Sheldrake's Morphogenic Field - Innovation (Evolution)

by BBella , Wednesday, September 21, 2016, 23:13 (2765 days ago) @ David Turell

Was under: Video of Unsettling Evolution in Action-> > > > dhw: But now you try to fudge the issue again by replacing guidance with “guidelines”. (Presumably something like: Thou shalt not do what thou canst not do.) Once more, “working things out for themselves” entails autonomous cellular intelligence. Either you agree that this is possible or you don't.
> > > 
> > > David: I've never changed my stance. An onboard inventive mechanism is possible, but it will always contain guidelines or guidance. No need to go round and round.
> > 
> > BBella: Might not the guidelines be Sheldrake's morphogenic field?
> 
>[David] Good point. His morphogenic fields regards shape, so there is still the issue of organizing the biochemistry to fit, unless it is a part of the field concept.-Yes, David, organizing the biochemistry to fit the need is the intelligent work within the morphic field. And the morphic field is much more involved than with just the form or shape (outline?) of the field. It is what is creating what IS at all times and holding that form. In other words, the creation (process) field itself. -> dhw (under “Video”): But now you [David] try to fudge the issue again by replacing guidance with “guidelines”. (Presumably something like: Thou shalt not do what thou canst not do.) Once more, “working things out for themselves” entails autonomous cellular intelligence. Either you agree that this is possible or you don't. 
> 
> BBELLA: Might not the guidelines be Sheldrake's morphogenic field? 
> 
> I thought we had all agreed that Sheldrake's morphogenic field preserves forms but does not explain innovation - it comprises what already exists, and is then added to by whatever is new. (That is why I objected to the term “morphogenetic”.) 
> -I've not made that agreement that the morphogenic field does not explain innovation - I think I may have failed to address your statement - for the lack of time and the ability to form the answer in my mind. I do understand your objection to the term morphogenetic - though finding any term that actually represents the actuality of the morphic field is difficult. The morphic "field" subsists within a symbiotic connection with all information that has ever been, past and present. When the need (or want?) arises in a form in need for variation for innovative purposes, morphic resonance instantly accesses all information that has ever been (past and present) connected within that form, and automatically allows innovative use of all information to create any "new" addition to help the form symbiotically allowing it to continue on it's merry way. If the brand new form is needed or works better for whatever purpose, the new form takes hold (in time) through habitual use leaving it's new photogenic (light) footprint (the IS image or morphic field) of new form. -For lack of time, I've quickly found this site that touches on our discussion:-http://tinyurl.com/jnxnd4p