Holographic Universe: The old and new (General)

by BBella @, Friday, September 09, 2016, 20:13 (407 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: However, although Sheldrake talks of creativity, I still don't understand how this fits in with morphogenetic fields, which as I said before only seem to relate to established forms rather than to "genesis".

DAVID: "Genesis" is a real problem. Sheldrake quote:

"Organisms do not require designers because they contain their formative principles within themselves. I think organisms organise themselves in accordance with morphogenetic fields, not in accordance with designs and I don't think DNA contains designs or is an intelligent designer. Organisms themselves are capable of creativity and I think of the creativity in the evolutionary process neither as depending on God as an external designer, nor on blind chance, but on the creative capacity inherent in organisms themselves."

DAVID: How did organisms obtain or develop this self-organizing ability?

Every tiny aspect/part of every organism (no matter how small) has a morphogenic field that directs each part/aspect of every organism.

Are the fields just there to be grown into?

The field is like memory. If you lost awareness of all your memory of who or what you are you would soon die unless left on a machine, because the organisms that respond to your mind & body lose their purpose and direction (lose their morphological field) so slowly process out. Memory is the intelligent field of guidance for all that IS. Memory is the image field that directs purpose of all that IS.

Do antecedent organisms create forms for the future? Life started as single cells. Did they have a morphogenetic form? Not at all clear to me or convincing. As for proof???[/i]

Sheldrake gives a great amount of proof in his books and lectures for his theory. To convince other scientist is his quest. He challenges science to extend their own unspoken rules. In other words, expand their own morphic field. That's not easy.


[dhw] Thank you for elaborating on my own query relating to “genesis”. How organisms obtained the ability remains an open question, to which one answer might be your God. As for the rest of your comment, bearing in mind our shared belief in common descent, I suggest that perhaps the intelligence of cells/cell communities (as advocated by Shapiro) is the source of organisms' creative capacity, and that this creative capacity is what continuously changes the morphic fields (if we accept Sheldrake's hypothesis). In other words, the morphic fields only provide a context within which the creative organisms innovate, thereby in turn changing the morphic fields.

Exactly!

And I would propose that the term “morphogenetic” be abandoned!

Why?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum