What if the Earth is conscious?

[Drusus]

The nature of the topic seems totally irrelevant, and should be moved to mundane babble.

[felix dakat]

The nature of the topic seems totally irrelevant, and should be moved to mundane babble.

Irrelevant to what? The OP stated a thesis and supports it with arguments. I don't think he's convinced anybody, but the thread seems to meet the minimum criteria for being acceptable in this forum. If you think not, explain why.

[Drusus]

The nature of the topic seems totally irrelevant, and should be moved to mundane babble.

Irrelevant to what? The OP stated a thesis and supports it with arguments. I don't think he's convinced anybody, but the thread seems to meet the minimum criteria for being acceptable in this forum. If you think not, explain why.

Reasonable intelligent people should understand that it relevance is to anything but cozy chat, if something has relevance, it usually means you can use it in the real world where people work and has to make a living of intelligent thinking, if something is unintelligent you can't have high hopes to earn money off it, unless it has some sentimental/entertaining value.

[felix dakat]

The nature of the topic seems totally irrelevant, and should be moved to mundane babble.

Irrelevant to what? The OP stated a thesis and supports it with arguments. I don't think he's convinced anybody, but the thread seems to meet the minimum criteria for being acceptable in this forum. If you think not, explain why.

Reasonable intelligent people should understand that it relevance is to anything but cozy chat, if something has relevance, it usually means you can use it in the real world where people work and has to make a living of intelligent thinking, if something is unintelligent you can't have high hopes to earn money off it, unless it has some sentimental/entertaining value.

If the measure of relevance of an idea is that one can expect to make money from it, then I haven't seen you post anything relevant yet.

[Drusus]

If the measure of relevance of an idea is that one can expect to make money from it, then I haven't seen you post anything relevant yet.

If one doesn't have sufficient coginitive abilities, one will not precieve critical thinking, as it's often counterintuitive.

[Drusus]

Here is a thread displaying my ability to critically think, contrary most others.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=180168

[Moreno]

Here is a thread displaying my ability to critically think, contrary most others.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=180168

You were critical, pretty much the only thing you did was express opinions and make unsupported assertions, in that thread, but there wasn't much critical thinking. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a bad thing if you think your posts in that thread were good examples of critical thinking, or even compare well with many other posts here at the forums.

Critical thinking does not mean writing one's thoughts that are critical of something or someone.

[me_daz]

We are algae on a golden jelly fish

[kk23wong]

We are algae on a golden jelly fish

What I really mean: We are short-lived life cycles of this planet

BTW If the physical presence of the God was the Earth, religions would be the largest scams ever in history.

[kk23wong]

If we do not make assumptions, we will never make progresses.

Lives have hierarchies. A higher level of lives give birth to the lower ones. Lives are everything in our universe, even the God is a supreme being without violating any natural rules.

It all depends on scales.

Our new discoveries are not in the Space, but we look back onto our planet earth.

In order to learn more about the nature of lives, we need to put more efforts and resources back onto our planet Earth.

This hypothesis is completely new. Lives are lives on different levels. Lives are everything in our universe.

[promethean75]

what up wong

*nods*

[kk23wong]

what up wong

*nods*

*lol* just trying to get this topic becoming active again

[promethean75]

Even though that gaia panpsychism is a grotesque pathetic fallacy and an affront to empirical reason, it nonetheless serves an important purpose in causing people to develop a kind of care for the earth like they would an actual creature.

[kk23wong]

Even though that gaia panpsychism is a grotesque pathetic fallacy and an affront to empirical reason, it nonetheless serves an important purpose in causing people to develop a kind of care for the earth like they would an actual creature.

It may be the truth. The universe may be consisted of lives in different levels.

Science will give us an answer. It takes time. I am quite optimistic about this, but I think my live span is too short for this. Maybe generations and generations later, if human beings could survive through a long period of time.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Even though that gaia panpsychism is a grotesque pathetic fallacy and an affront to empirical reason, it nonetheless serves an important purpose in causing people to develop a kind of care for the earth like they would an actual creature.

You have religion all backwards.

You don't personalize nature in order to care about it, but as an expression of that caring.

Nobody actually thinks the Pacha Mama is a person.

[promethean75]

wong if you're interested in more scientifically minded theory about 'reincarnation', and wish to avoid dubious metaphysics as much as possible, consider the possibility of things and events in the universe recurring. This is not completely mathematically or physically impossible... that there be a repetition of all histories and all things in those histories over and over each time the universe reaches an inevitable self same state it was once in.

Insofar then that 'being immortal' might only mean 'doing this again, being this again, etc.' then yeah, that's not terribly farfetched... as is something like a platonic or cartesian metaphysics, on the other hand. What I mean is the theory of the eternal recurrence (in the writing of both eastern and western philosophers) is a materialist theory in its most basic sense, and involves no soul superstition, as your homeboy nietzsche put it.

I query you too consider the complications of substance dualism theory, and certainly to be cautious of believing that the erf is alive or that your consciousness continues to exist after your bod is dead.

If course we e don't KNOW, but we must be parsimonious in our theorizing and try to get the closest shave with that razor. It's in good keeping with the inductive method, and that's what we wanna do because we're philosophers not gurus.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I was just making a point about personal Gods, that you ignored, I don't know what the fuck you are going on about with that reincarnation shit.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Gods are real, and they are literal, but that is not a reason to believe anything else or care about anything else. it is a consequence.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Caring reveals Gods, not the other way around.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I just realized you said "wong" and not "wrong."

[promethean75]

Oh nice an opportunity to run a little linguistic analysis of what you said and reveal the hidden conceptual problems in that kind of reasoning which prohibits such a statement from making any sense.

If the existence of a 'god' is dependent on there being somebody who 'cares', then the majority of concepts associated with the nature of 'god' and what that 'god' would have to be like [insert conclusions drawn from the ontological and cosmological arguments), would no longer define the nature of 'god', since being dependent on someone 'caring' would change the nature of 'god' as we conventionally understand it.

To test this, ax a theist if they are familiar with the notion that 'god exists because people care', and see what happens.

That idea is truly original and rather unorthodox at best, and nonsense at worst.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Well just because people don't know about it doesn't mean it isn't true.

People think all sorts of crazy shit that doesn't make any sense.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Obviously there is a clear difference between what people construe as ontological justifications for belief in God and actual belief in God.

Because different and contradictory explanations exist among people who anyway both believe in God.

[promethean75]

Exactly, so it then becomes a collection of some vague notions that cant all be correct.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Correct, they can't all be correct.