Sheldrake's Morphogenic Field - Innovation (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, November 04, 2016, 12:13 (204 days ago) @ BBella

Dhw: My point is that instead of one force “holding them together” or “processing” everything that happens, there may only be individual forces constantly acting, reacting and interacting. That’s why earlier I used the expression bottom up as opposed to top down, with the latter suggesting some sort of overall control, as opposed to things developing in their own way. As usual with me, I can see arguments for both sides!
BBELLA: I will give you the individual forces constantly acting, etc., But as for "bottom up as opposed to top down"? I dont know, it would seem to me to be both: Individual and holistic, which is what morphic field theory is all about. My main point was, for me, the word force/s embodies it all.

Top down control for me involves some sort of God, whereas bottom up = interacting individual forces (organic and inorganic) which may influence one another but are not influenced by every other individual force in the universe or by a single force that encompasses everything.

Dhw: I agree completely that there are different levels of consciousness, but in all these cases, it is part of individual beings: aliens, animals, insects and in my opinion probably microorganisms as well. It doesn’t exist “on its own”.
BBELLA: I also agree that consciousness may not exist on it's own, because no-thing does. But that doesn't nullify the possibility that it, too, has a morphic field that keeps it/makes it what it is. Unless - everything is consciousness or consciousness is not a real thing - just a figment of the brain's imagination. If NDE's are real and gives insight into the possibilities of what happens after the death of the body, then that which is me or you, what we call the consciousness, stays intact. Something allows for that. How would the "I" that is me be able to stay "I", intact after death, unless the conscious that makes up "I" also has a morphic field?

I certainly kick hard against the view that consciousness is not real. I would say that if NDEs are real, “my” surviving consciousness, with all its components (memories, ideas, emotions etc.) is “my” morphic field, i.e. it is still individualized. It’s the idea of non-individualized consciousness that I can’t get my head round, as you seem to be describing below. Even David’s God (“universal consciousness”) would have his own character.

BBELLA: Is consciousness beyond the fields, a force outside of the fields? Is it the force that creates the fields? It would seem to me, that if consciousness does not have a field, when someone dies, they would be dead and their consciousness would die with them. NDE's seems to say differently. I'm just winging it of course. It's all getting fuzzy, lines blurring, which makes sense with the subject matter. lol

I don’t see the individual’s morphic field as the body anyway. I think it’s all the information and the energy that constitute the nature of whatever is. For me, the fuzziness and blurred lines are integral to the whole concept, because all material things seem to have a morphic field, from the individual cells in the body to the body itself and to the world around the body, both organic and inorganic.

Dhw: ...humans, dogs, cats, bacteria are all species of living organisms. Consciousness is not – it forms part of the morphic field of living organisms.
BBELLA: But all aspects of each living being is formed by it's morphic field, that includes it conscious aspect. Consciousness is part of every living things morphic field, so in my mind, consciousness is either the morphic field itself, or has place in the morphic field as part of it. Consciousness is what gives a living thing life.

David won’t agree, because he thinks microorganisms are non-conscious automatons, but I am far more inclined to accept the view that all living things are conscious. However, I don’t know if consciousness gives a living thing life, or consciousness depends on life. NDEs suggest the former, since the “I” appears to survive the death of the body, but the materialist view of course suggests that consciousness depends on life (though I’ll come back to that if and when I ever get round to formulating my reconciliation between dualism and materialism!).

BELLA: So why would consciousness itself not be a living thing with a morphic field? If all consciousness left the earth, what would be left? Either nothing or a dead rock. So, it seems to me, consciousness must either have a field or be creator of the field.

If all life left the earth, there would also be dead rocks!

Dhw: I don’t see morphic fields as beings but as the energy and information that make things what they are, whether they are organic or inorganic, conscious or non-conscious.
BELLA: Maybe this is where we are coming from two different directions on this. Because I'm seeing morphic fields more like imprints, or negative images left by what IS. I will have to think on this.

I can see that my “make things what they are” is ambiguous. Once again, we must differentiate between fields. The generally stable generic field makes humans human, whereas I agree that the individual field consists of what IS – i.e. everything that constitutes the “I”, which can change from one moment to the next.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum