What if the Earth is conscious?

[Moreno]

Atomic interaction is not a representation of conscious self-awareness, or even conscious awareness.
There's no mystery into why magnetism works, and it doesn't work because there's a conscious awareness between objects.

Can we demonstrate that consciousness is causal anywhere. Wouldn't any action by a person be just vastly complex interactions of molecules? And cannot all effects be explained by these supposedly unaware gestalts?

That would be akin to asserting that water moves around a rock because they have a lovely chat over tea and decide that it would be best for both parties if the water would simply move around the rock rather than breaking it open and passing through.

But this cuts the other way just as hard.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

Atomic interaction is not a representation of conscious self-awareness, or even conscious awareness.
There's no mystery into why magnetism works, and it doesn't work because there's a conscious awareness between objects.
That would be akin to asserting that water moves around a rock because they have a lovely chat over tea and decide that it would be best for both parties if the water would simply move around the rock rather than breaking it open and passing through.

I think we all get this, Jayson. We live in the same world as you, using basically the same consciousness you use.

But then comes in the mystics, er, ah, the Quantum Physicists. And suddenly we have a world of "infinite possibilities."

Truth is we don't know why atoms do what they do. The subatomic world and below is ineffable to us. We don't know why they form into what they form into. Why do they form the consciousness/awareness reading these words?

And we don't even know what the consciousness reading these words is. That's a bottomless debate.

So conscious atoms? We don't know for sure. It may appear, on this level, that the water and rock have only an encounter but not an exchange. But what's happening at the string level between the water and rock? We don't know. There exists there a world of infinite possibilities. In the long run the rock becomes the water, or tumbles around in it, like small dust particles. Exchanges happen between rock and water. Even on this level.

Could be possible that the reason the awareness reading this exists is because at bottom Atoms are conscious.

In the end it's a glorious mystery ... right up there with god. And just as fantastical. The stuff of myths.

[dan25]

[/quote]
Well something goes on between iron and magnetism. They lovy each other.[/quote]
I'm not sure, at all, what you mean.
Are you being serious, or 'taking the piss'?[/quote]
I'm merely pointing out that atoms interact ... with some kind of awareness ... like iron and a magnet.

And jokingly saying because they are attracted to each other that "they lovy each other."[/quote]
''....with some kind of awareness....''
What makes you think there has to be ANY KIND OF AWARENESS???
Shit goes on that we currently cant explain; it may be helpful to think of earth as a huge, single organism, like Felix said (i think it was felix, anyhow); this does not mean that inert matter is aware of anything, in any way.
There is NO EVIDENCE that awareness exists in matter, traditionally thought of as being 'non-living'........ Like, for example, a lump of iron.

[Jayson]

Can we demonstrate that consciousness is causal anywhere.

I don't understand this sentence. Can you rephrase the question for my understanding, please?

Wouldn't any action by a person be just vastly complex interactions of molecules? And cannot all effects be explained by these supposedly unaware gestalts?

To say that any action by a person is just a vastly complex interaction of molecules is radically understating the situation.
This is akin to stating that a plane is just a vastly complex interaction of metal and electricity, so therefore asking why we shouldn't look at a junkyard struck by lightening as possibly being capable of flying.

I could take all of the matter inside of a person, tear them apart atomically and then reassemble them in a different order while still having every last atom as before, and I would not arrive at consciousness.
I would arrive at, most likely, a blob of some atomic mass.

If the atomic world has taught us nothing else, then it has at least taught us that it is not the constituents that are of systemic importance, nor the sum of the constituents, but instead the exact arrangement of the constituents that make the differences.

Take, for example, all of our neurological malformations - such as temporal lobe epilepsy.
Temporal lobe epilepsy occurs because the arrangement of the constituents are different than the normal brain formation; specifically in relation to a hyper-trafficked (my term there) feed of information perceived by the sense through the amygdala causing a vital increase in the emotional value of all information incoming.

Again with a similar, but more crude, example: smash a human head with a hammer and you can immediately see the arrangement altered and consequently causing a fallout of consciousness.

That would be akin to asserting that water moves around a rock because they have a lovely chat over tea and decide that it would be best for both parties if the water would simply move around the rock rather than breaking it open and passing through.

But this cuts the other way just as hard.

No, as I was not resting on this point.
This was showing that consciousness takes interest in some fashion of taste and preference that is not universally consistent.

For example, if the electron is conscious, then electrons are the most successfully fascist and uniformed self-willing consciousness' observed.

Or, if the constituents' sum total is the only point, then we have no reason for having faith in a red traffic light as if the universe is capable of having atomic consciousness in some unknown total, then we cannot trust any inanimate object to function without some apparent arbitrary self will of interest over its own governance and direction in existence.
Meaning, we could hardly trust that the red light is a red light as the universe could have a consciousness that has altered the color spectrum partway to us.
That light may very well be green and we are being lied to by the will of some conscious layer of the universe due to its motive of willful interest.

The reason we, as humans, hold truth (even if we debate the matter) as subjective is exactly because we biologically have subjective taste and willful preference.

If the universe ran in such a manner, we would be incapable of existing as we do - we would have never come into being as there would be no standard basis in which to supply the opportunity for a subjective awareness to evolve upon as there would be no era in which reliability of the environment was concrete enough for a brain to capture and hold one instance of something as normal and another instance of it as not normal, create subjective responses to it for self preservation, and then from this eventually evolve neurological networks capable of supporting dynamic awareness of self-awareness.

[Jayson]

But then comes in the mystics, er, ah, the Quantum Physicists. And suddenly we have a world of "infinite possibilities."

This is one of the largest myth creations of QM.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is not a solution for what exists literally.
It's a solution for calculating probabilities of determining speed or location of objects so small that our observation of them can only see the overall speed in detectors at varying locations, or we can isolate its exact location through a process that has to look at such an incredibly tiny expanse of space that we cannot actually know the speed since our supply of distance is incredibly far too limited to test such an event at the same time.
A man who runs two hundred thousand meters per minute can be tracked as moving this fast with two measures at different intervals of his running path.
However, if we want to know his exact position at one point in time, then we have to take a picture of the man with an incredibly fast camera.
The picture we get will not tell us his speed, as everything in the picture will be in stand-still.

The other QM anomaly is that the probability matrix's for quantifying position have within them probabilities which state other possible locations; it is from this that we arrive at the proposition of in and out existence "popping".
The existence isn't literally doing this; the math is so to solve the problem.
It is not terribly different than rabbit hunting and using a dog to rush out the rabbit.
Because the rabbit may be anywhere in the bushes, does not mean the rabbit is actually popping to all possible bush existences. Instead, the probabilities are such; not the actual.
Once the dog rushes the bushes, we have removed an extent of possibilities as the rabbit runs around and disrupts the bushes in which it resides.
Some of the possibilities, at this point, collapse for the rabbit's location.
Eventually we have weeded out the rabbit and have isolated the rabbit's actual location.

At no point did the rabbit exist in multiple universes for the hunt to occur.

Truth is we don't know why atoms do what they do. The subatomic world and below is ineffable to us. We don't know why they form into what they form into. Why do they form the consciousness/awareness reading these words?

This does not mean that we do not know what is required for consciousness to exist.
We may not know the whole of what is required, but we know the least of what is required.
And we know this reasonably well, otherwise we would not be able to debate over the consciousness standing of chimpanzees and orangutans (which are self-aware, but we are debating exactly how it differs from ours).

And we don't even know what the consciousness reading these words is. That's a bottomless debate.

This hardly provides validity for conscious particles.
We don't know the bottom because there really isn't a "consciousness neuron".
There is no "bottom". This is something that neurology is now adjusting to, actually, and largely has started looking at consciousness as the arrangement of otherwise benign constituents that can be - in some fashion - found in many forms.
Worms have neurons, for example; but the do not produce conscious awareness because they lack an articulate arrangement of a complex enough system of neurons to produce such.

So conscious atoms? We don't know for sure. It may appear, on this level, that the water and rock have only an encounter but not an exchange. But what's happening at the string level between the water and rock? We don't know. There exists there a world of infinite possibilities. In the long run the rock becomes the water, or tumbles around in it, like small dust particles. Exchanges happen between rock and water. Even on this level.

Don't talk to me about string theory.
I only have one statement for string theory's ridiculousness (which the Higgs boson really removes the need for anyway):
If string theory is correct and if the gravitation that we have is the tail end of the gravitational force coming from other dimensions, and if it is a field, and if that field moves in waves, and if there is nearly empty space between masses (these are all string theory assertions), then why isn't a larger mass's strength of pull lessening just for a moment and then taking hold strong again of the lesser object?
In short, why isn't a satellite mass visibly bouncing in its orbit?

Could be possible that the reason the awareness reading this exists is because at bottom Atoms are conscious.

It could be possible that the 'bottom atoms' of a plane are flight atoms and that's actually why planes fly, not because of any design of a wing.

If we are going to attribute consciousness to atomic levels, or particle levels, then we are forced to examine the possibility of all qualities of networked arrangements as being provided individually from the smallest part ('bottom atom', as you called it).

In the end it's a glorious mystery ... right up there with god. And just as fantastical. The stuff of myths.

