Sheldrake's Morphogenic Field - Innovation (Evolution)

by BBella @, Friday, September 23, 2016, 18:54 (330 days ago) @ dhw

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 [...]

BBELLA: I've not made that agreement that the morphogenic field does not explain innovation [...] 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”.

Yes, I agree that it is the organism itself that has access to "past" information. Maybe you and I are observing differently Sheldrake's hypothesis. It may be I place more emphasis on how I experienced what is being called the morphic field and less of how he proposed it. I may be reading more into his findings than is actually there. So, for the moment, I will go with how I see the process of the morphic field, if I can explain:

Every aspect of any organism is at all times a reflection of the past even though what we view seems present. Sheldrake's morphic field is the vibratory mark/image/negative/imprint left by all that has gone before. But what we observe when we observe all that IS, is also a momentary light reflected from the field. We, as conscious beings, are observing the morphic field resonating within every moment (twinkling as it were, as a process) expressing what IS (the current momentary collective choice) in the mode of passing from this moment to the next. This is what we are observing when we view what IS.

The information and the collective memories may allow for innovation, but they do not cause it.

This is the question then, and maybe where Sheldrake and I may differ (though I am not sure unless I discussed it with him): do "they" cause it? Is the collective information of all that IS also the acting intelligent collective conscious of all that IS? For me, there is no question, and here is why:

Subtract all information and all collective memory from all that IS, and what would we have? Would there be anything for an intelligent, conscious observer to view? Even more importantly, could there then be any intelligence if there were no memory or no collected information to gather from? Would there even be consciousness if there is no memory of information to be conscious of?

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:

I agree that the collective information is being used. But I have difficulty separating the collective information from the collector as easily as you (maybe Sheldrake as well) seem to be able to do. Is there a separation? If there is a separation, where would the line be drawn? And what would the one be like without the other?

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. (...)

...unless all that IS is the existing field. If we, the living existing field, observe the workings of any organism currently existing, they are the living field "realizing", accessing the field (of memory) - whether it be consciously, subconsciously or unconsciously - however the field accesses memory. All that IS, at all times is accessing all that was. All that IS in this moment is a product or a reflective image of information gone before it. Similar to a newborn child being the current image reflecting its ancestors before it.

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.

Yes, I agree. But as I see it, the "new" organisms using the field is the field manifested in the present.

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.

Yes, but if not for the information of the collective memories of all that IS, would there be any intelligence to access and make use of it? What is consciousness if there is nothing to be conscious of?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum