Sheldrake's Morphogenic Field - Innovation (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, September 22, 2016, 13:07 (301 days ago) @ BBella

BBELLA: Might not the guidelines be Sheldrake's morphogenic field?
Dhw: 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”.)

BBELLA: 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.

This is the point at which I have a problem. Your account leaves out the role of the organism itself. Assuming the reality of the morphic field and morphic resonance, it is the organism that has access to past information through “morphic resonance”. The information and the collective memories may allow for innovation, but they do not cause it. My proposal is that it is caused by the innovative intelligence of the organism making use of existing information (the morphic field, if you like) and new information (changes in the environment). The collection of past and present information is used and ADDED to by innovation, which itself then becomes past and present information, as you now indicate:

BBELLA: 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.

Yes, if it survives, the innovation becomes part of the morphic field to be used by subsequent generations.

BBELLA: For lack of time, I've quickly found this site that touches on our discussion:
http://tinyurl.com/jnxnd4p

QUOTE: An innovation can be realized by an ancestral field, which has acquired a new set of morphological rules, or by an altogether original morphogenetic field, which executes a new set of morphological rules.

Where does the new set of rules or the “altogether original morphogenetic field” come from? An existing field does not “realize” anything - it is there to be accessed. I suggest that the new rules or the new field are created by the organism that has used the existing field of information in an original way. For David, this original use has been preprogrammed or dabbled by God (and since God is within and without everything, presumably he IS the morphic field anyway), whereas I suggest that it is produced by the (perhaps God-given) intelligence of the cell communities that comprise the organism.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum