What if the Earth is conscious?

[felix dakat]

I'm not sure why, in a philosophy forum, if someone presents a hypothesis, even if it's metaphysical in nature...why it is so hard for people who do not want to entertain the hypothesis to just.....can you guess??

THAT'S RIGHT!!

Not respond!! I'm a veteran of a different variety of forums, and I think the OP presented an interesting concept, so instead of attacking the guy, and calling his thoughts bullshit, why can't people just move on to another thread and not comment? It seems like people get off on attacking and belitting others here for existing out on the fringe.

The scientists that had the balls to pursue radical and strange ideas ended up being pioneers for humanity and it's advancement in concepts, so what is the big deal with what this guy had to say? Seems counter-intuitive to me to attack the poor dude.

What if it was holocaust denying, and saying the Jews invented it? Would it still be "cute" and "hip"? Should we humour him then and enjoy his "diversity" of thought? Is that how we should operate, just let any old shit fly?

No. Present arguments against what you disagree with. Just calling other people's ideas stupid won't cut it here.

[Darklordabc]

Simply calling ideas stupid does not shoot them down. You have to make actual arguments.

Yes, and if this idea wasn't so stupid, I might bother refuting it. But if anybody is confused enough to even believe this crap for a second, then its likely they are not open to reason in the first place. All you can do in that case is laugh in their face.

[felix dakat]

Simply calling ideas stupid does not shoot them down. You have to make actual arguments.

Yes, and if this idea wasn't so stupid, I might bother refuting it. But if anybody is confused enough to even believe this crap for a second, then its likely they are not open to reason in the first place. All you can do in that case is laugh in their face.

If that's the case then it should be easy to refute instead of appealing to emotions as you have been doing so far.

[Darklordabc]

If that's the case then it should be easy to refute instead of appealing to emotions as you have been doing so far.

I'm not going to bother refuting such an obviously wrong idea. You can waste your time if you want.

[felix dakat]

If that's the case then it should be easy to refute instead of appealing to emotions as you have been doing so far.

I'm not going to bother refuting such an obviously wrong idea. You can waste your time if you want.

Or perhaps you can't refute it and that's why you prefer to denigrate it instead. I'm not interested in the OP question. I'm interested in seeing if you can back up your ideas with logical arguments.

[Darklordabc]

Or perhaps you can't refute it and that's why you prefer to denigrate it instead. I'm not interested in the OP question. I'm interested in seeing if you can back up your ideas with logical arguments.

Yeah, thats right, I can't refute the idea that the planet is some kind of living god, its just too clever of an idea.

[felix dakat]

Or perhaps you can't refute it and that's why you prefer to denigrate it instead. I'm not interested in the OP question. I'm interested in seeing if you can back up your ideas with logical arguments.

Yeah, thats right, I can't refute the idea that the planet is some kind of living god, its just too clever of an idea.

Retreating to sarcasm, doesn't make your case. According to Wikipedia, the Gaia hypothesis, also known as Gaia theory or Gaia principle, proposes that organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a self-regulating, complex system that contributes to maintaining the conditions for life on the planet. Topics of interest include how the biosphere and the evolution of life forms affect the stability of global temperature, ocean salinity, oxygen in the atmosphere and other environmental variables that affect the habitability of Earth.

The hypothesis was formulated by the scientist James Lovelock and co-developed by the microbiologist Lynn Margulis in the 1970s. While early versions of the hypothesis were criticized for being teleological and contradicting principles of natural selection, later refinements have resulted in ideas highlighted by the Gaia Hypothesis being used in disciplines such as geophysiology, Earth system science, biogeochemistry, systems ecology, and climate science. How is OP thesis different than the Gaia principle?

[Darklordabc]

The hypothesis was formulated by the scientist James Lovelock and co-developed by the microbiologist Lynn Margulis in the 1970s. While early versions of the hypothesis were criticized for being teleological and contradicting principles of natural selection, later refinements have resulted in ideas highlighted by the Gaia Hypothesis being used in disciplines such as geophysiology, Earth system science, biogeochemistry, systems ecology, and climate science. How is OP thesis different than the Gaia principle?

Are you still talking to me? Because I never said it was different from the Gaia principle. Althought, if thats what the Gaia principle is, then its just as stupid.

[Stoic Guardian]

Beautiful argument, circular logic.

I don't believe cause it's stupid I won't refute it because it's not worth my time (though insulting it with no argument apparently is worth your time), I won't answer it cause it's stupid, stupid stupid stupid, crap crap crap....

