Holographic Universe: The old and new (General)

by BBella @, Wednesday, August 24, 2016, 07:22 (274 days ago)

Here is an interview with Michael Talbot discussing his research of the idea of the universe as similar to a hologram and it's implications. This is an older video but gives an overview of what, at that time, was just the tip of the iceberg of the holographic theory. (be patient/open-minded with some of the far out things mentioned).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOyIv5xb-60

Here is a newer website that speaks in depth with more research combining the holographic and fractal principles.

http://holofractal.net/the-holofractographic-universe/

The reason I feel the holographic principle and other similar scientific studies are important is because they come as close as science has yet come to connecting the dots of many mysteries in our world, and I believe that the research into this principle will be able to answer most every question we have asked (or left hanging) here on this forum.

Holographic Universe: The old and new

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 24, 2016, 17:12 (274 days ago) @ BBella


BBella:The reason I feel the holographic principle and other similar scientific studies are important is because they come as close as science has yet come to connecting the dots of many mysteries in our world, and I believe that the research into this principle will be able to answer most every question we have asked (or left hanging) here on this forum.

I know Talbot, have two of his books. He is certainly more psychic than my wife, but he is proof that some people are very psychic. His OBE is recounted in my first book, when he discovered where a neighbor's lost library book was lying on the ground. He mixes holography with quantum universal connectedness. To me holograms which I've seen are magical illusions created by light. I don't believe the universe is one in true materialism, but the universe is a giant quantum mechanical device without question.

Holographic Universe: The old and new

by dhw, Thursday, August 25, 2016, 21:04 (273 days ago) @ BBella

BBELLA: Here is an interview with Michael Talbot discussing his research of the idea of the universe as similar to a hologram and it's implications. This is an older video but gives an overview of what, at that time, was just the tip of the iceberg of the holographic theory. (be patient/open-minded with some of the far out things mentioned).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOyIv5xb-60

Here is a newer website that speaks in depth with more research combining the holographic and fractal principles.

http://holofractal.net/the-holofractographic-universe/

The reason I feel the holographic principle and other similar scientific studies are important is because they come as close as science has yet come to connecting the dots of many mysteries in our world, and I believe that the research into this principle will be able to answer most every question we have asked (or left hanging) here on this forum.

I need more time to watch the interview. Maybe that will be clearer for me than the article, which I have now read and which is well beyond my very limited range of comprehension. I shall have to take your word for it that it may one day explain the origin of the universe, life, consciousness etc., and I hope you'll be proved right!

Meanwhile, here are a couple of quotes which perhaps you can explain to me:

QUOTE: This continuous cycle of implosion and expansion produce the forces of nature known as Gravitation and Electromagnetism.

The article takes the big bang for granted, but elsewhere also talks of universes. If there is a continuous cycle of implosion and explosion, why should we assume that the big bang itself was anything but one in a series of such outward/inward movements? The experts always tell us that the big bang was not actually a bang, but that doesn't alter the fact that if the matter we know produces continuous implosion and expansion, this may have been the pattern for eternity.

QUOTE: The vacuum energy is a sea of potential - pure nothingness. However, nothing remains nothing unless there is motion, unless there is disturbance of the vacuum symmetry which collapse infinite potential into differentiated form. Through this collapse an extremely small amount of energy from the vacuum field enters a polarized spin dynamic, a toroidal topological entity, which appears as definite form and movement. The vacuum moves from being invisible, immeasurable potential to assuming a particulate and localized form - a photon, an atom, a man, a star, a galaxy, a universe. In reality it's only a tiny vortex in an endless ocean - Absolute energy in motion.

I simply do not understand how "pure nothingness" can engender motion, can be disturbed, can then “collapse”, can then spin, and already contains energy which can then transform itself into matter. Why should we assume that the beginning was pure nothingness? Why not assume that the beginning was energy constantly transforming itself into matter?

QUOTE: In the end the unified view presents us with a world in which we are all united through a fractal geometry of spacetime, intrinsically connecting all things via the infinite vacuum medium. This fundamental understanding of reality truly promises to unite the countless fields of Human endeavor, from spiritual understanding to technological engineering, and lift them all to a completely new level. With this knowledge we may understand more deeply our communion with each other and with Nature, and develop technologies that utilize the primordial power of the Universe to lift our collective consciousness beyond the Earth and into the stars.

As I see it, humans are all connected by their humanness; we are also connected to all other living forms by common aims and experiences; we are also connected to Nature through our dependence on it; we are also connected to the rest of the universe because it has created the conditions that enable us to live. It may also be that there are other forms of life in the universe, that our own life may take on another form (e.g. in life after death), and that the primordial energy of the universe is a conscious God to whom we are all connected. Maybe, maybe, maybe. But I doubt very much (more fool me, perhaps) that I myself will understand all this more deeply through a fractal geometry of spacetime and an infinite vacuum medium!

I'll try to watch the Talbot interview soon.

Holographic Universe: The old and new

by David Turell @, Friday, August 26, 2016, 00:44 (273 days ago) @ dhw

BBELLA: >
Here is a newer website that speaks in depth with more research combining the holographic and fractal principles.

http://holofractal.net/the-holofractographic-universe/

Being way out of the mainstream doesn't mean he is wrong, but the mainstream is totally ignoring him:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nassim_Haramein

Holographic Universe: The old and new

by dhw, Friday, August 26, 2016, 11:58 (272 days ago) @ dhw

BBELLA: Here is an interview with Michael Talbot discussing his research of the idea of the universe as similar to a hologram and it's implications. This is an older video but gives an overview of what, at that time, was just the tip of the iceberg of the holographic theory. (be patient/open-minded with some of the far out things mentioned).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOyIv5xb-60

I've now listened to this interview, for which many thanks. I think that at last I understand the concept of the holographic universe, and will happily withdraw my objections to the term! I also understand why this concept is so important for your own way of thinking, BBella, and there are lots of things here that make perfect sense to me as well: the subjectivity of perception, the power of mind and belief over body, and the possibility of realities that are different from our own (but not necessarily more real). My mind is not closed to the far out things he mentions: I worked as a teacher in Ghana for four years, and learned far more than I taught. The far out things he talks about are not so far out in African culture!

