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 William in post #149]

I'm sorry, I thought I had already answered that and you were making a different point. I believe God expresses Himself to individuals in a variety of ways. Some of those are personal: dreams, within hard circumstances, etc. God expressed Himself to me through my growing dissatisfaction with things that I turned to to numb myself against loneliness, Quaker grandparents, Benjamin Franklin, reading the Bible, a girl I thought was cute who invited me to church, youth group, and a week in the mountains at a youth camp where we helped fix some people's homes, and I first really heard what 'traditional' Christianity teaches about God and me, and the story goes on from there. God also expresses Himself through rational analysis of reality: the temporality of the world, morality, the intelligibility of reality, the fine-tuning of the universe and its physical laws, facts surrounding the supposed resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, etc.

How do you think the mindfulness of the Earth, if such a mind exists, would express itself to us as being alive?

In those same type of ways that you have expressed with your own answer.

[The Tanager]

In those same type of ways that you have expressed with your own answer.

Good. Now, I think my understanding of my personal experiences alone isn't enough for me to remain a Christian for rational reasons because I could be deluded in those experiences or my understanding of them. I think my understanding of my personal experiences shouldn't convince you that the Christian God exists, either, for the same reason. That leaves you with considering the rational arguments unless you had personal experiences of your own (but even then you still need the rational arguments). In that vain, could you lay out a rational argument for the Earth Mind existing for us to analyze? I think one at a time is better because it allows us to give each argument its own focus.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #152]

I think my understanding of my personal experiences alone isn't enough for me to remain a Christian for rational reasons because I could be deluded in those experiences or my understanding of them.

Okay. (P21S)

I think my understanding of my personal experiences shouldn't convince you that the Christian God exists, either, for the same reason.

Okay. (P21S)

That leaves you with considering the rational arguments unless you had personal experiences of your own (but even then you still need the rational arguments).

Okay. (P21S)

In that vain, could you lay out a rational argument for the Earth Mind existing for us to analyze?

I have already offered some of those rationals, and you have rejected them. (P21S)

Perhaps you could lay out your rational argument for The Creator Mind/God existing for us to analyze?

You could do this 1 at a time, if it is better because - it allows us to give each argument its own focus.

For example, perhaps you think that the temporality of the world, morality, the intelligibility of reality, the fine-tuning of the universe and its physical laws, facts surrounding the supposed resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, etc are things which the mindfulness of God, if God exists, would express itself to us as being alive?

If so, then you needn't go into detail because I will argue those same details as evidence of how the Earth-mind, if such a mind exists, would express itself to us as being alive.

I think (and have probably said as much in this thread at some point) that all human ideas of gods (Christian or otherwise) are "given life" by the Earth Mind, in that they are representations of human belief systems which the Earth Mind goes along with as She sees fit and useful to do so.

Some of those ideas fade into obscurity, some survive and that too is dependant upon how useful they are to the Earth Mind in Her relationship to the overall Creator Mind and her relationship with each of Her "Children" (human minds).

In simple terminology, I am saying that whatever you can offer as rational for The Creator Mind existing, can be used equally as rational for the Earth Mind existing.

Mindful Expressions.

Subjective Reality Experience(s)

[The Tanager]

In simple terminology, I am saying that whatever you can offer as rational for The Creator Mind existing, can be used equally as rational for the Earth Mind existing.

Let's analyze if that is true. Let's look at the Kalam (in its extended form):

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The spatio-temporal universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the spatio-temporal universe has a cause (from 1 and 2)
4. If there is a cause of the spatio-temporal universe, then that cause must be (a) uncaused, (b) immaterial, (c) non-temporal (d) unimaginably powerful, and (e) personal
5. Therefore, the cause is (a) uncaused, (b) immaterial, (c) non-temporal (d) unimaginably powerful, and (e) personal (from 3 and 4)

Are you saying that the Earth-Mind is uncaused, immaterial, non-temporal, unimaginably powerful, and personal?

[William]

In simple terminology, I am saying that whatever you can offer as rational for The Creator Mind existing, can be used equally as rational for the Earth Mind existing.

Let's analyze if that is true. Let's look at the Kalam (in its extended form):

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The spatio-temporal universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the spatio-temporal universe has a cause (from 1 and 2)
4. If there is a cause of the spatio-temporal universe, then that cause must be (a) uncaused, (b) immaterial, (c) non-temporal (d) unimaginably powerful, and (e) personal
5. Therefore, the cause is (a) uncaused, (b) immaterial, (c) non-temporal (d) unimaginably powerful, and (e) personal (from 3 and 4)


Are you saying that the Earth-Mind is uncaused, immaterial, non-temporal, unimaginably powerful, and personal?

I am saying that everything to do with/related with the human mind (including the above) can be understood as inspired by The Earth Mind.

[The Tanager]

In simple terminology, I am saying that whatever you can offer as rational for The Creator Mind existing, can be used equally as rational for the Earth Mind existing.

