• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

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

I was being sarcastic. Its not a cognitive bias to reject ideas for which there is no evidence.

Of course ideas as thought experiments can be interesting as things to train the mind or even just for fun, but that is no need to consider them at all possible.
 
This is part of the problem. Some folk have low expectations and opinions about what being Human requires.

Being human only requires one thing, to be born human. I am curious as to what you are referring to when you say "this is part of the problem". Part of what problem?
 
I was being sarcastic.

Your misunderstanding is noted.

The whole point of this satirical thought experiment is to showcase the cognitive bias of the fabricated scientists.

Its not a cognitive bias to reject ideas for which there is no evidence.

Is that a claim or simply an unsupported opinion?

Of course ideas as thought experiments can be interesting as things to train the mind or even just for fun, but that is no need to consider them at all possible.

The whole point of this thought experiment IS to consider it as possible. It is possible that the Earth houses a sentient consciousness...to not consider such as possible, is to reject the thought experiment from the go-get.
To reject the possibility, one has to engage with the cognitive bias which helps prevent one from engaging with the thought experiment.
 
Being human only requires one thing, to be born human.

Is this a claim or simply unsupported opinion?

I am curious as to what you are referring to when you say "this is part of the problem". Part of what problem?


P1: Expectations and opinions have nothing to with what it requires to be human.

P2: This is part of the problem. Some folk have low expectations and opinions about what being Human requires.

P1: Huh?

P2: It means that the following phrases;


Who knew that both human beings and intelligent machines are both subject to universal constants in information processing such as 'Garbage in, Garbage out'?

Just when you thought human civilization couldn't get any further up its own ass, it invents software to help automate the process.

Expectations and opinions have nothing to with what it requires to be human.

P2: ...are based upon misinformation which have tuned into false ideas as to what Humans are and what Humans can do with where Humans are and what humans may be able to achieve.

Re topic at hand, it can be assumed that there are scientists who would also have similar contemptuous views of humanity, and reject any notion that the planet could be sentient.

Even so, the topic is a valid one.
 
I know many people who profess wholeheartedly that Earth is sentient, conscious, and intelligent. Some of them also hypothesize that intelligence caused or permitted humans to evolve because it was tired of ice ages and needed a way to unlock the buried fossil carbon from earlier epochs to warm the planet, which we've proven highly proficient at doing.

This illustrates one of the problems with putting the idea of a sentient Earth to any practical use. Accepting for the sake of argument that the entire planet is sentient, would you then intend to try to outthink that intelligence, by somehow figuring out "what it wants" and acting accordingly, or somehow figuring out "what it plans" and at least acting to get out of its way in our own interests? Given that we ourselves are an active component of that intelligence, is it not best served by continuing to act according to our own natures and intentions instead?
 
I know many people who profess wholeheartedly that Earth is sentient, conscious, and intelligent. Some of them also hypothesize that intelligence caused or permitted humans to evolve because it was tired of ice ages and needed a way to unlock the buried fossil carbon from earlier epochs to warm the planet, which we've proven highly proficient at doing.

This illustrates one of the problems with putting the idea of a sentient Earth to any practical use. Accepting for the sake of argument that the entire planet is sentient, would you then intend to try to outthink that intelligence, by somehow figuring out "what it wants" and acting accordingly, or somehow figuring out "what it plans" and at least acting to get out of its way in our own interests? Given that we ourselves are an active component of that intelligence, is it not best served by continuing to act according to our own natures and intentions instead?

Yes. If humans could take the collective data of experience and superimpose a sentient mind of the planet onto that data, one might possibly have a better understanding of ones role in the whole process, and - where necessary - adjust to support said role.

It is possible that much leeway is given by the Sentient Planet Entity re Human Personalities and their choices, even if those choices might be detrimental to said Personalities, the information the Sentience could gain from that, would help it to tweak Human Personalities, causing them to proceed in a particular direction

Uploading data into the minds of said Personalities who are under the impression that their thoughts are something they alone created, would allow for the Sentient Planet Mind to covertly inject its agenda into the mix, as "discoveries" are made and inventions are created as a result of said uploads - or "ideas" as the unsuspecting would call them.
 
Yes. If humans could take the collective data of experience and superimpose a sentient mind of the planet onto that data, one might possibly have a better understanding of ones role in the whole process, and - where necessary - adjust to support said role.

It is possible that much leeway is given by the Sentient Planet Entity re Human Personalities and their choices, even if those choices might be detrimental to said Personalities, the information the Sentience could gain from that, would help it to tweak Human Personalities, causing them to proceed in a particular direction

Uploading data into the minds of said Personalities who are under the impression that their thoughts are something they alone created, would allow for the Sentient Planet Mind to covertly inject its agenda into the mix, as "discoveries" are made and inventions are created as a result of said uploads - or "ideas" as the unsuspecting would call them.


Sure, and if the SPE decided that humanity had fallen into a sinful state due to disobedience to an "uploaded" rule against eating some particular thing, the SPE might later decide to "upload" itself into a "personality" that incarnated both humanity and the SPE, who then by being sacrificially killed would redeem all humans who believed this narrative. I mean, if you want to take speculation to ridiculous lengths, and/or rewrite religious narratives using crude word substitution.

I don't want to do any of that, though. I accepted for the sake of argument that Earth is a sentient entity, but you've gone and added many more unlikely speculations to that. Including:

- That the sentient Earth is consciously aware of the existence of humans or any other individual species. AI programs are not required to have any knowledge of the registers of the hardware on which they run, in order to function. Humans were sentient for uncounted millennia before being aware of the existence of entities like neurons and erythrocytes supporting that sentience.

- That if the sentient Earth were aware of the existence of humans, she would have any interest in interacting directly with humans collectively or individually. Do you choose individual neurons in your own brain to give messages to about how to better manage your thoughts or your body's well-being?

- That communication between a sentient Earth and humans is within the capabilities of both entities. For all we know the perception of time by a fully sentient Earth might be such as to produce a thought once a century; how would communication work then? By what physical medium would the SPE transmit an "upload" to a human mind or personality or genome? Are we making both parties telepathic now, which is yet another layer of wild speculation?
 
Sure, and if the SPE decided that humanity had fallen into a sinful state due to disobedience to an "uploaded" rule against eating some particular thing, the SPE might later decide to "upload" itself into a "personality" that incarnated both humanity and the SPE, who then by being sacrificially killed would redeem all humans who believed this narrative. I mean, if you want to take speculation to ridiculous lengths, and/or rewrite religious narratives using crude word substitution.

More to my point, religion/religious belief et al, would be more akin to tampering with the uploads - distorting understanding through introduction of mythology unaligned with nature. Such as referring to the Earth Entity as a demon and the idea of a sentient planet mind as paganism.

An understanding of this process in line with the thought experiment could allow the potential for individuals to be free of such distortion.


That the sentient Earth is consciously aware of the existence of humans or any other individual species. AI programs are not required to have any knowledge of the registers of the hardware on which they run, in order to function. Humans were sentient for uncounted millennia before being aware of the existence of entities like neurons and erythrocytes supporting that sentience.

Given the evidence re the reports folk share about their alternate experiences, there is conscious and intelligent interaction. Such experiences may indeed take place within the mind of SPE, and even be central to the purpose of growing personalities through a temporary biological process.

That if the sentient Earth were aware of the existence of humans, she would have any interest in interacting directly with humans collectively or individually.

This is acceptable since She did not get us from any other source...so we have to be an aspect of who She is. All her conscious critters must come from that same source.

Do you choose individual neurons in your own brain to give messages to about how to better manage your thoughts or your body's well-being?

Not consciously, but that may be the process which is going on - so we can identify where such interest might arise and the "better manage one's thoughts and well being" is part of the thought experiment re better aligning with nature.
The idea is an interesting one and could provide a framework for understanding the conditions necessary for a technologically advanced civilization to survive.

In part the SPE could in fact be influencing what unfolds and using humans to achieve her own goals...inspiring Scientists with ideas that they think derive from their own minds...while at the same time allowing them to use the knowledge in less appropriate ways, even if that eventually caused the demise of humanity...

That communication between a sentient Earth and humans is within the capabilities of both entities. For all we know the perception of time by a fully sentient Earth might be such as to produce a thought once a century;

And for all we know, that same thought may be so vast that it would take a century to think it all out - transmit it to the collective humanity through inspiring various minds to have ideas and build mechanisms which eventually allow for humans on opposite sides of the planet to engage in communication, such as what we are doing now, through the mechanism which allows for this to actually happen.

how would communication work then? By what physical medium would the SPE transmit an "upload" to a human mind or personality or genome?

Inspiration et al, re the mind of the individual personality. The brain being the medium/device in which this is made possible.

Are we making both parties telepathic now, which is yet another layer of wild speculation?

It is not so much 'wild speculation' as it is natural - a natural aspect of a system understood possible through the premise of the thought experiment.

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.

Believing that the planet is a sentient entity, could make the difference between success and failure and in that, scientist have to believe in the idea enough that they would then factor it into their use of science in helping to correct the problems that science practice - devoid of said belief - have helped to cause
 
Quoting kooks like Sheldrake undermines, rather than supports, any argument.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

I should have added "wait for it..." at the end of that post.

Anyway Pixel - is that a claim or just an unsupported opinion?

Is Sheldrake a kook because he entertains the thought experiment discussed in this thread, or for some other - undisclosed - reasoning?
 
Last edited:
Anyway Pixel - is that a claim or just an unsupported opinion?
Neither. It's a supported opinion.

Is Sheldrake a kook because he entertains the thought experiment discussed in this thread, or for some other - undisclosed - reasoning?

The support for the opinion that he is a kook is summarised in the linked article.
 
More to my point, religion/religious belief et al, would be more akin to tampering with the uploads - distorting understanding through introduction of mythology unaligned with nature. Such as referring to the Earth Entity as a demon and the idea of a sentient planet mind as paganism.

An understanding of this process in line with the thought experiment could allow the potential for individuals to be free of such distortion.




Given the evidence re the reports folk share about their alternate experiences, there is conscious and intelligent interaction. Such experiences may indeed take place within the mind of SPE, and even be central to the purpose of growing personalities through a temporary biological process.



This is acceptable since She did not get us from any other source...so we have to be an aspect of who She is. All her conscious critters must come from that same source.



Not consciously, but that may be the process which is going on - so we can identify where such interest might arise and the "better manage one's thoughts and well being" is part of the thought experiment re better aligning with nature.
The idea is an interesting one and could provide a framework for understanding the conditions necessary for a technologically advanced civilization to survive.

In part the SPE could in fact be influencing what unfolds and using humans to achieve her own goals...inspiring Scientists with ideas that they think derive from their own minds...while at the same time allowing them to use the knowledge in less appropriate ways, even if that eventually caused the demise of humanity...



And for all we know, that same thought may be so vast that it would take a century to think it all out - transmit it to the collective humanity through inspiring various minds to have ideas and build mechanisms which eventually allow for humans on opposite sides of the planet to engage in communication, such as what we are doing now, through the mechanism which allows for this to actually happen.



Inspiration et al, re the mind of the individual personality. The brain being the medium/device in which this is made possible.



It is not so much 'wild speculation' as it is natural - a natural aspect of a system understood possible through the premise of the thought experiment.


Having speculated that the planet might be sentient, you then immediately give that sentience the exact characteristics and abilities conventionally attributed to gods. Including an inexplicable interest in humans in particular (a minuscule portion of Earth's biomass), and the ability to manipulate human actions and "inspire" individuals or groups and/or entering into mental communion with them by essentially telepathic means.

Like many other prophets and priests, you're also suggesting that the divine being's existence is actually a philosophical necessity for explaining our experiences. You've even thrown in a condemnation of other religions whose beliefs might contradict or obfuscate your proposed true one and thus lead us into error!

Numerous religions and systems of spirituality that venerate Earth as a sentient divine being already exist, of course. Have you looked into them? In what way are you clarifying or improving upon them?

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.

Believing that the planet is a sentient entity, could make the difference between success and failure and in that, scientist have to believe in the idea enough that they would then factor it into their use of science in helping to correct the problems that science practice - devoid of said belief - have helped to cause


I'm sure you're aware that this is a known fallacy, "appeal to consequences." If everyone believed X, we'd all be better off. (X could be "the planet is sentient" or it could be "your leaders are wise and good and will fix everything if you support them unquestioningly" or it could be "if you behave you'll be rewarded in the afterlife.") But is X actually true? Or does that not matter, it's good enough if you can trick the sheeple into believing X anyhow for their own happiness?
 
Opinion supported by other opinions then...
No, a supported opinion is an opinion supported by evidence.

There is no summery section in the article linked.

The article is a brief summary of the 40 years worth of evidence which supports the opinion.

We can go into more detail if you wish. Sheldrake was one of my earliest introductions to this particular type of nonsense, I swallowed it whole in my gullible youth. Fortunately I eventually acquired the critical thinking skills which enabled me to see it for what it was.
 
Having speculated that the planet might be sentient, you then immediately give that sentience the exact characteristics and abilities conventionally attributed to gods.

That is a natural progression considering that the planet has at least some of the attributes required to be called a "God".

Including an inexplicable interest in humans in particular (a minuscule portion of Earth's biomass), and the ability to manipulate human actions and "inspire" individuals or groups and/or entering into mental communion with them by essentially telepathic means.

Yes. It is plausible. If the planet has a mind, and if we come from the planet and also have minds, that conclusion can be explored in more detail.

Like many other prophets and priests, you're also suggesting that the divine being's existence is actually a philosophical necessity for explaining our experiences.

No, The Thought Experiment itself argues that it would be necessary, and since we have experiences as individual personalities, these can be explained readily enough re the Thought Experiment...

You've even thrown in a condemnation of other religions whose beliefs might contradict or obfuscate your proposed true one and thus lead us into error!

I see no supporting evidence of that being the case. Perhaps you can quote me and we can clear up any misinformation re that.

Numerous religions and systems of spirituality that venerate Earth as a sentient divine being already exist, of course. Have you looked into them? In what way are you clarifying or improving upon them?

I am aware of Panentheism. I have already pointed out that the thought experiment involves that type of thinking.
______________________


P1: I'm sure you're aware that this is a known fallacy, "appeal to consequences." If everyone believed X, we'd all be better off. (X could be "the planet is sentient" or it could be "your leaders are wise and good and will fix everything if you support them unquestioningly" or it could be "if you behave you'll be rewarded in the afterlife.") But is X actually true? Or does that not matter, it's good enough if you can trick the sheeple into believing X anyhow for their own happiness?

P2: The thought experiment is focused on the science and science is focused on revealing any 'tricks' and if scientists consider this thought experiment to be in the 'tricks' department, and of no value in helping to find ways of fixing the problems they have helped create - and the problem of climate change is real, then they need to show why the so-called 'tirck' would be detrimental to helping with that fix.
_______________________________
Navigator: [to AIChat...]Re the above, please give feedback

OAI: P1: The statement is correct that the "appeal to consequences" is a known fallacy, which means that an argument is not valid simply because it leads to desirable consequences. It is important to consider the evidence and logic behind an argument, rather than just accepting it because it aligns with one's beliefs or desires. In this case, the question of whether the planet is sentient or not should be evaluated based on scientific evidence and logical reasoning, rather than just accepting it because it may lead to desirable outcomes.

P2: Your second point is also valid, that the thought experiment should be evaluated based on its scientific merit and not just its potential benefits. Scientists should critically evaluate the evidence and reasoning behind the idea of "planetary intelligence" and consider whether it aligns with current scientific understanding and can contribute to solving the problems caused by human activities. If they find the idea to be lacking in scientific merit, they should explain why and how other approaches may be more effective in addressing the issue of climate change and other environmental problems.
 
No, a supported opinion is an opinion supported by evidence.



The article is a brief summary of the 40 years worth of evidence which supports the opinion.

We can go into more detail if you wish. Sheldrake was one of my earliest introductions to this particular type of nonsense, I swallowed it whole in my gullible youth. Fortunately I eventually acquired the critical thinking skills which enabled me to see it for what it was.

Well to keep it in topic, the video linked to Sheldrake has to do with the notion of sentience in planets and stars et al, which is very much in line with this thread and the thought experiment as subject matter.

Perhaps we can randomly select a time point in the video and critical think about what Sheldrake is offering, together?
 
Well to keep it in topic, the video linked to Sheldrake has to do with the notion of sentience in planets and stars et al, which is very much in line with this thread and the thought experiment as subject matter.

Perhaps we can randomly select a time point in the video and critical think about what Sheldrake is offering, together?

Reluctant as I am to waste any more of my life on his meanderings, OK. Not just now, though, I'm watching the final episode of The Singing Detective. Perhaps tomorrow.
 
Sheldrake sounds like a variation of the ancient pagan/Gnostic belief in a Demiurge. In this case, the Demiurge didn't create the Earth, the Demiurge is Earth itself.

That suggests that all humans are part of the creation of the Demiurge, pieces of matter serving a function no different to any other species on earth or any complex phenomenon like weather and climate. And if humanity isn't playing the appropriate part, the Earth will eventually respond. Someone suggested that Global Warming is a response similar to what happens when a person gets a virus: fever is the body's way of burning out the virus.

On the Earth itself having a purpose: Douglas Adams had a similar concept in Hitchhiker's Guide: the Earth and all its creatures including humanity was created to run a program to solve a problem.
 
That is a natural progression considering that the planet has at least some of the attributes required to be called a "God".


Yes. It is plausible. If the planet has a mind, and if we come from the planet and also have minds, that conclusion can be explored in more detail.


The problem with such "exploration" is that it's just inventing stories. That's why the very first thing I commented on was mystics who believe in a sentient Earth and interpret humans burning fossil fuels, to liberate locked-up carbon and warm the planet, as Earth's intended role for humans. In that story, Earth wants global climate change and there's no reason not to continue obliging.

Of course, other stories make different points using different imagery, depicting warming as a fever that human activities have inflicted upon Earth, against Earth's wishes, and to respect Earth we should do our best to cease liberating fossil carbon and reverse the process.

The Sentient Earth hypothesis equally supports both stories, which point to opposite evaluations of courses of action. Kind of like when armies on opposite sides of a battle have mutually contradictory stories about whose side God is on.


I see no supporting evidence of that being the case. Perhaps you can quote me and we can clear up any misinformation re that.

Here you go:

More to my point, religion/religious belief et al, would be more akin to tampering with the uploads - distorting understanding through introduction of mythology unaligned with nature. Such as referring to the Earth Entity as a demon and the idea of a sentient planet mind as paganism.


"Tampering with the uploads" through "introduction of [false] mythology" is the same idea as e.g. Satan deceiving God's children into wrong beliefs (such as, perhaps, that they should worship an Earth Entity that's really Satan in disguise). "Their religion's false narratives distort the true message of my religion" is something just about every religion claims, and yours falls right in line.

I am aware of Panentheism. I have already pointed out that the thought experiment involves that type of thinking.


Pantheism, that's a little vague, a categorization of a type of religion rather than any specific one. My question is, are you aware of any of the specific ones (few of them fully pantheistic though most are polytheistic)? For instance Wicca, druidism, many different Native American religions, paganism, many native African religions, traditional Slavic and Baltic religions, the Yoni tradition in Hindu, aspects of Shinto, ancient Celtic, the list goes on. I'm sure you've heard of Gaia and Terra but are you acquainted with Mama Pacha, Cybele, Houtu, Prithvi Mata, Maka-akan, Papahānaumoku, Mokosh, Sif, Žemyna, Cel, Dana, Aku...?

The point is, this is not a new idea. There are and have been Earth-worshipping people throughout history and throughout the globe. But those religions have not predominated. In the ongoing competition for "hearts and minds" other faiths have so far prevailed. If Sentient Earth actually has godlike powers, why is that? Is it because other more powerful deities also exist, and they claim precedence?
 
Last edited:
So go on with your thought experiment already, Navigator.

Ok, sentient, conscious Gaia. Done, assumed.

Any further assumptions now? Like Myriad says, spell it out, explicitly, clearly.

And next, take it to the next step, to where you wish to go with this. So far you seem to simply have made the assumption, and then bask in the wonder of it. Don't forget it's only a (wild, unsupported) assumption, a thought experiment. We're waiting for what comes next now, for the point of this whole exercise.

(No, I haven't read the link/s. If you've nothing to add, beyond the link, then would you paraphrase in short the gist of it? Else go on with your own exposition: I'm curious about what all of this is about.)
 
The Sentient Earth idea seems to be pure speculation, a castle in the air with no foundation in reality. The hypothesis is not just unsupported it is unnecessary, an explanation without a single objective fact or observation which it is needed to explain.

I woke up early so I started to watch the Sheldrake video. Jose Silva and Rhine. Stopped watching it. Life's too short. By all means, Navigator, point me to any part of it for which the above is not an accurate description.
 
Thinking about it further, the anecdote with which Sheldrake chooses to starts his video talk is a textbook example of what is fundamentally wrong with this sort of guff. There is nothing at all remarkable in a bright girl correctly anticipating questions her father is going to ask her about the books they are reading together. The only surprising thing about the story is that her father immediately lept to the conclusion that telepathy was the only possible explanation, and the only thing that can reasonably be concluded is that his education was hopelessly inadequate.

Having formed this totally unwarranted but easily tested hypothesis did Silva then bother to test it? Of course he didn't, and I'm willing to bet Sheldrake has never done so either. Silva just went straight ahead and based a bonkers self help movement on it, and Sheldrake decided it was something he wanted to believe and happily endorses it without any attempt at verification.

Only in a society which is rife with willful ignorance and magical thinking could any of this have happened.

From the wiki article on the Silva method, this is what the original founder of this forum had to say about it:

James Randi said:
The Silva Method claims to develop improved memory, learning ability, and paranormal powers like telepathy. Much of the course consists of "visiting" absent persons imagined by students and performing diagnoses on them. No tests of the validity of this practice have been done; such tests are discouraged by the teachers of the system.
 
My guess is he's attempting to justify his belief that the meaning he imagines he finds in randomly generated text is really there. See his other thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=357787


That thread was ...remarkable! (I only went through the first and last pages of it, and just glanced through the rest. You seem to have devised a system for testing his idea objectively, which is cool. Though OP doesn't seem to have taken you up on it --- unsurprisingly, I suppose.)

I don't see, though, how this thought expriment might have any connection to that ...very remarkable, idea. But then I don't suppose you do either! Nor anyone else other than the OP. Perhaps he'll tell us himself what he means by this thought experiment, and how he links it to his alphabet-number-sums, or whatever else he's going for here.


eta: Just subscribed to that other thread. It'll be cool to see if he does take up your suggestion about the testing protocol thing, and if so how that might turn out. The whole thing has a flavor not unlike those MDC threads from the JREF days, that you don't see any more around here.
 
Last edited:
I don't see, though, how this thought expriment might have any connection to that ..

Well if the meaning he imagines he's seeing in random text was real there would have to be something putting it there, my guess is this "sentient earth" is the imagined source.
 
Reluctant as I am to waste any more of my life on his meanderings, OK. Not just now, though, I'm watching the final episode of The Singing Detective. Perhaps tomorrow.

There is no hurry. I respect that you appear willing to invest some time in following up the suggestion Pixel.

I don't specifically want the thread to meander away from the topic and focus on Sheldrakes views [which you claim are 'kooky'] and my original post linking the video has since been removed to the 'abandon all hope' section...but the video is specific to this thread subject re the notion of a mindful planet - Sheldrake simple extends that notion into the idea of a sentient universe...

The notion of a sentient planet earth may indeed seem 'kooky', but is it really?
 
Sheldrake sounds like a variation of the ancient pagan/Gnostic belief in a Demiurge. In this case, the Demiurge didn't create the Earth, the Demiurge is Earth itself.

That suggests that all humans are part of the creation of the Demiurge, pieces of matter serving a function no different to any other species on earth or any complex phenomenon like weather and climate. And if humanity isn't playing the appropriate part, the Earth will eventually respond. Someone suggested that Global Warming is a response similar to what happens when a person gets a virus: fever is the body's way of burning out the virus.

On the Earth itself having a purpose: Douglas Adams had a similar concept in Hitchhiker's Guide: the Earth and all its creatures including humanity was created to run a program to solve a problem.


Yes.
There is a lot to unpack.
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...
 
The problem with such "exploration" is that it's just inventing stories. That's why the very first thing I commented on was mystics who believe in a sentient Earth and interpret humans burning fossil fuels, to liberate locked-up carbon and warm the planet, as Earth's intended role for humans. In that story, Earth wants global climate change and there's no reason not to continue obliging.

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...

Of course, other stories make different points using different imagery, depicting warming as a fever that human activities have inflicted upon Earth, against Earth's wishes, and to respect Earth we should do our best to cease liberating fossil carbon and reverse the process.


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 Sentient Earth hypothesis equally supports both stories, which point to opposite evaluations of courses of action. Kind of like when armies on opposite sides of a battle have mutually contradictory stories about whose side God is on.

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.

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.

You've even thrown in a condemnation of other religions whose beliefs might contradict or obfuscate your proposed true one and thus lead us into error!
I see no supporting evidence of that being the case. Perhaps you can quote me and we can clear up any misinformation re that.

Here you go:

More to my point, religion/religious belief et al, would be more akin to tampering with the uploads - distorting understanding through introduction of mythology unaligned with nature. Such as referring to the Earth Entity as a demon and the idea of a sentient planet mind as paganism.

"Tampering with the uploads" through "introduction of [false] mythology" is the same idea as e.g. Satan deceiving God's children into wrong beliefs (such as, perhaps, that they should worship an Earth Entity that's really Satan in disguise). "Their religion's false narratives distort the true message of my religion" is something just about every religion claims, and yours falls right in line.

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

Pantheism, that's a little vague, a categorization of a type of religion rather than any specific one. My question is, are you aware of any of the specific ones (few of them fully pantheistic though most are polytheistic)? For instance Wicca, druidism, many different Native American religions, paganism, many native African religions, traditional Slavic and Baltic religions, the Yoni tradition in Hindu, aspects of Shinto, ancient Celtic, the list goes on. I'm sure you've heard of Gaia and Terra but are you acquainted with Mama Pacha, Cybele, Houtu, Prithvi Mata, Maka-akan, Papahānaumoku, Mokosh, Sif, Žemyna, Cel, Dana, Aku...?

The point is, this is not a new idea. There are and have been Earth-worshipping people throughout history and throughout the globe. But those religions have not predominated. In the ongoing competition for "hearts and minds" other faiths have so far prevailed. If Sentient Earth actually has godlike powers, why is that? Is it because other more powerful deities also exist, and they claim precedence?
.

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.
 
So go on with your thought experiment already, Navigator.

Ok, sentient, conscious Gaia. Done, assumed.

Any further assumptions now? Like Myriad says, spell it out, explicitly, clearly.

And next, take it to the next step, to where you wish to go with this. So far you seem to simply have made the assumption, and then bask in the wonder of it. Don't forget it's only a (wild, unsupported) assumption, a thought experiment. We're waiting for what comes next now, for the point of this whole exercise.

(No, I haven't read the link/s. If you've nothing to add, beyond the link, then would you paraphrase in short the gist of it? Else go on with your own exposition: I'm curious about what all of this is about.)

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, which could lead to a greater focus on sustainability and the long-term health of the planet, rather than just short-term gains or immediate benefits.
 
The Sentient Earth idea seems to be pure speculation, a castle in the air with no foundation in reality.

You mean floating around unrealistically? The Planet being spoken of, appears to be doing just that.

TH7cWeT.png


I woke up early so I started to watch the Sheldrake video. Jose Silva and Rhine. Stopped watching it. Life's too short. By all means, Navigator, point me to any part of it for which the above is not an accurate description.

That is fine by me Pixel. The post with Sheldrakes video link has been removed from this thread anyway.

I skeptically think the idea has merit and is worth the time investigating and you think it is kooky and have better things to do with your time.
 
That thread was ...remarkable! (I only went through the first and last pages of it, and just glanced through the rest. You seem to have devised a system for testing his idea objectively, which is cool. Though OP doesn't seem to have taken you up on it --- unsurprisingly, I suppose.)

I haven't gone back to that thread since I last posted there, so am not aware of the further developments you mention.


I don't see, though, how this thought expriment might have any connection to that ...very remarkable, idea. But then I don't suppose you do either! Nor anyone else other than the OP. Perhaps he'll tell us himself what he means by this thought experiment, and how he links it to his alphabet-number-sums, or whatever else he's going for here.

This thread is connected to the subject of the other GM thread, but approaching the idea of overarching sentience from a different perspective - one in which I don't have to include the subject of GMs. I was satisfied that I could go no further in the GM thread, which is why I haven't been back there.
I was actually just going to wait until the GM mentioned it [since I use that system practically every morning], and see that as a prompt to then go and have a look...that is why I have the link as a line entry on my main Journal List...

eta: Just subscribed to that other thread. It'll be cool to see if he does take up your suggestion about the testing protocol thing, and if so how that might turn out. The whole thing has a flavor not unlike those MDC threads from the JREF days, that you don't see any more around here.


Thanks for the heads up. I may still wait until GM prompts me though...unless there is some hurry to do so? I am happy with putting my time on this site, into this thread at present.
 
There is no hurry. I respect that you appear willing to invest some time in following up the suggestion Pixel.

I don't specifically want the thread to meander away from the topic and focus on Sheldrakes views [which you claim are 'kooky'] and my original post linking the video has since been removed to the 'abandon all hope' section...but the video is specific to this thread subject re the notion of a mindful planet - Sheldrake simple extends that notion into the idea of a sentient universe...

The notion of a sentient planet earth may indeed seem 'kooky', but is it really?

It was Sheldrake I described as kooky. If you're trying to get sceptics to take an idea seriously, then quoting kooks is probably not the best way to go about it.

Kooks can be entertaining and kooky ideas can be fun to explore, it's just not a good idea to take either seriously.

I'd say an idea is kooky if it (a) has no objective evidence to support it and (b) explains nothing that cannot be more easily explained without it. So I would certainly consider the idea of a sentient earth kooky. That doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it, by all means lets speculate away, just don't forget that what we're discussing is a potential fantasy novel rather than a potential 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, which could lead to a greater focus on sustainability and the long-term health of the planet, rather than just short-term gains or immediate benefits.