Consciousness is not a mystery in what consciousness at least requires.
We're not confused on that.
If we were, we wouldn't be performing surgical operations.

What we don't know is how exactly our highly complicated consciousness arrives from the neurological network that we have.
We know much of that story, but have much left still to learn...however, we do actually have much of that question outlined.

We can, for instance, state how we recognize faces, how we "know" who someone is (determine that they are who they assert to be), or how we create "blind spots" in our vision.

None of these about conscious awareness are possible without knowing some of how our specific 'aware of self-awareness' consciousness works to some level.

We (as a species) are not absent any comprehension of the matter involved.
Neurology is not "string theory".

We do not diagnose brain retardation on a theory of atomic consciousness absenteeism due to vibrational out-phasing of dimensional existences of quarks.
That is not what perplexes neurology about our form of consciousness.

[Moreno]

I don't understand this sentence. Can you rephrase the question for my understanding, please?

It seemed implicit in what you were saying that we see humans, who have consciousness, as making choices. But for all we know it is an epiphenomenon. How do we demonstrate that consciousness is causal?

Wouldn't any action by a person be just vastly complex interactions of molecules? And cannot all effects be explained by these supposedly unaware gestalts?

To say that any action by a person is just a vastly complex interaction of molecules is radically understating the situation.
This is akin to stating that a plane is just a vastly complex interaction of metal and electricity, so therefore asking why we shouldn't look at a junkyard struck by lightening as possibly being capable of flying.

No this isn't fair at all. I am not saying that some set of similar randomly mixed materials can do what a human can do. I am responding to your skepticism about particles making choices by pointing out that our 'choices' are simply a hell of a lot of those particles. Where does choice arise?

If the atomic world has taught us nothing else, then it has at least taught us that it is not the constituents that are of systemic importance, nor the sum of the constituents, but instead the exact arrangement of the constituents that make the differences.

In relation to a wide variety of functions, sure, but in terms of choice and consciousness, we do not know.

No, as I was not resting on this point.
This was showing that consciousness takes interest in some fashion of taste and preference that is not universally consistent.

For example, if the electron is conscious, then electrons are the most successfully fascist and uniformed self-willing consciousness' observed.

This is assuming that consciousness allows for choices. I don't see any reason so far to assume this. Further electrons are not so fascist, they are a set of probabilities, or are sort of mostly here, but also somewhat over there. They aren't not even, most of the time, committed to location.

We may seem less fascist because we have so many particles in us. Even the minimally complex set of pachinko balls move around in a variety of patterns.

Or, if the constituents' sum total is the only point, then we have no reason for having faith in a red traffic light as if the universe is capable of having atomic consciousness in some unknown total, then we cannot trust any inanimate object to function without some apparent arbitrary self will of interest over its own governance and direction in existence.
Meaning, we could hardly trust that the red light is a red light as the universe could have a consciousness that has altered the color spectrum partway to us.
That light may very well be green and we are being lied to by the will of some conscious layer of the universe due to its motive of willful interest.

Again this is coupling consciousness with choice. They could have consciousness without choice. They could have choices in a very narrow range that take place over huge periods of time, from our perspective. I don't know.

The reason we, as humans, hold truth (even if we debate the matter) as subjective is exactly because we biologically have subjective taste and willful preference.

See above, but also 'preference' need have nothing to do with choice, we are simply impelled, with a concomittant quale of 'I wanted that and so I went for it'.

If the universe ran in such a manner, we would be incapable of existing as we do - we would have never come into being as there would be no standard basis in which to supply the opportunity for a subjective awareness to evolve upon as there would be no era in which reliability of the environment was concrete enough for a brain to capture and hold one instance of something as normal and another instance of it as not normal, create subjective responses to it for self preservation, and then from this eventually evolve neurological networks capable of supporting dynamic awareness of self-awareness.

And again, this is coupling something like free will to consciousness and also viewing a pantheist universe of choice as having some degree of speed and flexibility it need not have. Perhaps given the complexity of our make we can veer in a wider variety of vectors, and so on down via other animals and then plants, less and less directions are possible and or choices take longer to manifest.

There is no reason to assume that consciousness entails choice, freedom.
And there is no reason to assume that freedom is always as fast and as various for all things.

[Jayson]

Moreno, your entire post is essentially, "Where does choice occur?"
We do have a bead on where choice occurs neurologically, but aside from this (as it is an incomplete assessment as we are still digging), we do know a minimum of what is required.
That has been my main point.

We may not know exact locations of event horizons, but we also do not need to just to understand if there is consciousness in a quark.
We do not need to because we do know what is required for a choice to be possible: it requires a neuronal network with a complexity which contains, not only certain types of neurons, but also certain formational networks of neuronal interactions.

