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]

[William]

[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]

[William]

[The Tanager]

[William]