Sure, if we believed the Gaia thing, if we believed that Earth as a whole were a sentient ...creature, then it's likely that how we'd conduct ourselves might be different than now, agreed. I mean, obviously ---- even as how exactly our conduct will differ, that will depend, and is less cut and dried than you seem to imagine, but whatever.

But where's your "thought experiment" taking us? What are you trying to find out, or to show?

-------

If we believe extravagant things, then how we conduct ourselves might well change, for better or for worse. That goes without saying. But I'm afraid I still don't see the point of your thought experiment.


-------
eta: If, as Pixel42 suggests, and you suggest as well, in your subsequent post addressed to me, this is linked to the number-alphabet thing, then I'm afraid the connection is totally lost to me. That is, both ideas are completely exptravagant and entirely unsupported --- but even if, in the spirit of your thought experiment, we did assume the Gaia thing, I still don't see, at all, how that links to that number-alphabet thing. Perhaps you could spell that out some more?
 
Last edited:
Well if the meaning he imagines he's seeing in random text was real there would have to be something putting it there, my guess is this "sentient earth" is the imagined source.

Keep it local I say. If the Earth is sentient, and we minds related to that also being sentient, the apparent randomness is explainable in the context of this thread topic.

The GMs themselves tell there own story, but there is little point in me trying to show this as being the possible case, when I cannot publish my daily GMs hereabouts, because what is there to argue, when the evidence I can argue with, is disallowed?

This is not a complaint, mind you. Which is why I find it so easy to abandon trying, re the other thread and move on to other ways of saying the same thing differently.

The apparent test you set up does pique my curiosity a tad, but not so much that I want to rush off immediately and take a peek...no need to hurry. I will get there in the end...

So no - any more discussion of the GM process is of no interest to me re this thread about Musing on the idea of Sentient Earth re the problems of the world ...
 
That is fine by me Pixel. The post with Sheldrakes video link has been removed from this thread anyway.
When a post that breaks the membership agreement is moved to AAH replies to it are usually moved there as well, I'm pretty sure that's the only reason that post was moved. If there's something in the video that's on topic there's no reason we can't discuss it.
 
Sure, if we believed the Gaia thing, if we believed that Earth as a whole were a sentient ...creature, then it's likely that how we'd conduct ourselves might be different than now, agreed. I mean, obviously ---- even as how exactly our conduct will differ, that will depend, and is less cut and dried than you seem to imagine, but whatever.

But where's your "thought experiment" taking us? What are you trying to find out, or to show?

-------

If we believe extravagant things, then how we conduct ourselves might well change, for better or for worse. That goes without saying. But I'm afraid I still don't see the point of your thought experiment.

The idea isn't change 'for better or for worse" re the thread subject. Rather it is "to better from worse"...

You appear to have doubts but haven't said what these a based upon? What 'worse' do you think could happen should you believe that the earth is sentient?
 
When a post that breaks the membership agreement is moved to AAH replies to it are usually moved there as well, I'm pretty sure that's the only reason that post was moved. If there's something in the video that's on topic there's no reason we can't discuss it.

Sure. But there is every reason why it shouldn't be discussed here in this thread, as a new thread has been made for it to be discussed there, if we want to do so.
 
The idea isn't change 'for better or for worse" re the thread subject. Rather it is "to better from worse"...

You appear to have doubts but haven't said what these a based upon? What 'worse' do you think could happen should you believe that the earth is sentient?


We could discuss that, sure, what exactly might be the fallout if people were to actually believe in Gaia. But isn't that kind of a sidebar, a tangent?

For now we've gone along and agreed to provisionally assume, for the sake of your thought experiment, that the Earth is sentient. What next? Where does that lead us, your experiment? That's the part I don't get, and was hoping you'd explain.
 
Keep it local I say. If the Earth is sentient, and we minds related to that also being sentient, the apparent randomness is explainable in the context of this thread topic.
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.

The GMs themselves tell there own story, but there is little point in me trying to show this as being the possible case, when I cannot publish my daily GMs hereabouts, because what is there to argue, when the evidence I can argue with, is disallowed?
The GMs themselves are evidence of nothing, for the reasons explained to you at length in the other thread.

The apparent test you set up does pique my curiosity a tad, but not so much that I want to rush off immediately and take a peek...no need to hurry. I will get there in the end...
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.
 

Back
Top Bottom