[kk23wong]

Or perhaps you can't refute it and that's why you prefer to denigrate it instead. I'm not interested in the OP question. I'm interested in seeing if you can back up your ideas with logical arguments.

Yeah, thats right, I can't refute the idea that the planet is some kind of living god, its just too clever of an idea.

It supposes to be a supreme being without violating any natural rules.

It is no doubt that someone created our world intentionally. With all that beautiful mathematics everywhere, I assume that a creator must exist.
The real question lay on the one who contacted with some of us, creating different legends and religions. The one really manipulated our world is actually a supreme being.
It is not really surprising that the Earth is conscious, compare to other theories and hypotheses.
Once upon a time, people said others are fool to say that the Earth is round (a sphere). They shut up after we found gravity.
Now it is another breakthrough that someone starts to argue the Earth is conscious. We're making progress.

Teru Wong

[dan25]

[/quote]
Well said! This forum is full of IDIOTS, but if you can wade through all the bullshit, there are some genuinely 'clever' posters on here, too.....[/quote]

Translation "This Forum is full of people i disagree with, but if you ignore all that you'll eventually find some people you agree with".

Like they say staying absolutely set in ones preconceptions is how one learns...wait....

People come to this website after "discovering" philosophy i.e. reading some philosophy they agreed with, they come to this forum imagining all the posters will be of this same philosophic mind, then become dissapointed when they realize there is such a thing as differant and opposing philosophical perceptions. Some get over themselves, others blame the website. Some leave frustrated or emotional strained/broken, it's interesting the watch this cycle unfold evey time.[/quote]
Your "translation" is a little off.
My thinking, my philosophy (if I may call it that), it continually changing, 'evolving'; I have learned a fair amount since I've been browsing ilp....
When I said "IDIOTS", I was referring to ALL metaphysicians- in my opinion they are all idiots, like people that take ANY organised religion seriously......
Opinions that are rational, reasonable and rooted in logic, are still only "OPINIONS"....



I agree with the poster that stated, in whatever words they used, "if you disagree with a proposal, you don't have to reply to the corresponding thread"..... However, realistically, that's not how forums like ilp work, is it?



All human beings are "IDIOTS", so the individual in question shouldn't take that personally.
Also, like I said I have learned much from the thinkers on ilp; I am most certainly NOT "absolutely set in my preconceptions".

[dan25]

This forum is full of IDIOTS, but if you can wade through all the bullshit, there are some genuinely 'clever' posters on here, too.....[/quote]

Einstein is a crackpot? It was well said what darklord said?

I believe you said what ifs will never lead to anything good. It is pointed out by me that speculation and what ifs are a fundamental and necessary part of science, for example, let alone many other kinds of problems solving and investigation processes. Now someone else points out that Einstein used what ifs, which he did, and these were, of course, immensely useful. Now this is the response I am expecting: 'but in science you test and verify.' Well, of course. But neither I nor the other person said that science is ONLY speculating, what ifs, etc. Only that it is used in science and in fact is crucial to it. Now you are ranting about idiots, when in fact I have seen not a single argument in defense of your idea that what ifs never lead to anything good. Instead of defending a very hard to defend idea, you aim a kind of blanket insult and support a post by the darklord that is not a response to what he quotes. Instead he goes off on his own blanket insult as if this is somehow a response to what he quoted.

I see above that you explained your position 'better' in a later post. I read that post and I see no acknowledgment that speculation is a valuable part of many processes. It simply seems like a continuation of the rant in the earlier post. And note, I argued by pointing out that science finds speculation necessary. This is actually a philosophy forum. Philosophy has always made even more room for speculation. IOW speculation can be included in finished products, whereas in science there must be further steps.

I really dont understand why no one should utter any idea unless it has already be confirmed by science, when even the informal science community does not restrict itself to this kind of censorship. Must we adhere to the policies of peer reviewed science journals in an online philosophy discussion forum?

Can't people who dislike speculation actually demonstrate via arguments what the problems are or might be with the speculation, instead of bemoaning the fact that someone is presenting a hypothetical? Why not do philosophy in response to what you consider irrational or ignore those threads that focus on what you consider metaphysical.[/quote]
Point taken.
Speculation is important. I stated, in an earlier post, that I could have worded that more accurately.

[felix dakat]

Speculation is important. I stated, in an earlier post, that I could have worded that more accurately.

I agree. I think of it as imaginative generalization, a phrase coined by A.N. Whitehead. It doesn't have to be talk about a transcendental realm beyond all possible human knowledge. It can be an effort to generalize our knowledge, to seek a way of understanding the world as comprehensively as we can. In this case, I don't see evidence the earth is conscious. Thinking of it as a complex organism makes sense though.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

I don't see evidence the earth is conscious. Thinking of it as a complex organism makes sense though.

