outside of you when you come to know yourselves then you will become known and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father but if you will not know yourselves you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty

(This saying emphasizes the idea that the Kingdom of Heaven is not a physical place that can be located but rather a spiritual state of being that can be achieved through self-knowledge and understanding it suggests that those who fail to seek this knowledge will remain trapped in spiritual poverty)
4:01

Overall the ideas presented represent an inner realisation that nothing and no one is truly separate from The Father (The Creator Mind) and one is indeed a child of God.

The idea that God is both immaterial and exists outside of the things created stems from those who have yet to realize who they are and this is why they "dwell in poverty" - a type of self imposed ignorance as to their true nature, they struggle to comprehend the significance of themselves in that light, and consequently remain unmindful (in poverty) of that truth.

So yes - it is important not to hide one's light (this information) from others, even in the hope that they will at some stage in their journey stop resisting that awareness and begin the journey into the riches such awareness offers in an extended hand.

Yes we are all born into sin (ignorance) as a natural aspect of the human experience, but we are not left in ignorance and to fight against receiving the knowledge, is to wilfully remain in sin (ignorance).