Let's analyze if that is true. Let's look at the Kalam (in its extended form):

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The spatio-temporal universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the spatio-temporal universe has a cause (from 1 and 2)
4. If there is a cause of the spatio-temporal universe, then that cause must be (a) uncaused, (b) immaterial, (c) non-temporal (d) unimaginably powerful, and (e) personal
5. Therefore, the cause is (a) uncaused, (b) immaterial, (c) non-temporal (d) unimaginably powerful, and (e) personal (from 3 and 4)


Are you saying that the Earth-Mind is uncaused, immaterial, non-temporal, unimaginably powerful, and personal?

I am saying that everything to do with/related with the human mind (including the above) can be understood as inspired by The Earth Mind.

Sorry, that phrase was confusing. By "are you saying" I meant how would you answer this question: is the Earth-Mind accurately described as uncaused, immaterial, non-temporal, unimaginably powerful, and personal?

[William]

In simple terminology, I am saying that whatever you can offer as rational for The Creator Mind existing, can be used equally as rational for the Earth Mind existing.

Let's analyze if that is true. Let's look at the Kalam (in its extended form):

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The spatio-temporal universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the spatio-temporal universe has a cause (from 1 and 2)
4. If there is a cause of the spatio-temporal universe, then that cause must be (a) uncaused, (b) immaterial, (c) non-temporal (d) unimaginably powerful, and (e) personal
5. Therefore, the cause is (a) uncaused, (b) immaterial, (c) non-temporal (d) unimaginably powerful, and (e) personal (from 3 and 4)


Are you saying that the Earth-Mind is uncaused, immaterial, non-temporal, unimaginably powerful, and personal?

I am saying that everything to do with/related with the human mind (including the above) can be understood as inspired by The Earth Mind.

Sorry, that phrase was confusing. By "are you saying" I meant how would you answer this question: is the Earth-Mind accurately described as uncaused, immaterial, non-temporal, unimaginably powerful, and personal?

That is a different path (tangent) to the one I am on Jason.

I was specifically focusing on The Creator Mind existing, not on what supposed attributes such a mind may (or may not) have.

In that, there is no significant difference between The Creator Mind and any mind, whether a mind of the Universe, a mind of a galaxy, a mind of a star a mind of a planet, or a mind of a human.

That has always been my focus (of argument).

[The Tanager]

That is a different path (tangent) to the one I am on Jason.

I was specifically focusing on The Creator Mind existing, not on what supposed attributes such a mind may (or may not) have.

In that, there is no significant difference between The Creator Mind and any mind, whether a mind of the Universe, a mind of a galaxy, a mind of a star a mind of a planet, or a mind of a human.

That has always been my focus (of argument).

I think this shows that you don't actually understand the argument. The Kalam concludes with a being who is (a) uncaused, (b) immaterial, (c) non-temporal (d) unimaginably powerful, and (e) personal. The Creator Mind fits that description and for that reason alone the Kalam is an argument for the Creator Mind. In other words, the Creator Mind is a label used to speak to a being with those characteristics. The Kalam cannot be an argument for a being that doesn't have those characteristics. If the Creator Mind didn't have those characteristics, then the Kalam couldn't be an argument for it. If your Earth-Mind doesn't have those characteristics, then the Kalam cannot, in any way whatsoever, be an argument for the Earth-Mind. That is why this is not a tangent. You can't divorce the Kalam from the characteristics of the being it necessarily concludes to.

[William]

That is a different path (tangent) to the one I am on Jason.

I was specifically focusing on The Creator Mind existing, not on what supposed attributes such a mind may (or may not) have.

In that, there is no significant difference between The Creator Mind and any mind, whether a mind of the Universe, a mind of a galaxy, a mind of a star a mind of a planet, or a mind of a human.

That has always been my focus (of argument).

I think this shows that you don't actually understand the argument. The Kalam concludes with a being who is (a) uncaused, (b) immaterial, (c) non-temporal (d) unimaginably powerful, and (e) personal. The Creator Mind fits that description and for that reason alone the Kalam is an argument for the Creator Mind. In other words, the Creator Mind is a label used to speak to a being with those characteristics. The Kalam cannot be an argument for a being that doesn't have those characteristics. If the Creator Mind didn't have those characteristics, then the Kalam couldn't be an argument for it. If your Earth-Mind doesn't have those characteristics, then the Kalam cannot, in any way whatsoever, be an argument for the Earth-Mind. That is why this is not a tangent. You can't divorce the Kalam from the characteristics of the being it necessarily concludes to.

Yes I understand what you are arguing here Jason. My argument is that one cannot divorce the Creator Mind from any other mindfulness.

Other mindfulness may or may not be aware of the connection and the relationship - but one is not actually (in reality) a separate mind from The Creator Mind.

Thus, all minds have to be endowed with the same attributes as The Creator Mind.

Re the extended form of the Kalam, those attributes are claimed to be (a) uncaused, (b) immaterial, (c) non-temporal (d) unimaginably powerful, and (e) personal.

[The Tanager]

Yes I understand what you are arguing here Jason. My argument is that one cannot divorce the Creator Mind from any other mindfulness.

That is your assertion, not argument. You have offered no argument that rationally leads to the conclusion that one cannot divorce the Creator Mind from any other mindfulness. Please do so.

You also haven’t offered an argument that rationally leads to the conclusion that one of those other minds is the Earth-Mind. Please do so.