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]

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

Yes, that definition is not neutral and, therefore, is not a good definition of 'God' or 'life'.

[William]

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

Yes, that definition is not neutral and, therefore, is not a good definition of 'God' or 'life'.

Then, is the definition "God is not Life", also not neutral?

[The Tanager]

Then, is the definition "God is not Life", also not neutral?

Yes, that is also not a neutral definition.

[William]

Then, is the definition "God is not Life", also not neutral?

Yes, that is also not a neutral definition.

You were asked what your definition of life is, and you replied that you do not have a unique definition but used the Oxford definition.

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

You also said you're not wedded to that, so if there were a different definition, you'd be game to look at it.

Are you now saying that any definition of life which is not neutral, is a definition you are not game to look at?

[The Tanager]

You were asked what your definition of life is, and you replied that you do not have a unique definition but used the Oxford definition.

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

You also said you're not wedded to that, so if there were a different definition, you'd be game to look at it.

Are you now saying that any definition of life which is not neutral, is a definition you are not game to look at?

No, I'm saying I'll look at any definition but if it ends up not being neutral, then I'll reject it because definitions need to be neutral. That's just like saying, I'll look at any scientific theory but if it turns out to contradict known and accepted scientific evidence, then it will be rejected. That's not "not being open" to the theory, but holding it to a standard of rationality.

I'm also willing to hear your case for why a definition like this doesn't need to be neutral. It seems to me that non-neutral definitions are begging questions that are being discussed, but maybe I'm wrong.

[William]

You were asked what your definition of life is, and you replied that you do not have a unique definition but used the Oxford definition.

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

You also said you're not wedded to that, so if there were a different definition, you'd be game to look at it.

Are you now saying that any definition of life which is not neutral, is a definition you are not game to look at?

No, I'm saying I'll look at any definition but if it ends up not being neutral, then I'll reject it because definitions need to be neutral. That's just like saying, I'll look at any scientific theory but if it turns out to contradict known and accepted scientific evidence, then it will be rejected. That's not "not being open" to the theory, but holding it to a standard of rationality.

I'm also willing to hear your case for why a definition like this doesn't need to be neutral. It seems to me that non-neutral definitions are begging questions that are being discussed, but maybe I'm wrong.

Rather, I am bouncing off-of your words in the OP where you stated that you think life on earth is only ultimately explained via some kind of mind (or personal agent or creator).
I agree with the sentiment, but we obviously disagree with the particulars on how that mind operates.
You continued that you think this belief you have 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, none of which are exempt from how I view mindfulness.

So what do you want to discuss?
1. The Oxford dictionary neutral definition of life.
2. The "life on earth is only ultimately explained via some kind of mind (or personal agent or creator). " non-neutral definition of life.

Or, can the two definitions somehow bee combined?

[The Tanager]

Rather, I am bouncing off-of your words in the OP where you stated that you think life on earth is only ultimately explained via some kind of mind (or personal agent or creator).
I agree with the sentiment, but we obviously disagree with the particulars on how that mind operates.
You continued that you think this belief you have 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, none of which are exempt from how I view mindfulness.

So what do you want to discuss?
1. The Oxford dictionary neutral definition of life.
2. The "life on earth is only ultimately explained via some kind of mind (or personal agent or creator). " non-neutral definition of life.

Or, can the two definitions somehow bee combined?

I don't see them both as definitions. (1) is a neutral definition of life. (2) Is a conclusion about the source of life we observe from premises that use this neutral definition. We need to have (1) agreed upon before embarking on (2).

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #137]

I don't see them both as definitions. (1) is a neutral definition of life. (2) Is a conclusion about the source of life we observe from premises that use this neutral definition. We need to have (1) agreed upon before embarking on (2).

I an presently unsure as to whether the definition “the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.” is really neutral.

If that is the definition you want to use for "alive" can you say whether the source of this (re 2) is "alive"?

[The Tanager]

I an presently unsure as to whether the definition “the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.” is really neutral.

I'm open to hearing why you think it may not be neutral.

If that is the definition you want to use for "alive" can you say whether the source of this (re 2) is "alive"?

Which source? To you, the Earth Mind is the source. And there are two questions there: (a) if the Earth Mind exists, what characteristics would it have and, from that we could say if it is alive or not and (b) what rational reasons do we have that this being with those characteristics actually exist. From our conversations, I would think your Earth Mind (if it exists) would be alive, but I see no good reason to think it does exist.

To me God is the Mindful source. If God exists, then God would be alive by this definition. It's another question if God actually exists.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #139]

Fixes.

To you, the Earth Mind is the source.

No. I understand/know that the Earth Mind is the local source of all our "thinking" and "responding" to our experience in Her. In that sense She is undoubtably a "god" but not to be confused with the over Creator Mind.

Her perspective is not unlike our own (locally speaking) - yet - as She unfolded within Her reality Her journey makes our own look rather quick and relatively painless, when compared.
Locally speaking "we" are "She/Her" "feelers" in the heaven She has come to know Herself within.

One so ancient most obviously must have exceeding patience in the face of things. Perhaps that is why "we" can envision "ourselves" living for just as long getting to that point where paper-trails are no longer necessary.

Suffice to say, I recognise a hierarchy when I "see" one. The Source is where it is all happening/taking place/unfolding and by all accounts it ain't (is not) "all" happening just here on in the one planet.
Sure, She can bee regarded as our "Queen" but let's not get too puffed up about it...

So - "no" - I do not "see" Her as my "source" as if She is somehow disconnected from Her "The Source".

The Earth Mind