We are not looking at neurology as functioning by process of quark arrangement.
That is not the minimum requirements.

Simply because we do not know everything about our consciousness does not supply validity for the possibility that consciousness may occur from any abstraction of our consideration.
It does not because we do know some things about our consciousness.

Back before, I mentioned that we do have a bead on choice; to elaborate, we can track the precognitive neurological pathways in which indicate which binary choice will be made in simple dichotic selections.
This does not nail down a single object as, "choice thing".
There is likely no such object, as I said before.
What neurology is finding, and replicating in fact, is that the arrangement of the neuronal networks is what produces these events.

The key factor in all of this has been neuronal networks, not atomic networks.
Yes, everything is made of atoms, but this is hardly the network layer of interest here.
Atoms are to neurons as the plastic compound of legos is to a constructed lego castle.

The arrangement of the legos is what provides the outcome of the castle, not the arrangement of plastic compounds within the legos.

Yes, without the plastic compound of legos, the legos themselves would not be possible, but it is not the plastic compound with which we replicate to accomplish the castle as one could do this and arrive at the wrong output - easily.

We can (and have) build neuronal networks in petri dishes and use them as quantifying brains of robotic systems (thank you MIT).

We do know enough about the neuronal network to understand what at least must exist, even if we don't understand exactly where in that network the exact constituent participants of every event of choice takes place.


Now, if we are redefining consciousness to be void of choice and instead simply defining it as a state of being capable of being reactively affected by exterior stimuli, then I have nothing to offer the conversation as the terms would have been so cardinally redefined into vagueness that an entire scope of what consciousness is in observation would be cardinally ignored and unaccounted for.

-----
In regards to the electron, as a side note.
The statement was made because even at their volatility (of which there is a range), they are by absolutely no comparison to the subjective nature of human consciousness (or even animal consciousness).
We cannot chart predicatively, even with the most advanced mathematics, how an animal or human will behave in predictive capacity of their consciousness anywhere near the layer of certainty with which we can do with electrons.

And if we want to argue whether we can do so with electrons or not, simply take note that everything used currently to type on this forum relies on a predictive and controllable state of electron behavior in massive volume simply not possible in animals and humans.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

The reason we, as humans, hold truth (even if we debate the matter) as subjective is exactly because we biologically have subjective taste and willful preference.

If the universe ran in such a manner, we would be incapable of existing as we do - we would have never come into being as there would be no standard basis in which to supply the opportunity for a subjective awareness to evolve upon as there would be no era in which reliability of the environment was concrete enough for a brain to capture and hold one instance of something as normal and another instance of it as not normal, create subjective responses to it for self preservation, and then from this eventually evolve neurological networks capable of supporting dynamic awareness of self-awareness.

I'm going with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin on this one, that the earth is evolving ever greater consciousness. He called the Nooshpere long before the world wide web.

"Teilhard makes sense of the universe by its evolutionary process. He interprets complexity as the axis of evolution of matter into a geosphere, a biosphere, into consciousness (in man,) and then to supreme consciousness (the Omega Point.)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin#Teachings

[Jayson]

That doesn't help anything. It's a nice ontological view with positive benefits, but it doesn't supply validity to the claim that particles have consciousness.

[kk23wong]

Atomic interaction is not a representation of conscious self-awareness, or even conscious awareness.
There's no mystery into why magnetism works, and it doesn't work because there's a conscious awareness between objects.
That would be akin to asserting that water moves around a rock because they have a lovely chat over tea and decide that it would be best for both parties if the water would simply move around the rock rather than breaking it open and passing through.

Gravity doesn't work because of a meeting of minds either; neither does air pressure.
Lightening doesn't seek out to strike targets in a murderous rampage; waterfalls don't fall because water molecules are failing at bungee jumping; volcanoes don't explode because the ground has a pimple that it wanted to pop; and pimples don't form because there was a party called out for bacteria to attend on your ritzy skin.


The model at the beginning of the thread regarding the similarity between a cell and the planet should not be shocking.
Firstly, not all planets have the same internal arrangement as our planet does; but even the concept of cores and middle layers and exterior layers, and atmospheres...this should not be shocking to compare to a cell.
It shouldn't because that's the basic outline of an atomic layering.

Figuratively speaking: the universe doesn't like things to exist.
Despite all apparent efforts, however, some crap has achieved existence.
Yet, due to the pressure to not exist, things tend to take shape in a form that is trapped on all sides, and piling up layers of resistance in relation to their constituents as best as physically efficient at the time of arrangement (which may or may not be the best that could be attained overall).

