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]

Shall we start with your question? Where does it exist? In your mind, you remember typing it into the keyboard that you remember and seeing it (memory) on your monitor (memory) and I read it (memory) on my (I am composed of memory monitor (I remember reading it, remember the monitor).
All 'evidence' when followed to it's natural conclusion leaves us with Mind. You cannot name anything that is not in 'your' mind.
There is absolutely no evidence of any 'thing-in-itself', beyond the perceiver's mind.
Thus my contention of "all evidence" leading to Mind.

Your idealism and materialism and dualism can coherently explain all that same data.

No, all of it.
No one simply intuits that the entirety of the Universe is all a Holistic momentary flash of Divine insight, Mind.

You haven’t established that as true or that everything else in reality is counter-intuitive.

Using it in your question without evidence, like; "God created the Universe, so how can God blah, blah...?) It 'assumes' (automatically accepts) the creator-hood of God into the question. More honest might be; "IF God created..."

What post are you quoting me from or alluding to here?

" What do you mean “out there”?"

Beyond (your) Mind

No, I don’t automatically accept that; I think it is the most reasonable position to take for various reasons. That is not the reason for this thread, however. If you think Idealism supports your answer to the question in this thread, then you will have to positively support that as the most reasonable position to take.

I'm trying to be focused, perhaps you'd like to share your unique definition of 'life' and we can go from there?

I don’t have a unique definition of ‘life’. Oxford Languages says this: “the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.” I’m not wedded to that, so if you have a different one in mind, I’m game to look at it.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #121]

“the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.”

In relation to Earth (the body/planet/water-stone) can the whole planet (inclusive of it's "inorganic" material,) be counted as "alive" or does the definition exclude the holistic (overall) aspect and if so, why should we accept the exclusion?

[The Tanager]

In relation to Earth (the body/planet/water-stone) can the whole planet (inclusive of it's "inorganic" material,) be counted as "alive" or does the definition exclude the holistic (overall) aspect and if so, why should we accept the exclusion?

Logically, something made up of organic/living stuff and inorganic/non-living stuff cannot (as a whole) be called one organic thing. It would be a collection of a mix of living and non-living stuff.

[William]

In relation to Earth (the body/planet/water-stone) can the whole planet (inclusive of it's "inorganic" material,) be counted as "alive" or does the definition exclude the holistic (overall) aspect and if so, why should we accept the exclusion?

Logically, something made up of organic/living stuff and inorganic/non-living stuff cannot (as a whole) be called one organic thing. It would be a collection of a mix of living and non-living stuff.

Are you saying that the planet would be excluded from being called "alive"?

[The Tanager]

Are you saying that the planet would be excluded from being called "alive"?

No, I'm saying that if you consider the planet as the collection of organic and inorganic things that exist in and on it, then it is wrong to call it a thing that is alive.

[William]

Are you saying that the planet would be excluded from being called "alive"?

No, I'm saying that if you consider the planet as the collection of organic and inorganic things that exist in and on it, then it is wrong to call it a thing that is alive.

Isn't that simply another way of saying the same thing I asked?
What is the difference between something being considered wrong and something being considered excludable?

What (process) makes a rock "inorganic"?

Is that process mindful...and is mindful an aspect of being "alive"?
Can "life" only be identified as an organic process?
Where does mindfulness fit in the overall definition of "life/being alive"?

[The Tanager]

Isn't that simply another way of saying the same thing I asked?
What is the difference between something being considered wrong and something being considered excludable?

I feel my phrasing was more exact. I think one could say “the planet is alive” and mean that it’s got life on it, but the planet itself isn’t alive.

What (process) makes a rock "inorganic"?

My statement was about whether it is organic or inorganic, so the process that made it one or the other is irrelevant to that point.

Is that process mindful...and is mindful an aspect of being "alive"?
Can "life" only be identified as an organic process?
Where does mindfulness fit in the overall definition of "life/being alive"?

Logically, a mindful process can lead to both organic and inorganic results. As to whether ‘mindful’ should be a part of the definition of being ‘alive’, you are going to need to define ‘mindful’. ‘Organic’ is basically a synonym for ‘living’, so all life would be organic.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #127]

Logically, a mindful process can lead to both organic and inorganic results. As to whether ‘mindful’ should be a part of the definition of being ‘alive’, you are going to need to define ‘mindful’. ‘Organic’ is basically a synonym for ‘living’, so all life would be organic.

It appears you are using the same framework (to form your argument) here as materialism uses.

I am coming from a more theistic approach - specific to the idea that the creation and the creator are synonymous. The creation being the form and the life being the creator within the form - animating said form with what is referred to as "life" making that something "alive".

[The Tanager]

It appears you are using the same framework (to form your argument) here as materialism uses.

I am coming from a more theistic approach - specific to the idea that the creation and the creator are synonymous. The creation being the form and the life being the creator within the form - animating said form with what is referred to as "life" making that something "alive".

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by that. The framework of the argument (as I understand that phrase) is logic based on definitions that are neutral so as to avoid begging any question for/against theism or atheism or immaterialism or materialism, etc. If I share that with the materialists, then that’s a good thing. Definitions need to be neutral.

[William]

It appears you are using the same framework (to form your argument) here as materialism uses.

I am coming from a more theistic approach - specific to the idea that the creation and the creator are synonymous. The creation being the form and the life being the creator within the form - animating said form with what is referred to as "life" making that something "alive".

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by that. The framework of the argument (as I understand that phrase) is logic based on definitions that are neutral so as to avoid begging any question for/against theism or atheism or immaterialism or materialism, etc. If I share that with the materialists, then that’s a good thing. Definitions need to be neutral.

If definitions are to be neutral, is the definition "God=Life" not?