Yer a funny guy. The consciousness of the earth wrote yer post, and then read it, and is typing this response. And is now reading it at this very moment.

[dan25]

I don't see evidence the earth is conscious. Thinking of it as a complex organism makes sense though.

Yer a funny guy. The consciousness of the earth wrote yer post, and then read it, and is typing this response. And is now reading it at this very moment.

That is difficult to argue against...... but I dont think he was denying that mass-energy, contained within the earth, has, somehow, developed conciousness; but that ALL the mass-energy that comprises the earth is not concious.
I am ''concious'', and i am part of the earth; a lump of iron is also part of the earth, but is it concious? Even if it is, there is NO EVIDENCE of this- not that we have found yet, anyway.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

a lump of iron is also part of the earth, but is it concious? Even if it is, there is NO EVIDENCE of this- not that we have found yet, anyway.

Well something goes on between iron and magnetism. They lovy each other.

[dan25]

a lump of iron is also part of the earth, but is it concious? Even if it is, there is NO EVIDENCE of this- not that we have found yet, anyway.

Well something goes on between iron and magnetism. They lovy each other.

I'm not sure, at all, what you mean.
Are you being serious, or 'taking the piss'?

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

a lump of iron is also part of the earth, but is it concious? Even if it is, there is NO EVIDENCE of this- not that we have found yet, anyway.

Well something goes on between iron and magnetism. They lovy each other.

I'm not sure, at all, what you mean.
Are you being serious, or 'taking the piss'?

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."

[felix dakat]

I don't see evidence the earth is conscious. Thinking of it as a complex organism makes sense though.

Yer a funny guy. The consciousness of the earth wrote yer post, and then read it, and is typing this response. And is now reading it at this very moment.

I don't see evidence the earth is conscious.

[felix dakat]

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."

I can entertain the idea that that experience/feeling/emotion goes all the way down to subatomic particles. Electrons, protons, neutrons, and other subatomic “particles” could be thought of as drops of spatial-temporal experience. They could experience their physical relationships with the world around them as vectored emotions—feelings that drive them this way and that. Energy could be the transmission of physical feelings. But experience/feeling/emotion isn't necessarily conscious. We are unaware of most of own feelings. If cells feel, I am unaware of most of the feelings of the cells of my body. Consciousness seems to require a brain and its awareness is focused on a small area of attention or concentration. Usually we are aware of the figure but not the ground of the gestalt of consciousness. But we must experience the ground of the gestalt even though we are unaware of it.

[Moreno]

If cells feel, I am unaware of most of the feelings of the cells of my body.

Or you feel them as a collective and that is the background feel of being an embodied creature, a feeling that varies depending on health, tiredness, age, etc. Perhaps that is the buzz of your cells feeling. And then they in turn at their order of magnitude feel their own being in the world

Consciousness seems to require a brain and its awareness is focused on a small area of attention or concentration.

I don't know how we can know the first part. As far as the second part, I think the whole organism is conscious of things that the little I misses.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

If cells feel, I am unaware of most of the feelings of the cells of my body..

You obviously haven't gone thru Heroin withdrawals. The reason it hurts so bad is because every cell in the body became dependent upon heroin, and when they don't get it, every cell screams out in pain.

[Dan~]

I'm sure that each planet contains some consciousness, but not enough to move its physical self or control itself. That is part of pretty standard occult theory. Physical things have higher intelligences, especially powerful ones are over the stars and moons and stuff.

[edit]

Oh, the arguments vary. One argument is that God created everything with a certain amount of governer spirits. Another argument is that each planet, moon and star has a certain amount of angels and demons, and that is a variation of the first idea, but the idea that planets have demons relates to the dualistic moral stuff.

Another idea is that consciousness is an element which is a part of the composition of everything. It's like the fifth element or which ever number we come to. As such, a part of ever star and planet is consciousness. We lack the facility to sense it properly or interact with it fully, but some think it's there.

The ideas on this aren't very much like a modern explanation. Instead it's just stated strait up like a fact.

[felix dakat]

If cells feel, I am unaware of most of the feelings of the cells of my body..

You obviously haven't gone thru Heroin withdrawals. The reason it hurts so bad is because every cell in the body became dependent upon heroin, and when they don't get it, every cell screams out in pain.

That may be an instance when feeling rises to the level of consciousness. It certainly doesn't demonstrate that we are conscious of the feelings of all our cells at all times or that our cells themselves are conscious.

[Jayson]

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.