Essentially, things that exist huddle and they pile more into their huddle or they fling apart in some manner akin to a loaded mouse trap; most things are some arrangement between these two extremes.
Some things are at one extreme or the other.

If anything about the atom is intelligent, then it is pretty much the most neurologically retarded "intelligence" to date.



This all being said, it does not mean that we should think of particles as unaffected objects that haven't any real meaning of relationship with human consciousness.
Easily they do simply because we can create a relationship with anything that we want to, and allow that to shape our interaction with that, or those, thing(s).

So seeing the Earth as conscious isn't errant ontologically; if anything, it is perfectly natural and probably beneficial in some ways.


In the end, I would personally probably just rephrase the statement as, "What if we relate to the Earth as if it were conscious?", rather than, "What if the Earth is conscious?"

As the direct answer to the latter is that if the Earth is conscious (containing a brain), then we should be able to measure some wave of a reading as independent of any external force.
That doesn't appear to exist.

What I am really referring to, the Conscious Earth, is not a creator that designed natural rules, law of physics, but a presence which was being created as our world exists. It is a presence that long here from the very beginning of human history till now.

Human are too arrogant that we can surely see through everything and reach the final conclusion that we can find a group or one creator who designed and produced our world. There is something before that and it is stopping us from further learning about our world. The Conscious Earth is such a presence.

Conscious Earth is a hidden manipulator that linked to everyone of us. She manipulated our world from the past up to now and created various religions.
Religions are the result of both the Conscious Earth and human being. Religions are exactly the evidences for her presence. The interactions between the Conscious Earth and our ancestor have created religions.

I look upon Conscious Earth as the truth behind our world. A hidden manipulator that was being created from the very beginning with the single-cell organisms. It is difficult for us to move forward to the discussion of many philosophical questions if we have missed her presence. It is a missing puzzle in academia.

Things you put forward here, like the laws of physics, magnetism and gravity, have no offenses with the Conscious Earth since it is a supreme being without violating any natural rules. For all these beautiful mathematics, we cannot deny the presence of one or a group of creators who produced our world. However, their presence may not enable themselves to get into our universe. We have missed one important thing before getting into the final question of the origin of the universe. That is the Conscious Earth. A manipulator created religions in our history. We miss one puzzle which make all philosophical debates useless. For example, someone asked "we have god, why there are still evil?" The God they referring to is the creator, but the one who really have influence over our world is the Conscious Earth. She have constraints too. Our desires and Free Will are the basic factors account for the evil. I am not saying the Conscious Earth is "all good", but she remains neutral in many conflicts and does not have many of our desires.

The Conscious Earth is the truth behind our world which worth discussing. The use of comparisons between the cell and the Earth is revealing the similarities of their designs. It does not necessarily mean that the cell is conscious too. Their designs show the probability that the Earth is conscious.

Teru Wong

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

I look upon Conscious Earth as the truth behind our world.
Teru Wong

I sure like the conscious earth notion. A conscious earth would be so precious. And because 'she's' conscious she would adjust or customize herself to my needs. When I plant a garden, for example, she would adapt to best grow the plants ... and such like that.

I live in the country, where there's more nature than humans. I enjoy getting my hands in the dirt ... and feeling it under my bare feet. My source of heat in the winter is wood. I cut up big fallen Oak trees, and Hickory trees, bring it home and split it into fire wood with a maul.

And you'd think if the earth is conscious, with all my relating to the earth, we'd have developed a relationship of consciousness, at least similar to relationships with known consciousnesses.

But while I'll admit that I've come to treat the earth like Tom Hanks treated the "Wilson" Volleyball in the movie Cast Away -- I personify her ... even cursing a rose bush that reach's out and grabs me, like it can hear me -- I also have to admit that the earth and I haven't developed a relationship of consciousness.

It appears to me that the earth, if anything, is indifferent. I think that a star could smash the earth into smithereens and the earth wouldn't even flinch ... cuz it's not conscious ... or doesn't show it at all ... which is the same thing ... cuz consciousness, if anything, shows itself.

So in the end a conscious earth is just a highfalutin romantic notion from the figments department of the brain. But then again, maybe we'll one day discover a "conscious earth gene."

[dan25]

Atomic interaction is not a representation of conscious self-awareness, or even conscious awareness.
There's no mystery into why magnetism works, and it doesn't work because there's a conscious awareness between objects.
That would be akin to asserting that water moves around a rock because they have a lovely chat over tea and decide that it would be best for both parties if the water would simply move around the rock rather than breaking it open and passing through.

Gravity doesn't work because of a meeting of minds either; neither does air pressure.
Lightening doesn't seek out to strike targets in a murderous rampage; waterfalls don't fall because water molecules are failing at bungee jumping; volcanoes don't explode because the ground has a pimple that it wanted to pop; and pimples don't form because there was a party called out for bacteria to attend on your ritzy skin.


The model at the beginning of the thread regarding the similarity between a cell and the planet should not be shocking.
Firstly, not all planets have the same internal arrangement as our planet does; but even the concept of cores and middle layers and exterior layers, and atmospheres...this should not be shocking to compare to a cell.
It shouldn't because that's the basic outline of an atomic layering.

Figuratively speaking: the universe doesn't like things to exist.
Despite all apparent efforts, however, some crap has achieved existence.
Yet, due to the pressure to not exist, things tend to take shape in a form that is trapped on all sides, and piling up layers of resistance in relation to their constituents as best as physically efficient at the time of arrangement (which may or may not be the best that could be attained overall).

Essentially, things that exist huddle and they pile more into their huddle or they fling apart in some manner akin to a loaded mouse trap; most things are some arrangement between these two extremes.
Some things are at one extreme or the other.

If anything about the atom is intelligent, then it is pretty much the most neurologically retarded "intelligence" to date.



This all being said, it does not mean that we should think of particles as unaffected objects that haven't any real meaning of relationship with human consciousness.
Easily they do simply because we can create a relationship with anything that we want to, and allow that to shape our interaction with that, or those, thing(s).

So seeing the Earth as conscious isn't errant ontologically; if anything, it is perfectly natural and probably beneficial in some ways.


In the end, I would personally probably just rephrase the statement as, "What if we relate to the Earth as if it were conscious?", rather than, "What if the Earth is conscious?"

As the direct answer to the latter is that if the Earth is conscious (containing a brain), then we should be able to measure some wave of a reading as independent of any external force.
That doesn't appear to exist.

What I am really referring to, the Conscious Earth, is not a creator that designed natural rules, law of physics, but a presence which was being created as our world exists. It is a presence that long here from the very beginning of human history till now.

Human are too arrogant that we can surely see through everything and reach the final conclusion that we can find a group or one creator who designed and produced our world. There is something before that and it is stopping us from further learning about our world. The Conscious Earth is such a presence.

Conscious Earth is a hidden manipulator that linked to everyone of us. She manipulated our world from the past up to now and created various religions.
Religions are the result of both the Conscious Earth and human being. Religions are exactly the evidences for her presence. The interactions between the Conscious Earth and our ancestor have created religions.

I look upon Conscious Earth as the truth behind our world. A hidden manipulator that was being created from the very beginning with the single-cell organisms. It is difficult for us to move forward to the discussion of many philosophical questions if we have missed her presence. It is a missing puzzle in academia.

Things you put forward here, like the laws of physics, magnetism and gravity, have no offenses with the Conscious Earth since it is a supreme being without violating any natural rules. For all these beautiful mathematics, we cannot deny the presence of one or a group of creators who produced our world. However, their presence may not enable themselves to get into our universe. We have missed one important thing before getting into the final question of the origin of the universe. That is the Conscious Earth. A manipulator created religions in our history. We miss one puzzle which make all philosophical debates useless. For example, someone asked "we have god, why there are still evil?" The God they referring to is the creator, but the one who really have influence over our world is the Conscious Earth. She have constraints too. Our desires and Free Will are the basic factors account for the evil. I am not saying the Conscious Earth is "all good", but she remains neutral in many conflicts and does not have many of our desires.

The Conscious Earth is the truth behind our world which worth discussing. The use of comparisons between the cell and the Earth is revealing the similarities of their designs. It does not necessarily mean that the cell is conscious too. Their designs show the probability that the Earth is conscious.

Teru Wong

How do the similarities between the 'design' of earth, and the 'design' of a living cell "show the probability that the earth is conscious"??

[Jayson]

Again, I do not think it is a bad ontological view; if anything it is beneficial in creating reverence to the Earth and how we interact with it; which is something our modern western industrial society has largely lost contact with.

Regarding the proposition as literal, I don't really want to continue pursuing the line of whether it is literally true or not.
It falls upon the same tangent as attempting to prove and disprove whether or not any given god exists; meaning, it's not really plausible for me to disprove the assertion in final form as the proposition itself is empirically impossible to prove as existing to begin with.

However, as a share of my perspective on one thing that you wrote, kk23wong:

Religions are exactly the evidences for her presence.

To me, religions are the evidence of human empathetic relationships that are consequent of the neurological framework which causes an "identity" to be created for tangible grasp of a "thing" (object, concept, person, place, etc...) by proxy of "mirror neurons", the fusiform gyrus, and temporal lobe exchange with value placement through the amygdala in sub-cognitive associative processing.

