Musing on the idea of Sentient Earth re the problems of the world

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

You do understand that just because kooky idea A is consistent with kooky idea B, that doesn't make either idea any less kooky? You need to demonstrate objective evidence and/or explanatory power for each of them if you want them to be taken seriously.

Indeed. But in this case, I don't even see how A might lead to B. How would Gaia cause the letters of the English alphabet to add up to some non-random meaning in words, unless she were a magician, or omnipotent, or somehow able to control our thoughts and hence how our language evolves; and I don't see why on earth --- sorry, couldn't resist that! --- she might want to do that.

Quote:

The GMs themselves are evidence of nothing, for the reasons explained to you at length in the other thread.


I think Chanakya must be referring to my attempts early in the thread to come up with a test protocol for your claims, I've posted nothing on that subject recently.

That's what I'd meant, yes.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

If the earth were sentient we'd have no hope of ever communicating with it or understanding it and vice versa.
It would be a lovecraftian Old One.

Prove me wrong.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

Indeed. But in this case, I don't even see how A might lead to B. How would Gaia cause the letters of the English alphabet to add up to some non-random meaning in words, unless she were a magician, or omnipotent, or somehow able to control our thoughts and hence how our language evolves; and I don't see why on earth --- sorry, couldn't resist that! --- she might want to do that.

I think you're overestimating the amount of thought that has been put into this. He's convinced himself that the imaginary messages he sees in randomly generated text were put there purposely by some kind of conscious entity, and the idea that the earth itself might somehow be a conscious entity is already out there - he's just put the two together. I doubt he's thought it through any further than that.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Specific to that, if the Planet mind wants us to address this serious issue, it would not be because it is concerned with its own wellbeing [since it has gone through similar extinction events and survived those] but because it wants humans to understand their collective importance and potential to not become a statistic of The Great Filter. Not bu directly compelling but by gentle nudging in certain directions which might prove helpful...

Don't those same extinction events (and the normal course of extinction of most species even without a possibly externally influenced extinction event) demonstrate that the planet mind isn't concerned with individual species' wellbeing? We may feel appreciation for the yeast we mix into the bread dough, but when the yeast has completed its work and it's time for the loaf to go in the oven, in it goes. Contemplating an entity so vastly larger (the ratio in mass between Earth and yourself is a million times greater than the ratio in mass between yourself and a yeast cell) and existing on such a vastly longer time scale should perhaps inspire some humility, rather than presuming "that's my buddy who looks out for me."

Quote:

I agree that, while this is short-sighted, such groups are not the over representation of the concept. They have taken pieces of the meat and wrapped those in the pastry of their stories, so that they have the whole piece of their particular pie - believing it to be the actual whole Pie...I call it "Dressing The Ghost"

In that sense, the dressing of the Ghost [mind/sentience] in the pastry-skin of the planet earth to 'make a pie' does not mean that the pie is the whole Pie of the whole story - but it doesn't mean that the story of the earth is any less real for the telling...but if the earth has a sentient mind, and we can find a way to connect with that mind - shouldn't we then shut up and listen to what said mind might tell us of itself - so that we stop being the one's making up stories about it?

The finding a way to communicate has to come first and be shown to be real by hard evidence.

Billions of people every day claim to receive communications including reassurance, reprisals, inspiration, and guidance, from other greater minds—Gods, the stars, spirits of every description—through prayers, astrology, Tarot cards, I Ching hexagrams, geomantic tetragrams, dreams, prophetic visions, and a thousand other methods.

If they're right, then many other nonhuman disembodied or telekinetic minds exist besides the planet mind. Where does the planet mind rank among them? How do we tune in that one in particular?

If they're wrong, then that demonstrates that being mistaken about receiving such communications via such means is very easy and very common.

(If you're thinking, "they're right about receiving communications but wrong about what/whom they're communicating with," then how poor must those communications be for them to be so thoroughly and consistently wrong in that way?)

The problem is, "this arrangement of words/hexagrams/stars/cards/symbols/runes/numbers/images means something to me, therefore it is a communication I'm receiving" is, in and of itself, an unfounded conclusion without a lot of additional evidence. And "This is a communication I'm receiving, therefore [some specific entity] sent it" is also unfounded without a lot of additional evidence.

Quote:

Yes. Those stories we make up about it. End result is conflict.
But make them up we must, whether these be based upon scientific researching, or philosophy of the mind. Both are categories under the heading "Human Sciences" but the study of the mind is a tricky but necessary undertaking because it is the mind itself which is driving and driven by the need to know itself.

If there's actual communication going on, we shouldn't need to make anything up. No one made up the story that greenhouse gases are causing climate change on Earth. That story comes from actual science that predicted it would happen and now observes it happening. "The planet mind wanted this to happen" and "the planet mind objects to this happening" are stories we made up, but since that's all they are, and there's no reason to believe either of them is true, they don't appear to be useful for anything.

Quote:

Why complicate ones mind with yet another Mind? So what that the earth may be sentient? What has that got to do with us?
I think those questions are so good, they deserve answers to...so that is what I do with my time.

Good. No objection here.

Here's a related question to consider, as a habit of thought. Choose anything. Any object, any concept, anything. Then ask the question, "What is the full extent of [that thing]?"

A tree. What's the full extent of a tree? Well, there's a trunk and branches and leaves, and you won't forget the roots, just because they're out of sight. Likewise the internal structure of the growth rings, which you might experience as grain patterns after the wood is cut and worked, or as tactile patterns in how the wood feels if you're the one cutting or working it, but regardless it's something that you can only possibly experience a tiny portion of. Don't forget the water that transpires through the tree, and all the water that has transpired through the tree in the past or will in the future, which is an amount that dwarfs the size of the tree itself. (That's how come the question is "the full extent of" rather than merely for instance "all the parts of" which is a less interesting question about how we categorize things). Then of course there's the tree's protein machinery of photosynthesis, and a billion years of evolutionary history that gave rise to the protein machinery of photosynthesis, and the genome that evolved over those billions of years to carry that history into the seed; and of course the extent of the tree has to include the seed it grew from, and why not the tree that bore that seed, and the rodent that buried it where it now grows...?

Yes, this leads to "to see the world in a grain of sand..." and why not? (Blake was quite the mystic visionary of course.)

Now... what is the full extent of your mind? (Might the notion of "yet another mind" be a bit redundant?)

Quote:

Ah I see what you are saying. You are going off of an opinion you have about what I share on this site - that it is a 'religion'. That is a straw-man argument.

In reality, I am acknowledging that religion has fudged the results, in a similar manner as one might critique something said in the name of science as being pseudoscience.

I don't mean to convey any disrespect against religion, but rather simply to point out that the act of 'Dressing up The Mind" creates its own problems as well as problems for others...such as The Problem of Evil [Which is really "The Problem of GOD"] and this because, religion has been strict in its enforcement of sticking to the word and disallowing or fiercely resisting any change to that dogma even as more evidence arises.

Undressing "GOD" will eventually reveal a naked and unseen thing - such as what "minds" really are without the said dressings.

Fair enough. I indeed misspoke calling what you're suggesting here a religion. What I meant was, it's a religious narrative. (To be a religion would require the addition of the other main aspects of a religion, religious experiences and religious practices. I'm usually the one here trying to get across that there's more to religion than wild stories about gods, so mea culpa.)

But that said, your narrative is of a conscious entity vastly larger and longer-lived than humans, that is concerned with human affairs and destiny, that caused or influenced the creation of the human species, and that communicates mentally/telepathically with humans to inspire and instruct them. That kind of thing is called a god, whether you prefer to use that term yourself or not.

And you've added a few more religious narratives, one about other religions getting it wrong and thereby causing problems in the world; and the one where eventually those others will come around to perceive the truth.

Quote:

It doesn't matter that the idea is not new. What matters is that the idea finds support in order that it can become the dominant one, and maybe even in the process, help humans help themselves as per the thread subject.

And another religious narrative, the imperative to gain converts!

The importance of the idea not being new is that that means other people have already thought about and worked with that idea. In the case of some native Earth-centric religions, they've been doing it for millennia.

Suppose you showed up saying, "Hey, it just occurred to me that since combustion turns larger molecules into greater numbers of smaller gaseous molecules, if you burned something inside a rigid enclosed container it should be possible to make things move!" If you were a child whom I was willing to patronize a bit for instructional purposes, I might suggest we do an experiment together to confirm it. But if you were a busy adult I'd be more likely to say, "Go check out how an internal combustion engine works."

Why not check out some existing Earth-centric systems of belief and practice, by people who already believe they've been communicating with a planet mind for generations, instead of starting from scratch by what appears to be guesswork?

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

I see no new thread.

Perhaps it would help if when posts are removed and given a thread of their own, a link can be provided for the reader to show where the moving went.

I was informed of the split thread, through automated PM...it is a new thread in the 'abandon all hope' sector...

[Navigator]

Quote:

Why not check out some existing Earth-centric systems of belief and practice, by people who already believe they've been communicating with a planet mind for generations, instead of starting from scratch by what appears to be guesswork?

The idea is to incorporate the ideas religions and other cultural beliefs have by explaining those, through the lens of the idea of a Sentient Planet...similar to the idea that scientific ideas are also inspired by said influence...

The idea that the Earth consciousness would be too big to notice the forms which have been created through the medium of the stuff of the planet itself, let lone spark up communication with said minds of forms, can be countered by the idea that we are - as minds - all part of the same source mind, and that we are effectively personalities grown - not just for what we can do in the physical world, but what use we may eventually become, in the spiritual/mind one.

It is certainly possible that there is some sort of mind or intelligence working behind the scenes, coordinating the complex systems and interactions on our planet. This idea is a philosophical and metaphysical concept that goes beyond the current scientific understanding.

It's also true that humans tend to view themselves as singular identities with subjective realities, and it can be difficult for us to grasp the interconnectedness and interdependence of all things on the planet. This can lead to a disconnect between humans and the environment, and can cause problems such as climate change and other environmental issues.

Adopting the idea that there may be some sort of mind or intelligence behind the workings of the planet, as a speculative concept, could help to encourage a sense of interconnectedness and a greater awareness of our impact on the planet. It could also inspire new ways of thinking and problem-solving that could help us address global issues more effectively.

[Chanakya]

But how exactly, short of massive mind control, would a sentient Gaia place messages in how we happen to have constructed the English alphabet and English spelling and grammar? And should Gaia be able to do all of that, then why would she resort to that very convoluted means of communication with us, when she might directly convey her messages to us via telepathy or mind control or whatever?

Leaving aside the lack of evidence and all of that, I'd say what your thought experiment shows is that those word numbers are not a thing. Because if Gaia were sentient; and if she were desirous of communicating with us or influencing us; and had enough control over us to control how we formed our alphabet and spelled our words and devised our grammar: then rather than this very roundabout and convoluted method of doing whatever this might amount to, wouldn't she directly reach into our minds to either communicate or else control?

I'd say what your thought experiment does is it very effectively rules out those number messages.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

But how exactly, short of massive mind control, would a sentient Gaia place messages in how we happen to have constructed the English alphabet and English spelling and grammar? And should Gaia be able to do all of that, then why would she resort to that very convoluted means of communication with us, when she might directly convey her messages to us via telepathy or mind control or whatever?

That may be a future option...It may be that the planet entity itself has gone through a similar stage of development and began as a childlike mind...
Where did language come from, and why do words-strings have similar values?
Why do supposed random things happen which fit in with subjective experience, to produce results which are helpful to individuals aware of such goings on?

We all have our favorite explanations and interpretations, but these don't sort out anything in particular.

Also - personalities grow, and as mentioned, may be useful in other ways, not just making sure the seed of the planet has every opportunity to eventually be transported out into the rest of the universe.

Humans are not even overly required for that aspect of the agenda.

And as usual, it does get down to what humans actually want and how they view their existence as to whether they even actually care to help avoid The Great Filter

Quote:

Leaving aside the lack of evidence and all of that, I'd say what your thought experiment shows is that those word numbers are not a thing. Because if Gaia were sentient; and if she were desirous of communicating with us or influencing us; and had enough control over us to control how we formed our alphabet and spelled our words and devised our grammar: then rather than this very roundabout and convoluted method of doing whatever this might amount to, wouldn't she directly reach into our minds to either communicate or else control?

Of course. Perhaps the first step in this is for the individual to understand that it is possible, and work things out from that perspective.

While the idea that the planet is a sentient entity is not yet a proven scientific theory, adopting this perspective could change the way we think about our relationship with the planet and the environment, and may inspire new approaches to addressing the problems caused by human activities. It's possible that this perspective, if believed enough, could be factored into the use of science in solving the environmental problems.

Quote:

I'd say what your thought experiment does is it very effectively rules out those number messages.

Say what you will, the thread topic isn't about GM or word number values anyway.

It is about musing on the idea of Sentient Earth re the problems of the world.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Perhaps it would help if when posts are removed and given a thread of their own, a link can be provided for the reader to show where the moving went..

That does indeed happen when an interesting but off topic derail is split off to a new thread for discussion of it to continue. It doesn't happen when posts which are considered by the mods to violate the membership agreement are sent to AAH.

Quote:

I was informed of the split thread, through automated PM...it is a new thread in the 'abandon all hope' sector..

AAH is the naughty step. It is described on the forum front page thus:

Quote:

The dumping ground for bickering and irrelevance! Generally these threads contain posts that are at best borderline inappropriate. Moved here they can at least serve some purpose: to help illustrate what is not appropriate for the forum.

All threads in AAH are locked, it is not possible to post in them.

If you want a new thread in which to discuss Sheldrake's ideas in general you need to create one. If you want to discuss any points from his video which are relevant to the current topic you can do so here.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Why do supposed random things happen which fit in with subjective experience, to produce results which are helpful to individuals aware of such goings on?

They don't. At least, no one has yet offered a shred of objective evidence that they do.

Just because we agree to accept for the sake of argument that there is a sentient earth in order to explore what that would imply, that doesn't mean we will also accept every other kooky idea out there. You still need to make a sensible argument that such things happen before offering the sentient earth as an explanation of them.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Navigator

It could even be the case that a sentient earth-mind, inspired Douglas Adam's as another means of getting humans to think differently about their situation...

There are few things funnier than someone commenting on what an author may have meant when you haven't even read the book.

Thanks for that.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by Navigator

That may be a future option...It may be that the planet entity itself has gone through a similar stage of development and began as a childlike mind...
Where did language come from, and why do words-strings have similar values?
Why do supposed random things happen which fit in with subjective experience, to produce results which are helpful to individuals aware of such goings on?

We all have our favorite explanations and interpretations, but these don't sort out anything in particular.

Also - personalities grow, and as mentioned, may be useful in other ways, not just making sure the seed of the planet has every opportunity to eventually be transported out into the rest of the universe.

Humans are not even overly required for that aspect of the agenda.

And as usual, it does get down to what humans actually want and how they view their existence as to whether they even actually care to help avoid The Great Filter




Of course. Perhaps the first step in this is for the individual to understand that it is possible, and work things out from that perspective.

While the idea that the planet is a sentient entity is not yet a proven scientific theory, adopting this perspective could change the way we think about our relationship with the planet and the environment, and may inspire new approaches to addressing the problems caused by human activities. It's possible that this perspective, if believed enough, could be factored into the use of science in solving the environmental problems.



Say what you will, the thread topic isn't about GM or word number values anyway.

It is about musing on the idea of Sentient Earth re the problems of the world.

You're right. I went back and checked the OP one more time, and it's true, what you're proposing there is simply musing about this thing. The thought experiment part you introduce in describing some stuff you've quoted (that I've not clicked through and read); and I'd mistakenly imagined that that is the thrust of your OP and your thread.

Fair enough, then. No experiment, just musing.


-----

Incidentally, in one respect we can still make of this a thought experiment. The subject of which is not a sentient earth per se, but people’s belief in it. That is, regardless of whether the earth is sentient or not, if people believed it to be so, would that make for more ecologically-friendly behavior? That’s kind of a thought experiment.

But I’d say it’s a weird experiment, because if we’re going to have people believe random unevidenced things, then how about this: What if people believed that if they did not do whatever is in their power to reverse climate change, starting IMMEDIATELY, then their genitals would shrivel up within the next six months and they’d never ever be able to have sex again. Regardless of a belief in God and an afterlife and so forth, and regardless of a belief in sentient earth, if you got people to believe in this much, entirely regardless of whether it’s true (obviously it isn’t), and regardless of the evidence for it (of which obviously there’s none), then I’ll wager that most people, if they really really really believed this, would indeed step up their game as far as the climate change thing.

Like I’d said earlier on upthread, having people believe random things will obviously have people behave in consonance with those random beliefs, by and large. That’s like a no-brainer. To that extent, while this is indeed a thought experiment, but it’s kind of a pointless one.


-----

But of course, and like you clarify here, and basis your OP, you don’t actually mean this thread to be a thought experiment at all, but merely “musing”. In which case, fine, by all means let the thread be about “musing” about the sentient earth. No experiment, just musing; and that’s perfectly fine.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by Navigator

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...atar2560_8.gif

Haha, ok, it took me a beat to figure this out, because I keep avatars and sigs disabled. (Whle sometimes interesting and entertaining, but I find them distracting, and I find the repitition jarring. And nor, incidentally, do I myself use either an avatar or a sig.)

So anyway, I spent a tick wondering about what on earth you might mean by that drawing, and then thought to click your profile. And apparently you're William, and given to speaking of yourself in the third person. Nice, hello William.

[Navigator]

From what I can gather, it isn't about threats of consequence, real or imagined, but about how folk are simply locked into systems which disable their ability to think of alternatives outside of those systems.

[People work for an economy, rather than having an economy which works for people.]

Musing on the thought experiment re a sentient planet,

P1 and P2 have a disagreement about the value of the thought experiment of "planetary intelligence" and whether scientists should consider it as a guide for solving problems caused by human activities. P1 argues that the thought experiment is a fallacy and that scientists should not blindly accept it without critically evaluating the evidence and reasoning behind it. P2, on the other hand, suggests that scientists should consider the thought experiment as a guide, evaluate it critically and see if it can contribute to solving problems and advancing scientific understanding.

Quote:

What if people believed that if they did not do whatever is in their power to reverse climate change, starting IMMEDIATELY, then their genitals would shrivel up within the next six months and they’d never ever be able to have sex again.

Any appeal to consequences which involves scientists warnings about climate change being ignored for whatever reasons, could possible result in more than just ones sex organs eventually shriveling up.

It may well be that even if the majority of the worlds scientists were to believe that the Earth was Sentient, that they would still prefer to carry on the way they are, than change their thinking and behavior.

[Neuroplasticity] the ability of the brain to form and reorganize synaptic connections, especially in response to learning or experience or following injury.

[332]
[Like mindful nests with eggs in 'em
The journey is the destination
Understanding the correlations]

[Navigator]

Through the looking-glass eye of Science
[To be aware is to know about something]

To expand on how thought derives in relation to what we think we are.

Getting to the nitty gritty, what makes us think we are sentiment critters rather than robots simply responding to data input?

Thought is the element involved.

Thought experiments are utilizing the fact of thought, and relating this to the local environment we are experiencing collective, [objective] yet individually in a non-collective manner [subjective].

Thought experiments involve having to adopt belief in the premise in order to see where that might take one, in their thoughts, and are easily enough tweaked by physical science knowledge, in order to keep the thought experiment on track....which is to see if such will change the way humans think about their reality in relation to who they are within said reality.

This is no different a process than having 10,000 individual human minds working on the problem of making and sending JWT to a particular spot in the local environment.

The minds started with believing the thought process re the project envisioned, possibly could be achieved.
Eventual the thought experiment evolved into reality - becoming a part of what this reality is. Working with what this reality is.

Imagining that the Earth is the form of an actual sentient entity naturally requires thinking along those lines, cutting out the bad science as it is identified, and focusing on what the good science can do in order to set up a link between a planetary Mind and the Minds of Humans.

So back to the first 3 sentences of this post...First Things First...

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Navigator

...
Thought experiments are ...

NOT experiments... they are conjectures and wishful thinking and imaginative mulling and pondering and speculations...

BUT NOT... experiments... and prove NOTHING....

I suggest you research the etymology and meaning of the words "experiment" and "thought".... and you will see what an OXYMORON it is to put these two words together.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Leumas

NOT experiments... they are conjectures and wishful thinking and imaginative mulling and pondering and speculations...

BUT NOT... experiments... and prove NOTHING....

I suggest you research the etymology and meaning of the words "experiment" and "thought".... and you will see what an OXYMORON it is to put these two words together.

Your evaluation is incorrect.

Clearly thought experiments can a do lead to actualities.
10.000 individual minds focused upon the same goal = Space Telescope
...it is part of the recipe of a full authentic human experience...

Grand Experiment “Life is either a daring adventure or nothing at all”
Penetrate The Bidden Zone The Ghost is acknowledged Get To Know It
10,000 individual minds focused upon the same goal equals Space Telescope

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Your evaluation is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Navigator

Clearly thought experiments can a do lead to actualities.

Only after actualities are done to actually lead to actualities that actually work instead of just being thoughts.

Originally Posted by Navigator

10.000 individual minds focused upon the same goal = Space Telescope

No they do not unless they actually do work and use actual actualities to do the actual work instead of just thinking.

Originally Posted by Navigator

...it is part of the recipe of a full authentic human experience...

To actually do work and use actual actualities to actualize things instead of sitting around dreaming about crap.

Originally Posted by Navigator

Grand Experiment “Life is either a daring adventure or nothing at all”

Adventures are done by actually doing something not just dreaming about them.

Originally Posted by Navigator

Penetrate The Bidden Zone The Ghost is acknowledged Get To Know It
10,000 individual minds focused upon the same goal equals Space Telescope

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Leumas

Only after actualities are done to actually lead to actualities that actually work instead of just being thoughts.

No they do not unless they actually do work and use actual actualities to do the actual work instead of just thinking.

To actually do work and use actual actualities to actualize things instead of sitting around dreaming about crap.

Adventures are done by actually doing something not just dreaming about them.

I understand how you feel, having gone through that myself and what eventually lead me to my position on the matter of such things as gods [planet sentience included] became Agnostic Neutral, so I remain open to any concept which hasn't been nailed down, and it has not been established that the dreams came from the actions or the actions from the dreams, or perhaps a bit of both feeding back upon each other.

As ever, I am open to being shown any evidence which has conclusively solved the Problem of Consciousness - no matter the form said conscious expression might derive from....Will will have a look regardless

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

Haha, ok, it took me a beat to figure this out, because I keep avatars and sigs disabled. (Whle sometimes interesting and entertaining, but I find them distracting, and I find the repitition jarring. And nor, incidentally, do I myself use either an avatar or a sig.)

Quote:

So anyway, I spent a tick wondering about what on earth you might mean by that drawing, and then thought to click your profile. And apparently you're William, and given to speaking of yourself in the third person. Nice, hello William.

Hello Chanakya. I am not a robot.

William is a name I gave myself. I did so when I recognized that I was propelled by the Will I Am.

I have many names as well...

Nice to meet you Chanakya. Is that related to Chanakya?





The image is of a Queen on a throne, representing [symbolically] the Sentient Earth Entity.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

You're right. I went back and checked the OP one more time, and it's true, what you're proposing there is simply musing about this thing. The thought experiment part you introduce in describing some stuff you've quoted (that I've not clicked through and read); and I'd mistakenly imagined that that is the thrust of your OP and your thread.

Fair enough, then. No experiment, just musing.

A bit of both really. Musing on the validity of the thought and where experiment of said thought might take us.

Quote:

Incidentally, in one respect we can still make of this a thought experiment. The subject of which is not a sentient earth per se, but people’s belief in it. That is, regardless of whether the earth is sentient or not, if people believed it to be so, would that make for more ecologically-friendly behavior? That’s kind of a thought experiment.

That is basically the idea. We presently have no scientific way to back up whether the earth is sentient or not so it could be and if we thought about it that way, IF it actually is sentient THEN we should be able to work out how to set up experiments which would help us connect with that mind.

[Pixel42]

I honestly don't know where to start with this guff. No, a meticulously planned and executed engineering project, firmly based on centuries of the painstakingly accumulated knowledge and understanding of generations of humanity's finest minds, is not comparable to ignorant bozos making something up and wishing very hard for it to be true. No, imagining that your favourite fantasy is true does not make it easier to find evidence for it when no such evidence exists.

[Pixel42]

The scientific method is, in essence:

1. Make reproducible observations
2. Form an hypothesis to explain those observations
3. Use the hypothesis to predict the result of further repeatable observations
4. Make the further observations and see if they agree with the predictions
5. If the new observations agree with the predictions tentatively accept the hypothesis, otherwise reject it

Now "the earth is sentient in some nebulous and undefined way" is not an hypothesis because there are no observations which would prompt it. It's just a cool idea which some people like the sound of. That's why we've been asked for the purposes of this discussion to take it as an assumption, and see where it leads. So it's just a WAG, not an hypothesis, which is fine as long as that's understood by all participants in the discussion.

But all is not lost, we can still use the scientific method to guide us in how to proceed. We just have to start at [3] instead of [1].

So the next step is to identify a way in which a universe in which the earth is sentient would differ from a universe in which it isn't, and then make observations to see which is actually the case.

Over to you, Navigator.

[arthwollipot]

A proper thought experiment is useful. Schrodinger's thought experiment illustrated quantum superposition. Einstein's threw light on the speed of light.

What purpose does considering the idea of a sentient earth serve? It's not a thought experiment, it's a stoned rambling.

"Woah dude. What if, like, the entire world was sentient?"

"What, you mean, like sentient sentient, like, being aware and stuff?"

"Yeah man! Like if the world knew we were on it and was like, really pissed off and stuff?"

"Dude! Is that why hurricanes happen? And tornadoes and ******"

(both) "Woooah."

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by Navigator

A bit of both really. Musing on the validity of the thought and where experiment of said thought might take us.

Ah, so testing the validity of your Gaia idea is actually part of your intention for the thread? And you do intend that we assume that earth is sentient as a thought experiment?

Well then, that takes me right back to what I'd asked in what I think was my first post in this thread: Given that some of us have agreed to assume that, in the spirit of your thought experiment, where do you want to take this now? How do you go about testing your claim? I'd have thought that would be the whole point of it, isn't it --- I mean the thought experiment part, as distinct from the general musing part?

Quote:

That is basically the idea. We presently have no scientific way to back up whether the earth is sentient or not so it could be and if we thought about it that way, IF it actually is sentient THEN we should be able to work out how to set up experiments which would help us connect with that mind.

Haha, no, doesn't work that way I'm afraid. That's completely topsy turvy. The experiment is the means by which you'll test --- and either prove, or else disprove --- your hypothesis that the earth is sentient.

The first step to doing that is assuming that's so. Then spelling out what follows from that assumption. Then checking if what was expected to follow does follow.

-------

Not that what you're saying here isn't valid. We can certainly conduct experiments to see how we might utiize gravity, for instance, after it's already been proven to actually be a thing, sure. But given that in this case a sentient Gaia is simply wild speculation, that's ...well, premature, to put it gently.

After all, we've only agreed to assume that the earth is sentient in order to play along with your thought experiment. You mustn't mistake that for our agreement that earth is indeed, or likely to be, sentient. I don't think any of us here take that idea at all seriously, other than you apparently.

[Navigator]

Quote:

Ah, so testing the validity of your Gaia idea is actually part of your intention for the thread? And you do intend that we assume that earth is sentient as a thought experiment?

Unfortunately the original OP was heavily edited down to a single paragraph, so the intention of the thread has been quote-mined away. even that it contained neither copyright material or any material available on other sites - apart from the material which this thread was created to discuss.

The link to said material can be accessed from the {SOURCE}

The discussion I had with OAI was also snipped heavily. I can direct you to another site where you can read the full content of that discussion.

Quote:

After all, we've only agreed to assume that the earth is sentient in order to play along with your thought experiment. You mustn't mistake that for our agreement that earth is indeed, or likely to be, sentient. I don't think any of us here take that idea at all seriously, other than you apparently.

Yes - that aspect was discussed in the original opening post.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

The scientific method is, in essence:

1. Make reproducible observations
2. Form an hypothesis to explain those observations
3. Use the hypothesis to predict the result of further repeatable observations
4. Make the further observations and see if they agree with the predictions
5. If the new observations agree with the predictions tentatively accept the hypothesis, otherwise reject it

The methods above were mentioned in the original opening post, which has since been tampered with.

Quote:

Now "the earth is sentient in some nebulous and undefined way" is not an hypothesis because there are no observations which would prompt it. It's just a cool idea which some people like the sound of. That's why we've been asked for the purposes of this discussion to take it as an assumption, and see where it leads. So it's just a WAG, not an hypothesis, which is fine as long as that's understood by all participants in the discussion.

But all is not lost, we can still use the scientific method to guide us in how to proceed. We just have to start at [3] instead of [1].

So the next step is to identify a way in which a universe in which the earth is sentient would differ from a universe in which it isn't, and then make observations to see which is actually the case.

Over to you, Navigator.

Most of those things were covered in the original opening post.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Navigator

The methods above were mentioned in the original opening post, which has since been tampered with.

Most of those things were covered in the original opening post.

Your OP was edited for contravening Rule 4, which means it included large amounts of (possibly copyrighted) text from elsewhere. The link to that text is still there, so it can still be read.

I clicked on the link when it was first posted and read the article but I didn't click on from that to the paper it discusses, which I have now done. It's here, btw, for the benefit of other readers:

https://phys.org/news/2022-02-planet-mind.html

It's an interesting idea but, confirming my understanding from the article, it doesn't propose that the earth is currently sentient, let alone propose a way to verify it. That's your proposal, which seems to bear little resemblance to anything in the paper, so I repeat: Over to you.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

Your OP was edited for contravening Rule 4, which means it included large amounts of (possibly copyrighted) text from elsewhere. The link to that text is still there, so it can still be read.

I clicked on the link when it was first posted and read the article but I didn't click on from that to the paper it discusses, which I have now done. It's here, btw, for the benefit of other readers:

https://phys.org/news/2022-02-planet-mind.html

It's an interesting idea but, confirming my understanding from the article, it doesn't propose that the earth is currently sentient, let alone propose a way to verify it. That's your proposal, which seems to bear little resemblance to anything in the paper, so I repeat: Over to you.

Like I pointed out Pixel, the tampering has crippled any further point in continuing with the thread as originally intended, as the original intent explained by me, has been edited out of the OP.
______________________________________

I am still happy to answer posts which continue to occur in the thread, but only in regard to pointing out that the questions being asked/critiques being given were addressed in the original opening post.

My position on the subject is unchanged and mirrored in the following:

Quote:

Quote:

So then we see, the claim in the OP can't be shown to be true and factual.

Yes. I also observe that it cannot be shown to be false and fanciful.

GM: "The curating is done when I am taking my first baby steps and learning to say "dada" and "mama" and after uttering those sounds show -at least that I am able to do that - so the next level entry is made available to me, and I learn how to shape the sounds I can make, following codes which have been around since long before my own arrival on this planet, to what the data signifies, that is information I am interested in."
"The Knowledge Of The fact that code exists helps immensely in our ability to understand that intelligence is categorically involved in this existence."
Tracks In The Snow Embracing the shadow Hidden Treasure Jesus Christ
"Lilibet"

William: Yes I agree with the assessment. I am learning as I go along and observing where the resistance is coming from, in that process.
It is pertinent and fine to be skeptical, but it is not fine to use the position of skepticism to veil one's mind from investigating the hard-to-believe, by hand waving it away. That is not how skepticism is supposed to work.

GM: https://debatingchristianity.com/for...03956#p1103956

William: FTL:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

More straw. I have not said that I assume we exist within a creation.

Gah!

Quote:

Post 426 William statetd: "My position has it that the agency of the mind behind creation..." doesn't cease to exist as a possibility. (Underline added).

Quote-mining and then commenting out of context is creating a strawman argument Clownboat.

[Replying to Clownboat in post #436]

Quote:

Get off your cross, we need the wood!

Facetious impertinence noted.

Quote:

It is a fact, that your position is that we exist within a creation.

If the reader has been following my posts, they will know that my position is that I think it highly likely that we exist in a simulated reality.

Quote:

That the agent behind this creation remains a possibility does not remove your claim that you do in fact assume that we exist within a creation.

Incorrect. I assume nothing of the sort, as I am still compiling the evidence. In that, as I continue to show, the evidence appears to strongly suggest that this is the case. The suggestion is strong enough that I can examine the various Creator-Claims to see if any of them "fit the bill" re the evidence.

Quote:

As of now, your words "the mind behind creation doesn't cease to exist as a possibility" clearly informs us that your position is one of a creation.

This is an incorrect analysis Clownboat. My position is still one of possible creation. It is a possibility, and therefore worth investigation.

Quote:

That you are open to the mind that you claim might be behind it being a possibility

There is no other way in which one can approach re investigation. If a mind does exist, then I am open to hearing from it.

Quote:

helps you not with the claim you do in fact make about the creation.

You conflate my position as one of 'claiming' when it is one of 'thinking it possible' - That is not my "bad".

Quote:

Please turn in your wood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl45nkMaYvY

[Jack by the hedge]

If we granted for the sake of argument that the earth was conscious, that only gets us as far a brain in a jar, on a large scale.

Are we also expected to assume the brain knows it's a planet? That's very far from a given. How would it glean that? What senses might it possess from which it could learn this?

Is there any particular reason we are to think the entire planet is the consciousness, even including its molten core? What if just a bit of it was conscious? Say, Malta for example. Is the idea of the island of Malta being a conscious thinking entity less believable than the entire planet earth being so and if so, why?


Actually, did we pin down that it's strictly the planet, the thousands of billions of billions of tons of rock and metals, that we're assuming is sentient, rather than its living biomass? That was the idea in Avatar, was it not? The whole planet Smurfahontas or whatever it was called wasn't conscious, but its entire biome was some kind of distributed, interconnected consciousness. Also silly, but somehow less silly than thinking rocks.

[Navigator]

[quote=Jack by the hedge;13998595]

Quote:

If we granted for the sake of argument that the earth was conscious, that only gets us as far a brain in a jar, on a large scale.

We would then have to consider anything in form which are called "sentient" to being 'brains in jars"
The nitty gritty seen through looking-glass eye of Science shows us that the core mechanics re the brains in jars idea, is indeed the brain and nervous system - something floating around within the overall body [jar] of the human form.

Quote:

Are we also expected to assume the brain knows it's a planet?

No. It may be a matter that we have to explain to it, that it is a planet.

Or, it may indeed know it is a planet because it has access to all individual subjective conscious points of view, simultaneously, and the sum total of that data show it what it is and what situation it is existing in.

Problematic to that, is how it would explain to us, that we are not the only sentient critters or even the greatest sentient critters on the block.

Such might go a long way in redirecting our current trajectory into something more aligned with nature.

Quote:

That's very far from a given. How would it glean that? What senses might it possess from which it could learn this?

See above. It's brain and sensory system may act similar to how ours do, but our individual subjective realities become a big part of its data gathering system.
Said another way "we humans - collectively" may be a big part of its sensory system and what makes it the personality it might be, re its sentience.

Quote:

Is there any particular reason we are to think the entire planet is the consciousness, even including its molten core? What if just a bit of it was conscious? Say, Malta for example. Is the idea of the island of Malta being a conscious thinking entity less believable than the entire planet earth being so and if so, why?

Where does it end? Could the sun and other planets also be sentient? Are they using each others data as their sensory systems?

As to islands upon the landscape of the earth, these are sometimes also referred to as 'having spirits' - often a concept held as true among the indigenous of said land pockets and continents et al.

My interest is in the sensor connections and how they might work as a whole, rather than how they work as separate and unaware of anything - other than their subjective reality - parts.

Quote:

Actually, did we pin down that it's strictly the planet, the thousands of billions of billions of tons of rock and metals, that we're assuming is sentient, rather than its living biomass? That was the idea in Avatar, was it not? The whole planet Smurfahontas or whatever it was called wasn't conscious, but its entire biome was some kind of distributed, interconnected consciousness. Also silly, but somehow less silly than thinking rocks.

I don't think the concept is any sillier than human consciousness and the problem of consciousness re that.

Human consciousness existing in a biological form could be observed as silly, even that it is real - or at least the experience appears to be real...and we are not actually really some type of "brains" in jars, hooked up to a grand simulator, designed to give us the impression we were all walking around experiencing a planet in a universe...

The film you mentioned, could be seen as one such attempt of the planet sentience to help educate us on the concept of a sentient planet, by feeding that data into its human sensory devices and inspiring those who were all involved in the making of the movie, to that end. Especially knowing that humans love a good story and prefer their education be done in that manner.

This is similar to the whole process I mentioned in a prior post re the 10,000 minds creating and placing the JWT Space Telescope. Humans may well be inspired by a sentient planet, without realizing it...

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Navigator

We would then have to consider anything in form which are called "sentient" to being 'brains in jars"

No, generally humans think they are humans because the inputs from their senses show them what appears to be a world around them and themselves within it. You could get all solipsistic and imagine the sense inputs are fake but people generally don't.

But this thinking planet, what sensory inputs are you imagining it might have?

Quote:

It may be a matter that we have to explain to it, that it is a planet.

Explain how? By signalling this to what sense input?

Quote:

Or, it may indeed know it is a planet because it has access to all individual subjective conscious points of view, simultaneously

That's a long way beyond being a given and well into the territory of there being no plausible mechanism by which that might possibly happen outside of fairy stories.

Quote:

Such might go a long way in redirecting our current trajectory into something more aligned with nature.

We're sentient yet seemingly "not aligned with nature". Why assume a sentient planet is "aligned with nature" in a way that we are not?

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

No, generally humans think they are humans because the inputs from their senses show them what appears to be a world around them and themselves within it. You could get all solipsistic and imagine the sense inputs are fake but people generally don't.

But this thinking planet, what sensory inputs are you imagining it might have?

Explain how? By signalling this to what sense input?

I did, and not only the input but the output as well. I wrote:

"it may indeed know it is a planet because it has access to all individual subjective conscious points of view, simultaneously, and the sum total of that data show it what it is and what situation it is existing in."

Quote:

That's a long way beyond being a given and well into the territory of there being no plausible mechanism by which that might possibly happen outside of fairy stories.

Fairy stories may have been how the sentient planet mind once educated folk on concepts human minds were investigating...such as morals, and best way to go forward et al...
As I also mentioned:

"humans love a good story and prefer their education be done in that manner."

Quote:

We're sentient yet seemingly "not aligned with nature". Why assume a sentient planet is "aligned with nature" in a way that we are not?

It is not an assumption. It was part of the original discussion posted along with and about the thought experiment, but was edited out of the original OP.

The idea of "planetary intelligence" is an interesting and thought-provoking concept. While it may seem like something out of a science fiction movie, the researchers [re the OP {SOURCE} link] argue that by considering the collective knowledge and cognition of an entire planet as being possible, this could help us better understand and address global issues such as climate change.

Currently the evidence supports that it is humans that are out of synch with nature, not the planet itself.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Like I pointed out Pixel, the tampering has crippled any further point in continuing with the thread as originally intended, as the original intent explained by me, has been edited out of the OP.

If you can't put forth an argument in a way that doesn't contravene forum rules - which you agreed that you had read when you signed up as a member - then it's not an argument that is worth discussing here.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Like I pointed out Pixel, the tampering has crippled any further point in continuing with the thread as originally intended, as the original intent explained by me, has been edited out of the OP.

And as I pointed out in my reply, the only text removed from a post under Rule 4 is large quantities which have been cut&pasted from elsewhere. If some original text of your own was also removed that was a mistake. You can ask the mods to restore it, or you can simply repost it. In any case the point I made about the lack of relevance of the paper you refer to in the OP to the argument you yourself appear to be making, and the suggestion for a way to proceed with the discussion that is actually taking place, stand.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Navigator

"humans love a good story and prefer their education be done in that manner."

By using the quotes... are you quoting yourself... or someone else...

Regardless... the statement is meaningless... whether humans prefer to be educated by fairy tales or not... that is not how education is done or should be done if one wants to learn things properly.

Fairy tales do not teach... they entertain... if one learns something from a fairy tale... it is usually not quite the right thing... if not downright the wrong thing.

And if writers of fairy tales confine their writing to reality and valuable REAL educational stuff... their compositions will cease being fairy tales and become documentaries or textbooks.

So... whomever you were quoting... is totally wrong.




.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Navigator

I did, and not only the input but the output as well. I wrote:



"it may indeed know it is a planet because it has access to all individual subjective conscious points of view, simultaneously, and the sum total of that data show it what it is and what situation it is existing in."

We may be talking at cross purposes then. My question was about what physical, natural mechanisms you suppose might provide inputs to this smart rock. Your response appears to say maybe it just knows everything that's happening, which looks like an appeal to magic. Before we consider how much it might know, can we think of a reason to suppose it capable of sensing anything whatsoever?

Quote:

Currently the evidence supports that it is humans that are out of synch with nature, not the planet itself.

It's not clear that this has any useful meaning. In what way could the big rock be in or out of synch with nature, and what do you even mean by nature? For the humans, this sort of claim is generally meant to indicate we have not reached an equilibrium and our current behaviour is not sustainable. That's probably trivially true of any species exploiting any new resource, and we do have this ability to think up new ways to exploit things. On the positive side we do also have the ability to try to anticipate the consequences of what we do, which at least gives us a chance to avert self-created disasters.

[Pixel42]

In my experience people who talk about humanity being "out of synch with nature" are usually blissfully unaware that what's in sync with nature is to have lots of babies, watch half of them die, and be dead by the time we're forty.

[Navigator]

[quote=Jack by the hedge;13999133]

Quote:

We may be talking at cross purposes then. My question was about what physical, natural mechanisms you suppose might provide inputs to this smart rock. Your response appears to say maybe it just knows everything that's happening, which looks like an appeal to magic. Before we consider how much it might know, can we think of a reason to suppose it capable of sensing anything whatsoever?

What you are asking for is some kind of physical connect which might verify sentient being is in touch with the humans it created.
There is none, otherwise we would be able to see it and understand it for what its purpose would be.
All we have are the minds that allow us to interact with our surrounds.
Yet, because our minds are not something which we understand a great deal about, we cannot rule out that this planet entity is able to use its mind is ways we cannot use ours. Such as inserting data into our thinking processes, which we receive and understand as ideas.

Quote:

It's not clear that this has any useful meaning. In what way could the big rock be in or out of synch with nature, and what do you even mean by nature?

What I mean by nature in this context, is the nature of the planet as a whole. What I mean by out of synch, is explained in the link between the problem of climate change and human contribution to that.

Quote:

For the humans, this sort of claim is generally meant to indicate we have not reached an equilibrium and our current behaviour is not sustainable.
On the positive side we do also have the ability to try to anticipate the consequences of what we do, which at least gives us a chance to avert self-created disasters.

Which is what the thought experiment in the OP is saying, and the paragraph left after the mod edit, which reads:

Quote:

This article discusses a thought experiment proposed by a group of researchers that explores the concept of "planetary intelligence," or the collective knowledge and cognition of an entire planet. The researchers suggest that this concept could help us understand and address global issues such as climate change. They argue that large-scale networks of life on a planet could form a vast invisible intelligence that alters the condition of the entire planet, and that humans may currently be playing a major role in altering the environmental balance of Earth. The researchers believe that such thought experiments can help us better understand our impact on the planet and guide us in making positive changes.

If humans are out of synch, it may affect our ability to connect with and work with the planet mind in ways which will benefit us and assist us in making the planet a better place for all to live, including other animals - because humans are unique in that way. We have forms which allow for us to make advanced tools which we can use for negative or positive purposes

Quote:

That's probably trivially true of any species exploiting any new resource, and we do have this ability to think up new ways to exploit things.

It appears to be unique to humankind at the level of negative impact described by scientists re climate change and current human actions contributing to making the problem.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Navigator

What you are asking for is some kind of physical connect which might verify sentient being is in touch with the humans it created...

Nope. That's getting an awfully long way ahead of where we are.

We're only pretending, for the sake of argument, that the planet earth is sentient.
I'm asking about the physical senses of this sentient thing. What might they be and how might they operate? Despite what we might have heard, the hills do not have eyes. So how does it perceive the world?

Galloping off into further speculation that it intentionally created the life which inhabits it, and that humans have some special significance to it and that it might attempt somehow to communicate with humans is a whole series of further leaps into fairyland.