Quote: Original post by rip-off
Consider an external observer which is relatively massive compared to the Earth (enough so that any humans or other animals would be considered insignificant).

Let us imagine also that some threat (like an asteroid) moved towards the Earth on collision course. If we were able to stop it (insert generic movie plot as to how that might work) the external observer might concluded that the Earth perceived the thread, perceived the danger it posed and reacted to the event.

This does not imply self-awareness, because one does not need to be self-aware to act on external inputs - simple organisms and programs do the same and I doubt anyone considers them to be self-aware.

I believe one test for self-awareness in animals (according to the ever accurate Wikipedia) is the Mirror Test.

I think you're scenario is a bit flawed. Humans != Earth.
Earth is a planet. Mars is a planet. Are planets conscious? I don't think so.
The test you present would be to have an asteroid 'threaten' a planet.
First, there's the question of definition behind the word 'threaten': Is it the life living on earth which is threatened or the earth itself?
Let's consider both possibilities.

If the planet reacts to respond to repel the threat, then the planet is conscious. Yet, throughout the billions of years of Earths existence, it's been hit by probable millions of asteroids. So has Mars. So has the moon. To date, never have we observed a planet repel an asteroid: No super volcano has spewed anything to deflect incoming asteroids; Planets have not changed their orbits to dodge an incoming asteroid. Since no planet has been observed to repel a threat to its existence, no planet is conscious.

The other possibility is that the life inhabiting the planet works to repel threats to its existence, given that it has the ability to do so. Human beings could build an arsenal of rockets with nuclear warheads to destroy/deflect incoming threats to humanity. That would be proof of the consciousness of human beings, not Earth. The existence of humanity would be threatened, but not the existence of Earth.

Let's assume that Earth IS some sort of Gaea consciousness, working to preserve itself as it is. Human beings are trashing the ecosystem of Earth. Logically, wouldn't Earth work to directly destroy humans? Yes. Because it's not doing so, by contradiction, there is no Gaea.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I think the flaw in the title question is that it presumes that we are not part of the planet. Last I checked we are and we are conscious. Therefore the answer is yes, the Earth is conscious. It is conscious through us.

I agree that we and other life are a part of earth, and we are conscious. But would human interaction contribute to self awareness of a larger object?

I kind of think so. The more I think about it the more I think consciousness may be recursive across different scales.

Quote:
Let's assume that Earth IS some sort of Gaea consciousness, working to preserve itself as it is. Human beings are trashing the ecosystem of Earth. Logically, wouldn't Earth work to directly destroy humans? Yes. Because it's not doing so, by contradiction, there is no Gaea.

You keep on making distinctions between the earth and the inhabitants of earth. As far as complex systems go, there is no difference. If earth is conscious it is a very different organism than we are. It probably has different goal (if any). Self preservation probably arose from natural selection, which is a problem the earth doesnt need to worry about. Also, humans are more of a threat to the biosphere than the planet as a whole. Even if the earth does have a self preservation instinct it may not be aware of the human threat yet. I bet it thinks and percieves very slow.

Just looking at the biosphere alone though, which may in itself be self aware could have an instinct for self preservation. Maybe it will try to exterminate us. Its probably too early to tell.

Plus these things, if they do exist are not animals and probably cannot be treated as such. The mirror test probably doesnt even work well with animals. What if a human is born blind? Guess they arent conscious.

Quote:

Quote:
Let's assume that Earth IS some sort of Gaea consciousness, working to preserve itself as it is. Human beings are trashing the ecosystem of Earth. Logically, wouldn't Earth work to directly destroy humans? Yes. Because it's not doing so, by contradiction, there is no Gaea.

You keep on making distinctions between the earth and the inhabitants of earth. As far as complex systems go, there is no difference. If earth is conscious it is a very different organism than we are. It probably has different goal (if any). Self preservation probably arose from natural selection, which is a problem the earth doesnt need to worry about. Also, humans are more of a threat to the biosphere than the planet as a whole. Even if the earth does have a self preservation instinct it may not be aware of the human threat yet. I bet it thinks and percieves very slow.

Just looking at the biosphere alone though, which may in itself be self aware could have an instinct for self preservation. Maybe it will try to exterminate us. Its probably too early to tell.

Plus these things, if they do exist are not animals and probably cannot be treated as such. The mirror test probably doesnt even work well with animals. What if a human is born blind? Guess they arent conscious.

I was half expecting to get a counter argument like that. I'll try to poke at it.

My definition of 'consciousness' is something along the lines of "Any object with free will"
By that definition:
*if we happen to ever imbue a robot with a sentient AI, it would be conscious, though inorganic.
*No cell in our body is individually conscious
*Blind people are conscious
*Animals can be conscious

Free will originates from a mind. A mind is contained within a brain. Therefore, if the Earth is conscious, then it has a brain (reasoning via hypothetical syllogism). According to geologists, the earth is a big hunk of molten rock with a thin crust. Where is the brain?

