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

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Navigator

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

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.

Out of synch sounds like a wooly way of saying we're not listening to the big rock's warnings to mend our ways. Well, to be fair, we're barely really listening to our own warnings to mend our ways. And it's an awfully big leap from "the big rock thinks" to get to something like "the big rock thinks humans should stop digging up and burning so much carbon because it'll cause a mass extinction".

And it seems awfully anthropocentric to suppose only humans can wreck the environment or that the big rock only cares about mass extinctions if they involve humans. Species have risen and vanished every so many million years over and over for an awfully long time so far. The big rock's feelings about mass extinctions didn't cause it to prevent "out of synch" cyanobacteria from poisoning almost all life on earth with their release of toxic gas into the atmosphere in the Oxygen Catastrophe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

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.

So what you appear to be arguing is that what I already pointed out - that it may be that sentient intelligent beings on the planet, can be the sensory system the planet mind uses as its 'eyes and ears' is 'leaping into fairyland'?

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

And it seems awfully anthropocentric to suppose only humans can wreck the environment or that the big rock only cares about mass extinctions if they involve humans. Species have risen and vanished every so many million years over and over for an awfully long time so far. The big rock's feelings about mass extinctions didn't cause it to prevent "out of synch" cyanobacteria from poisoning almost all life on earth with their release of toxic gas into the atmosphere in the Oxygen Catastrophe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event

The paper referred to in the OP, if I understand it correctly, is talking about humanity essentially becoming the mind of what will then be in some sense a sentient planet, it doesn't propose that such a sentience already exists. The latter appears to be what Navigator is proposing, which is why I'm still puzzling over the relevance of the paper.

Nature is not a conscious entity, it's a set of laws which simply are what they are. It's the operation of those laws for the last four billion years that has resulted in the evolution of at least one species who are conscious entities, and who can consequently make choices. We could have chosen to continue to be "in sync with nature" - have lots of babies, watch half of them die, and be dead by the time we're forty - but we chose instead to invent civilisation. That choice has certainly had its downsides, but those downsides are almost entirely unintended consequences of the upsides. Doubling life expectancy and reducing child mortality from 50% to less than 5% has resulted in a massive increase in human population, far greater than can be sustained at the desired level of civilisation by the planet's limited resources.

The solution to the problem, it seems to me, is to use the most unnatural of all our inventions - birth control - to maintain a more sustainable population level, whilst using the same ingenuity that created civilisation to find ways of maintaining it in sustainable ways. Unfortunately the shortsighted greed and selfishness of a large percentage of the population is actively working against such solutions.

I do think that imagining ourselves as the planet's mind, with its body being the rest of the ecosystem, could help to create the sort of environment where sensible policies and regulations to combat problems like climate change would be better understood and supported. So I do agree with the paper. But I'm not sure what it has to do with the main thrust of Navigator's arguments which seem to start with the assumption that the earth is already sentient, and has a low opinion of humanity.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Navigator

So what you appear to be arguing is that what I already pointed out - that it may be that sentient intelligent beings on the planet, can be the sensory system the planet mind uses as its 'eyes and ears' is 'leaping into fairyland'?

The eyes and ears of each animal on earth supply sensory information to the animal itself. There's a bit of a gap between that and the big clever rock somehow knowing whatever they know. If you can fill the "somehow" gap with anything other than magic, by all means describe it.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by 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]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

The eyes and ears of each animal on earth supply sensory information to the animal itself.

Subjectively that is true. We think that our sensory systems are unique to our individual selves.
Objectively that may not be the case.

Quote:

There's a bit of a gap between that and the big clever rock somehow knowing whatever they know. If you can fill the "somehow" gap with anything other than magic, by all means describe it.

This brings in the problem of consciousness, something no one theory has yet been able to solve.

Even so, adopting the Thought Experiment might go a long way in helping us to solve that problem.

[Jack by the hedge]

Whatever conundrums face us regarding the nature of consciousness, a thing it has never been observed to be is a means of communication. Not for want of trying. Telepathy is just pretend.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Whatever conundrums face us regarding the nature of consciousness, a thing it has never been observed to be is a means of communication. Not for want of trying.

You are implying you have tried? If so, can you give examples?

Quote:

Telepathy is just pretend.

It certainly appears that way - subjectively speaking.

However, we cannot say with any surety, that we are not telepathically connected to the sentience which created our forms and gave sentience to said forms.
We cannot say for sure that the planet is not sentient. We can only believe that it is or is not.