This, however, does not mean that I see this as a cold and emotionless sequence of events.
To the exact opposite, to me, this is equal in value reverentially as an experience of prayer with a holy figure(s) is to the given adherent.

[felix dakat]

Again, I do not think it is a bad ontological view; if anything it is beneficial in creating reverence to the Earth and how we interact with it; which is something our modern western industrial society has largely lost contact with.

Regarding the proposition as literal, I don't really want to continue pursuing the line of whether it is literally true or not.
It falls upon the same tangent as attempting to prove and disprove whether or not any given god exists; meaning, it's not really plausible for me to disprove the assertion in final form as the proposition itself is empirically impossible to prove as existing to begin with.

However, as a share of my perspective on one thing that you wrote, kk23wong:

Religions are exactly the evidences for her presence.

To me, religions are the evidence of human empathetic relationships that are consequent of the neurological framework which causes an "identity" to be created for tangible grasp of a "thing" (object, concept, person, place, etc...) by proxy of "mirror neurons", the fusiform gyrus, and temporal lobe exchange with value placement through the amygdala in sub-cognitive associative processing.

This, however, does not mean that I see this as a cold and emotionless sequence of events.
To the exact opposite, to me, this is equal in value reverentially as an experience of prayer with a holy figure(s) is to the given adherent.

But what if we judge the validity of this religion on the basis of it's ability to symbolize our ultimate concern? How does kk23wong's religion stack up on that criteria? Does it evoke an experience of the divine or numinous? I find it puzzling myself.

[Jayson]

Like I said, it is a wonderful ontological proposition.
It is one that I think I would appreciate being believed in over others by adherents, easily.
Simply if for no other reason than because it provides a reverence for something which quite tangibly exists; the planet which we live upon, the area in which people reside.

In my view, this is capable of producing far better societal benefits in psychological outlooks and interactions progressively in society than an admiration of a dissociated place that provides the bestowment of escaping into negligence of our home.

[felix dakat]

I guess it depends on what kk23wong does about his belief. I mean if he kisses the ground three times a day but doesn't recycle, it isn't doing any good. if he recycles--good, but he isn't doing anything that special. Talking to the earth is questionable. Contributing to organizations that work to save environment is helpful but doesn't require belief in earth sentience. So, what practical difference does it make?

[Jayson]

In one individual, I can't measure that.
But if an entire society believed in some fashion of construct similar to common religions today, then it would be beneficial.
Placing the planet as a believed sentience of some form and revering it would radically change the entire social and philosophical structure of our society if it were the dominant form of belief.

[Moreno]

I guess it depends on what kk23wong does about his belief. I mean if he kisses the ground three times a day but doesn't recycle, it isn't doing any good. if he recycles--good, but he isn't doing anything that special. Talking to the earth is questionable. Contributing to organizations that work to save environment is helpful but doesn't require belief in earth sentience. So, what practical difference does it make?

If it is an organism then the difference might be similar to the difference two parents would have with their child. One single parent does the right things but feels nothing for the child. This parent does the right things out of obligation, including smiling and praising, along with feeding etc. The other parent loves the child and has the empathy that most parents feel for the child. Obviously if the latter parent does not feed the child this love means little. But if both parents feed the child, the former one is still likely to suffer a lot of psychological damage. And this is all staying with causal relations already confirmed by science. I think there are other causal effects of respect, love, care, etc., but I'll keep my goals conservative here.

(in the example of the earth, one would also likely affect other human's attitudes more if one is cooking with love, so to speak)

[Noblerust]

Ain't this like the George Carlin routine where he suggests humans are on earth just because the earth wants plastic?

If humans are part of nature and nature is sentient, then maybe we really are supposed to mine up uranium, drill for oil, burn it all and have a big grand nuclear war to create what the earth wants and wipe the slate on the planet clean again, this time, with plastic!

Science says the center of the earth is a molten (but utterly solid due to pressure) ball of iron. It creates the magnetic field by it's outer mantle rotating across it. S o we kinda know there isn't a hollow cave full of devils or whatever down there.

That said, maybe there is some higher power setting the course for humanity. Like a computer simulation let run on for some specific goal, or a kid spinning a top. It goes about without direct interaction so the initiator can see what happens.

[Abstract]

What if the Earth is conscious and playing the role of the God, taking advantage of its own physical presence?
For all of us, it is invisible because we are living inside this supreme being. Therefore, it is hard to find out the presence of this subject.
However, the breakthroughs in microbiology allow us to have a clue of how the whole mechanism work through the comparisons with the basic unit of lives -- that is the mother cell.
The structure of the Earth are layers and it is a sphere. The mechanism does not come from none. "Nothing will come out of nothing."
The Earth herself is actually a higher level of lives, which is capable of manipulating us.
We usually think of "one" God, but we may have missed one more level -- the planet herself.
The planet also being created unconsciously. Similar to us, everyone was born to be.
The physical presence of the God -- a manipulator rule that we long refer to as God -- is actually the Conscious Earth.
Long ago, we found that the Earth has gravity and found out that it is a sphere. Nowadays, we are making progress to talk about the possibilities that the Earth herself is conscious.
"The Conscious Earth" manipulates the world through taking advantage of her gifted power from birth.

We compare the structure of the Earth and the mother cell in the diagram below.



With reference to the above diagram, human beings as well as the biosphere are accordingly the life cycles of this supreme being. It also includes the reproduction. It means that the presence of the brain decided we are the offspring of this supreme being or not. Hence, all others are living tissues of this supreme being.

Besides, the hydrosphere and the atmosphere are the cytoplasm. We are polluting it and shall have nowhere to go after polluting it. Our natural role is the life cycles of this planet. The distances between each living planet are barrier to keep us away from other forms of living. Then space migration is impossible. It keeps our natural role i.e. life cycles of the Earth. We can use the empty planets nearby as a cross reference.

The point to put forward Conscious Earth is to end all religious debates. The Conscious Earth is using divide and rule strategy to rule over the world.
She has created boundaries of the country and different religions. It is not only the outcome of different geographical locations. The Conscious Earth is also responsible for driving all of us.

Conscious Earth is a new direction and is seemingly the root of all the legends. The physical differences between the Conscious Earth and us created religions. Some refer it as ghosts. Others prefer to name it as God. The real answer is that we are the life cycles of the Earth and must come to an end with it. "Life has a start. There must be an end." The Conscious Earth is also a desperate truth. It is also the reason why the Conscious Earth use a divide and rule policy. The natural mechanism avoids us from reaching the real presence of the Conscious Earth -- the Core. It can only stay as a possibility.

What do you think? I think it make more sense then any religions.

Teru Wong

If you can belive this then isn't possible that the universe as a whole is some thinking thing as well that perhaps we can call God?

[Abstract]

129189627511989662.jpg (21.44 KiB) Viewed 791 times

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

If you can belive this then isn't possible that the universe as a whole is some thinking thing as well that perhaps we can call God?

We can fantasize just about anything ... and do ... it's fun ... like pretending in a sandbox ,,,,

[Moreno]

If you can belive this then isn't possible that the universe as a whole is some thinking thing as well that perhaps we can call God?

We can fantasize just about anything ... and do ... it's fun ... like pretending in a sandbox ,,,,

For a long time scientists considered it fantasy to think animals had emotions, intentions and other subjective phenomena. In fact saying otherwise, in professional contexts, could actually damage your career. We often think of delusions as being positive, imagining things are real that are not there, but something they are just the opposite.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

If you can belive this then isn't possible that the universe as a whole is some thinking thing as well that perhaps we can call God?

We can fantasize just about anything ... and do ... it's fun ... like pretending in a sandbox ,,,,

For a long time scientists considered it fantasy to think animals had emotions, intentions and other subjective phenomena. In fact saying otherwise, in professional contexts, could actually damage your career. We often think of delusions as being positive, imagining things are real that are not there, but something they are just the opposite.

Even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then ... same with our fantasies ...

[kk23wong]

It is not only a comparison with the structure, but there are also some rules. For instance, our natural role is the life cycles of the Earth. Then we have no ways to escape from the end of this life cycle. The empty planets nearby are actually the proofs. Mars is a good example. Recently, the new Mars space mission told us that there are evidence that river can be found on it. I believe more evidence will come out that lives must once exist on Mars. This empty planet tells us about our future. Everyone will die. It does not mean no hope. Life is a process and its meanings vary from one person to another. The civilization we established must come to an end but its end does not justify its means. I think our civilizations and our history are already full of meanings inside. It worth to be existed.

Furthermore, the Conscious Earth can solve many mysteries such as the establishment of religions and the rise of psychology. Religions are valuable heritages from both the God (the Conscious Earth) and our ancestors. Meanwhile, psychology is a subject full of mistakes. They tried their best to find a reason (i.e. an illness) to explain something they don't know much about. The mysterious voices actually come from the manipulation of the God (the Conscious Earth). This is the ultimate truth behind our world. The manipulations from the God has never stopped from the very beginning of human history. The existence of the Conscious Earth is the only reason account for the establishment of religions and the rise of psychology. I believe some people knows the truth but they don't know how to express it. The comparisons between the mother cell and the Earth are a good start.

Teru Wong