I anticipate that you're going to say something along the lines of: "Since no cell in the human body is conscious, yet as a whole a human being is conscious, We human beings are to earth as cells are to human beings."
The difference between human beings and cells is that human beings are conscious and cells are not. The relationship between the models is not enough consistent to make that argument work.

Also, some of your other claims are untestable guesses. It seems you're wandering closer towards pseudoscience.

Quote: Original post by Witchcraven

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I think the flaw in the title question is that it presumes that we are not part of the planet. Last I checked we are and we are conscious. Therefore the answer is yes, the Earth is conscious. It is conscious through us.

I agree that we and other life are a part of earth, and we are conscious. But would human interaction contribute to self awareness of a larger object?

I kind of think so. The more I think about it the more I think consciousness may be recursive across different scales.

I suppose it depends on how you define the Earth. If you define it as a system, then we're part of that system. We're made of Earth.

Quote:
The Last Rites of the Bokononism

God made mud.
God got lonesome.
So God said to some of the mud, "Sit up!"
"See all I've made," said God, "the hills, the sea, the sky, the stars."
And I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
Lucky me, lucky mud.
I, mud, sat up and saw what a nice job God had done.
Nice going, God.
Nobody but you could have done it, God! I certainly couldn't have.
I feel very unimportant compared to You.
The only way I can feel the least bit important is to think of all the mud that didn't even get to sit up and look around.
I got so much, and most mud got so little.
Thank you for the honor!
Now mud lies down again and goes to sleep.
What memories for mud to have!
What interesting other kinds of sitting-up mud I met!
I loved everything I saw!
Good night.
I will go to heaven now.
I can hardly wait...
To find out for certain what my wampeter was...
And who was in my karass...
And all the good things our karass did for you.
Amen.

from Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut

I agree with slayemin, and I think that we would be more akin to viruses or bacteria in relation to Earth than cells, saying the earth is alive through us or the life in it, is like saying a rotting corpse is alive because of the maggots and other organisms on and in it.

Quote: Original post by rip-off
I believe one test for self-awareness in animals (according to the ever accurate Wikipedia) is the Mirror Test.

Poor blind people. If only they were self-aware.

Quote: saying the earth is alive through us or the life in it, is like saying a rotting corpse is alive because of the maggots and other organisms on and in it.

Is a Portuguese Man o' War alive? Shall we call a coral reef extraneous to its organisms, but a single seashell intrinsic to its sole occupant?

Quote: Original post by Sneftel
Is a Portuguese Man o' War alive? Shall we call a coral reef extraneous to its organisms, but a single seashell intrinsic to its sole occupant?

I think a more fitting question to the corpse analogy would be "is a manned boat alive?" are the organisms in it part of the boat itself or there for the ride [smile].

Is a human pyramid alive and does it die when dissolved?

Quote: Original post by Kwizatz
I think a more fitting question to the corpse analogy would be "is a manned boat alive?" are the organisms in it part of the boat itself or there for the ride [smile].

Take a multicellular organism off the Earth and see if it was just there for the ride.

Quote: Is a human pyramid alive

I don't see how someone could argue that it wasn't. Mass graves excepted, of course.

Quote: and does it die when dissolved?

Shit, what? I hope not. I suppose if it were a tall enough pyramid, and "dissolved" through catastrophe...

Put differently, why do you equate independent viability with "other-ness", and why do you equate dissolution with death?

Quote: Original post by Sneftel
Take a multicellular organism off the Earth and see if it was just there for the ride.

woah easy there, the point I argue is that what we consider alive is highly subjective, and it can be made to encompass as wide a range as you want depending on the definition, but that was not the only thing Witchcraven asked, he asked if it was conscious which I think is not as subjective, by my understanding, put simply I agree with Promit:

Quote:
The physical ball of metal and rock we live on is not conscious. Problem solved!

Quote: Original post by Sneftel
I don't see how someone could argue that it wasn't. Mass graves excepted, of course.

Quote: and does it die when dissolved?

Shit, what? I hope not. I suppose if it were a tall enough pyramid, and "dissolved" through catastrophe...

Put differently, why do you equate independent viability with "other-ness", and why do you equate dissolution with death?

I think you're taking the discussion too seriously, my question was meant to elicit thought, not to argue a position, I initially though yours was too.

On dissolution = death, well, the pyramid ceases to exists as an entity does it not? is death part of being alive? (these are not arguing a point either [wink])

[smile]
I think those who read my other thread already know what I would say.
Here's something somewhat unrelated: Hilarious stand-up comedy about the Egyptian pyramids.