Believing it is not, positions one as the red dot in the image below, whereas believing that it is, positions one as the blue dot, because it allows one far more room to explore.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Navigator

You are implying you have tried? If so, can you give examples?

No, I don't mean I have tried. I do mean that a great number of people have sincerely tried to demonstrate that telepathy is a real phenomenon, and consistently failed.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Navigator

We cannot say for sure that the planet is not sentient.

I wonder if the planet is aware of Russel's teapot.

[Myriad]

People who believe they're in the ocean can swim much farther than people who believe they're in the desert.

But this is not because belief has great power over liquid propulsion. It's because most people who believe they're in the ocean believe so because they're actually in the ocean, where it's possible to swim, while most people who believe they're in the desert actually are in the desert, where swimming is useless.

How the world around you actually is and actually works is more important than what you believe. And if one is unsure, why believe other way? Try to swim and see if it gets you anywhere. Try to walk and see if it gets you anywhere. You can decide what to believe based on the results.

[LarryS]

Prevailent thinking is that matter organized in specific ways generates consciousness\sentience. This gives rise to all sorts of fanciful images: downloading consciousness into chips, sentient robots, and a sentient Earth.
However, there's also good reason to believe that only animate biological systems can have sentience.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Navigator

However, we cannot say with any surety, ...

We cannot say for sure that ....

Believing....

Is wishful thinking and Argumentum ad Ignorantiam... and is an assertion that is unfalsifiable.

So 4 illogical fallacies in a couple of sentences... amazing!!!

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Navigator

It certainly appears that way - subjectively speaking.

Actually it appears that way objectively speaking. It's only people who, unaware of their cognitive biases, erroneously give more weight to their subjective experiences than to decades of painstakingly acquired objective evidence, and end up inadvertently fooling themselves into believing in imaginary things like telepathy.

Quote:

However, we cannot say with any surety, that we are not telepathically connected to the sentience which created our forms and gave sentience to said forms.
We cannot say for sure that the planet is not sentient.

We can with certainty that no one has ever offered a shred of objective evidence that either is the case.

Quote:

We can only believe that it is or is not.

You say that as if those are equally reasonable positions to take, when (based on the absence of objective evidence that ought to be reasonably easy to obtain if it is) one is far more reasonable than the other.

There is also a third thing we can do that is an alternative to both believing and not believing: we can take as our working assumption the position that seems by far the most likely, but be ready and willing to reconsider that assumption should any objective evidence ever be offered.

Quote:

Believing it is not, positions one as the red dot in the image below, whereas believing that it is, positions one as the blue dot, because it allows one far more room to explore.

There is plenty of reality to explore. A whole universe of it in fact. There is also plenty of fantasy, but that is best explored for entertainment purposes only.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

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."




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."



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.

Or, conversely, it could be a useless distraction that takes our attention away from any chance of solving real problems by the use of science and logic.

YMMV.

[LarryS]

Science and logic do not have a lock on infallibility - these also are subject to bias.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by LarryS

Science and logic do not have a lock on infallibility - these also are subject to bias.

• Science and logic are human tools devised by humans.
• Tools are tools used to achieve goals
• No scientist worthy of the title would ever use sophistry like claiming infallibility
• Claiming infallibility is the purview of charlatans and FOPS who assert fiats from sky daddies and kings in outer space
• Science and logic enabled your statement to be written and disseminated across the world in seconds
• And provided the healthcare and nutrition and environmental controls that afforded you the comfort and luxury and education to be able to write the above statement... let alone the tools to do so.
• Nothing human is not subjective
• Science provides the tools to evade subjective bias as much as possible
• Humans are all greedy and self-serving and predators
• Science provides the means to evade those human failings as much as possible
• Science also provides the means to detect when humans using science have failed to use it properly
• All this is arrantly lacking in any artifices the charlatans and fops have devised and exploited to grift and hoodwink and fleece and beguile and inveigle while peddling and hawking their hoaxes about their imaginary sky despots and kings in outer space
• Science put us in outer space and the deeps of the oceans and the bowels of the earth to better ascertain and observe the perfidy and lies of the charlatans and fops
• Science gave us the tools to inform and disseminate the knowledge about the mendacity and sordidness of those mountebanks and fops who claim fiats from sky daddies and kings in outer space

.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by LarryS

Science and logic do not have a lock on infallibility - these also are subject to bias.

The scientific method was specifically designed to eliminate the effect of our cognitive biases. That's what it's for. That's why it says anecdotal evidence can only be used to form an hypothesis; that hypothesis then has to be tested using objective techniques such as double blinding before it can be even provisionally accepted.

Mistakes can of course be made, scientists are only human and can get emotionally invested in a favourite hypothesis like anyone else. But it's been a far more successful route to knowledge and understanding than just imagining something that sounds cool, like that the earth might be sentient, and idly wondering if it's true.

[LarryS]

somehow this was posted 2x -

[LarryS]

I agree with the 2 prior posts, and I detect agreement that science is also subject to dispositions, intuitions or inclinations in human thinking and reasoning that are not always plausible or logical. We can hope that science is self-correcting - but there is no guarantee.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by LarryS

I agree with the 2 prior posts, and I detect agreement that science is also subject to dispositions, intuitions or inclinations in human thinking and reasoning that are not always plausible or logical.

Yes... because science is a tool utilized by humans to achieve goals....

But unlike religion and woo woo, it produces beneficial results that are definitively palpable and TANGIBLE and verifiable and beneficial... as has been irrefutably demonstrated and is being demonstrated right this very second.

Originally Posted by LarryS

We can hope that science is self-correcting - but there is no guarantee.

Science is like a swiss-army-knife.... a multi-tool... of irrefragably demonstrable value... unlike woo woo and religions and gods... whose value is nothing but to inveigle and beguile and fleece and dupe simpletons to willingly submit to being fleeced by brigands and fops.

Originally Posted by LarryS

We can hope that science is self-correcting - but there is no guarantee.

The track record bespeaks for itself...

[LarryS]

Originally Posted by Leumas

The track record bespeaks for itself...

. . until we return to the topic of this thread - consciousness\sentience - where science as of yet has little to say. The prevailing thinking is that consciousness\sentience emerges from specific organizations of matter, yet there is no understanding of how this emergence occurs.
So, we end up with fancies like a conscious Earth and downloading consciousness into chips, etc.
The above is not a criticism of science, just a declaration of where we are.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

I do think that imagining ourselves as the planet's mind, with its body being the rest of the ecosystem, could help to create the sort of environment where sensible policies and regulations to combat problems like climate change would be better understood and supported. So I do agree with the paper. But I'm not sure what it has to do with the main thrust of Navigator's arguments which seem to start with the assumption that the earth is already sentient, and has a low opinion of humanity.

I am unsure as to why you think my understanding is that - if the Earth is a sentient entity - it has a low opinion of humanity.

My thinking is that it has an unconditional love for humanity and helps nudge humanity toward solving problems and moving on.

Quote:

Nature is not a conscious entity, it's a set of laws which simply are what they are.

Yes, that is a common view among naturalists and physicalists, who argue that nature consists of physical laws and processes and is not conscious or intentional. According to this view, the natural world operates according to objective, measurable principles, and consciousness and subjective experience are seen as emergent properties of complex physical systems such as the brain.

This perspective contrasts with dualistic and idealistic views, which argue that there is something non-physical and inexplicable about the mind and consciousness. The question of whether nature is inherently conscious or not is still a matter of ongoing philosophical debate and has important implications for our understanding of the world and our place in it.

Quote:

It's the operation of those laws for the last four billion years that has resulted in the evolution of at least one species who are conscious entities, and who can consequently make choices. We could have chosen to continue to be "in sync with nature" - have lots of babies, watch half of them die, and be dead by the time we're forty - but we chose instead to invent civilisation.

Yet we cannot be sure at all that those choices were not influenced by a planetary mind.

My use of the phrase "in sync with nature" is aligned to the idea of Sentient Earth - and in that - I am referring to being "in sync with natures mind"

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by LarryS

. . until we return to the topic of this thread - consciousness\sentience - where science as of yet has little to say. The prevailing thinking is that consciousness\sentience emerges from specific organizations of matter, yet there is no understanding of how this emergence occurs.
So, we end up with fancies like a conscious Earth and downloading consciousness into chips, etc.
The above is not a criticism of science, just a declaration of where we are.

Yes, that is a accurate representation of the current state of knowledge on the subject of consciousness and its relationship to physical matter.

There is currently no widely accepted scientific explanation for how consciousness arises from specific organizations of matter, and the question of how conscious experience arises from physical processes in the brain remains one of the greatest mysteries in science.

As a result, many different theories and speculative ideas have been proposed, including the idea of a conscious Earth and the possibility of downloading consciousness into chips. While these ideas are intriguing, they are still largely speculative and lack scientific support, and much more research is needed before we can understand the relationship between consciousness and physical matter.

Despite this, the study of consciousness is an active area of research, and new discoveries and insights are being made all the time, so it is possible that a more complete understanding of consciousness will emerge in the future.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

The scientific method was specifically designed to eliminate the effect of our cognitive biases. That's what it's for. That's why it says anecdotal evidence can only be used to form an hypothesis; that hypothesis then has to be tested using objective techniques such as double blinding before it can be even provisionally accepted.

Mistakes can of course be made, scientists are only human and can get emotionally invested in a favourite hypothesis like anyone else. But it's been a far more successful route to knowledge and understanding than just imagining something that sounds cool, like that the earth might be sentient, and idly wondering if it's true.

Yes, you are correct that the scientific method is designed to minimize the influence of cognitive biases and to provide a systematic and rigorous way of testing hypotheses.

The scientific method involves forming a hypothesis based on available evidence, designing experiments to test the hypothesis, and then evaluating the results to determine whether the hypothesis is supported or not.

This process helps to reduce the influence of personal biases and subjective interpretations and to ensure that scientific claims are based on objective and repeatable evidence. While mistakes can and do occur, the scientific method provides a robust framework for discovering and understanding the natural world and has been extremely successful in advancing our understanding of a wide range of phenomena.

The idea that the Earth might be sentient, for example, is not considered a scientific hypothesis at this time because there is currently no evidence to support it and it cannot be tested using the scientific method.

The fact that a concept or idea cannot be tested using the scientific method does not necessarily mean that it is not important or valuable.

There are many important questions and ideas in philosophy, ethics, spirituality, and other fields that cannot be tested using the scientific method, but that still have the potential to shape our understanding of the world and our place in it.

These areas of inquiry can provide valuable insights and perspectives on the human experience and the nature of reality, and they can complement the scientific understanding of the world in important ways.

However, it is important to recognize that ideas and concepts from these fields are not subject to the same level of empirical scrutiny as scientific claims, and that they should not be taken as fact without further investigation and justification.

That they should not be taken as fact does not mean that they should be discarded as fiction

It is important to approach such ideas with an open and critical mind and to evaluate them based on the evidence and arguments that are available, rather than accepting them blindly or uncritically.

[Navigator]

To build an hypothesis on Sentient Earth we have to explore the idea of Mind Emerging from Matter.

We would need to consider the question of how mind and consciousness can emerge from physical matter.

Assuming that consciousness can emerge from physical matter, it wouldn't be a considerable challenge to prove that the entire Earth, or any other physical system, is sentient because the evidence of self-awareness, intentionality, and other hallmarks of consciousness, exist to define and measure.

For example, we know that in order for AI to even exist - or any other technological marvel - a sentient being first had to exist.
Humans use their consciousness, intelligence, and creativity to design and build AI systems, as well as other complex technological systems.

We do not require a clear and testable definition of sentience and mindfulness, in order to determine if the Earth is a contender, and it isn't necessary to have a deep understanding of the underlying mechanisms and processes that give rise to these phenomena, in order to understand that there is a connection between sentience and mindfulness and the ability to create from those things which are available.

In that light, a Sentient Earth would seem the logical thinking to adopt on the matter...as we already know that things were created from other things which were available to create with. Sentience seems to be the thing which enables the process to happen.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by LarryS

. . until we return to the topic of this thread - consciousness\sentience - where science as of yet has little to say. The prevailing thinking is that consciousness\sentience emerges from specific organizations of matter, yet there is no understanding of how this emergence occurs.
So, we end up with fancies like a conscious Earth and downloading consciousness into chips, etc.
The above is not a criticism of science, just a declaration of where we are.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Navigator

<snip>
In that light, a Sentient Earth would seem the logical thinking to adopt on the matter...as we already know that things were created from other things which were available to create with. Sentience seems to be the thing which enables the process to happen.

So Earth is sentient... but Jupiter and Saturn et al are not because they do not have AI making beings on them???

How about asteroids and comets and the sun and Pluto etc. etc.... are they perhaps like dogs for Earth?

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Navigator

YThe idea that the Earth might be sentient, for example, is not considered a scientific hypothesis at this time because there is currently no evidence to support it and it cannot be tested using the scientific method.

Why not? A universe in which the Earth is sentient must surely differ in some observable ways from a universe in which is it not. Imagine what those differences might be, then make the observations.

Quote:

That they should not be taken as fact does not mean that they should be discarded as fiction

Once again there is a third option: assume the null hypothesis, but be open to the possibility that you might one day be given a good reason to reject it.

[LarryS]

Originally Posted by Leumas

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...208d41da8c.jpg

cool response but non sequitur

[Navigator]

Quote:

The idea that the Earth might be sentient, for example, is not considered a scientific hypothesis at this time because there is currently no evidence to support it and it cannot be tested using the scientific method.

Originally Posted by Pixel42

Why not? A universe in which the Earth is sentient must surely differ in some observable ways from a universe in which is it not. Imagine what those differences might be, then make the observations.

Quote:

That they should not be taken as fact does not mean that they should be discarded as fiction

Quote:

Once again there is a third option: assume the null hypothesis, but be open to the possibility that you might one day be given a good reason to reject it.

The third option of being open to the possibility of rejecting the null hypothesis while assuming it to be true does allow for considering the idea of a sentient Earth and its implications for the world. This approach recognizes that current evidence does not support the idea, but allows for the possibility of new evidence or information that could change this understanding in the future. In this way, one can still contemplate and consider different ideas, while maintaining a scientific and evidence-based approach to understanding the world.

Assuming the null hypothesis means that, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the default assumption is that the Earth is not sentient. However, this does not mean that one cannot contemplate or consider the idea of a sentient Earth or its potential implications for the world. In fact, exploring different ideas and possibilities, even if they are not supported by current evidence, can often lead to new insights and avenues for future investigation. However, it is important to keep in mind that such ideas should not be taken as fact until there is sufficient evidence to support them.

[Pixel42]

You know, you should really put all the stuff you're getting from that chatbot in quote boxes.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Navigator

The third option of being open to the possibility of rejecting the null hypothesis while assuming it to be true does allow for considering the idea of a sentient Earth and its implications for the world. This approach recognizes that current evidence does not support the idea, but allows for the possibility of new evidence or information that could change this understanding in the future. In this way, one can still contemplate and consider different ideas, while maintaining a scientific and evidence-based approach to understanding the world.

[Navigator]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Or, conversely, it could be a useless distraction that takes our attention away from any chance of solving real problems by the use of science and logic.

Many things could do this. What thoughts do you have on solving real problems, or what distractions do you involve your time with, which might prevent thought solving real problems?

The idea re the OP appears to be that we should include the idea of sentient earth alongside any thoughts on solving real problems

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

You know, you should really put all the stuff you're getting from that chatbot in quote boxes.

An interesting observation. Perhaps start a thread on it, explaining more fully why one should do so.

Meantime, do you have anything to say in support of or against what I have posted?

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by LarryS

cool response but non sequitur

Nope... it is sequitur to your argument about science not yet fully explaining consciousness... much like not long ago people had no idea what caused lightning...

It is an argument for this...

[LarryS]

my clain is true, I did not suggest any 'therefore God' - - thus the non sequitur

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by LarryS

my clain is true, I did not suggest any 'therefore God' - - thus the non sequitur

If not speaking about yourself perhaps... nevertheless you did indeed suggest the sequitur...

Originally Posted by LarryS

. . until we return to the topic of this thread - consciousness\sentience - where science as of yet has little to say. The prevailing thinking is that consciousness\sentience emerges from specific organizations of matter, yet there is no understanding of how this emergence occurs.
So, we end up with fancies like a conscious Earth and downloading consciousness into chips, etc.
The above is not a criticism of science, just a declaration of where we are.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Navigator

...
The idea re the OP appears to be that we should include the idea of sentient earth alongside any thoughts on solving real problems

Do you think we should also do special pleading and rationalization and wishful thinking and unfalsifiable baseless assertions for Quetzalcoatl too???

Note: FIVE fallacies in one paragraph... wow... must be a record!!!

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Many things could do this. What thoughts do you have on solving real problems, or what distractions do you involve your time with, which might prevent thought solving real problems?

The idea re the OP appears to be that we should include the idea of sentient earth alongside any thoughts on solving real problems

Why?
You yourself cannot come up with any way to detect how we would even detect if the earth were sentient at all.

And yet you claim we should include some undetectable entity with inscrutable goals that are impossible to determine into our problem solving?

At the moment you have nothing more than some vague fantasy that doesn't even approach philosophy, let alone natural science and thus you'd be introducing an unsolvable problem into any attempt to find a solution.

To examplify. Science seems to say that eating less meat would help in dealing with our climate problems. But what does sentient earth want? Does it want us to obligate carnivores and if we do it will cool down? Or would it want us to go fully vegan? Or does it want us to live exclusively on licorice?
Sorry, we don't know, so lets shelve this problem until we know what the possibly existing sentient earth might communicate with us, provided it even cares?

How is this helping solve problems?