At one point, Talbot talks of the whole being contained in the part. I have often thought in terms of the macrocosm being reflected by the microcosm: the universe is a macroscopic body, the body is a microscopic universe, and the cell is a microscopic body. But how much of the whole is in the part, and how far one can take the interconnectedness of all things is a different matter. I have to climb back onto my fence for that one.

Most of the interview, however, concerns psychic phenomena, and for me as a non-scientist these provide a far clearer approach to the complexities of “reality” than the quantum route. The latter is beyond my comprehension, and I shall have to leave it to you and David to discuss the implications of an infinite vacuum medium and the fractal geometry of spacetime.

I was shocked to read that Talbot died of lymphocytic leukemia at the age of 38. In the light of the interview, there is a terrible irony in this, which will not have been lost on the sceptics.

Holographic Universe: The old and new

by BBella @, Saturday, August 27, 2016, 06:59 (271 days ago) @ dhw

BBELLA: Here is an interview with Michael Talbot discussing his research of the idea of the universe as similar to a hologram and it's implications. This is an older video but gives an overview of what, at that time, was just the tip of the iceberg of the holographic theory. (be patient/open-minded with some of the far out things mentioned).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOyIv5xb-60

I've now listened to this interview, for which many thanks. I think that at last I understand the concept of the holographic universe, and will happily withdraw my objections to the term! I also understand why this concept is so important for your own way of thinking,

So very thankful you have finally got a peek into this concept and now understand more about it and why it is important for my way of thinking/being. Probably selfish on my part, but I had hoped for some understanding of my perception or view (which I find hard to express at times) and why this subject was one of the very first, if not the first thing I mentioned in my first few visits here on the forum. At the time, I was looking to explore with others this concept and it's implications. Much time has passed since, but I am very glad I stayed around even though we've not stepped into this realm of conversation often, I feel like we may have finally crossed a hurdle/wall/barrier.

At one point, Talbot talks of the whole being contained in the part. I have often thought in terms of the macrocosm being reflected by the microcosm: the universe is a macroscopic body, the body is a microscopic universe, and the cell is a microscopic body. But how much of the whole is in the part, and how far one can take the interconnectedness of all things is a different matter. I have to climb back onto my fence for that one.

I think the fence is the best view from which to explore this subject and your question (of how far one can take the interconnectedness of all things). After the incident with my illness, coming from my out of body experience, I became aware that there is much to explore that I didn't know, and that everything I did know would probably get in the way. So I had to get on the fence and wipe my mind clean of what I thought I knew (about the world/universe/humans/etc). It was then that I began to witness the wholeness of all things and it's interconnectedness. What I saw, I found very hard to express with words. In doing research on Quantum reality, I stumbled upon David Bohm on the internet, which then led me to Krishnamurti and then to Sheldrake - all expressed concepts (each in their own way) of what I was witnessing. Then I found Michael Talbot's Holographic Universe and purchased his book. It was his book that expressed, or more clearly put together, many of the things that I was observing. Once I had observed these things I couldnt unsee them or ignore it - but I also didnt have the words for it. I tried to piece it together with my poetry and art. But that only felt like looking at waves and particles not their connectedness. So I was very excited to find these 4: Bohm, Krisnamurti, Sheldrake and Talbot - that expressed this wholeness and it's connectedness in a way that I could relate to.


Most of the interview, however, concerns psychic phenomena, and for me as a non-scientist these provide a far clearer approach to the complexities of “reality” than the quantum route. The latter is beyond my comprehension, and I shall have to leave it to you and David to discuss the implications of an infinite vacuum medium and the fractal geometry of spacetime.

I have no problem leaving QM part behind, because as Bohm says: (paraphrased) we can talk about the fragments and independent parts (quantum level of what IS) and try and understand their meaning, but until we talk about the wholeness, we really arent getting anywhere.

I was shocked to read that Talbot died of lymphocytic leukemia at the age of 38. In the light of the interview, there is a terrible irony in this, which will not have been lost on the sceptics.

I was also very sad and shocked when I found out about his death. There was quite a conspiracy surrounding his death (surprise!) at the time. But regardless, he never claimed to be an expert in manipulating or understanding What IS, only that he could see the wholeness and it's implications and was able to logically express in words how quite a few dots were connected in the wholeness.

I found this video interview with David Bohm which talks about the fragments and the wholeness. This was the very first interview that caught my eye of David Bohm (altho I read the written interview at the time). He delves a bit deeper into why understanding the wholeness and it's implication, is imperative for the future of mankind. I hope you can find time to watch it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI66ZglzcO0

Holographic Universe: The old and new

by dhw, Monday, August 29, 2016, 12:40 (269 days ago) @ BBella

BBELLA: I found this video interview with David Bohm which talks about the fragments and the wholeness. This was the very first interview that caught my eye of David Bohm (altho I read the written interview at the time). He delves a bit deeper into why understanding the wholeness and it's implication, is imperative for the future of mankind. I hope you can find time to watch it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI66ZglzcO0

I have finally managed to watch it, though it made for rather sad and painful watching. I looked up Wikipedia afterwards, and read that Bohm suffered from depression and died about three years after the interview.

I found a lot of what he said rather incoherent, which may well have been due to his nervousness, but I admired his honesty in acknowledging that all world views are subjective and limited. In the broadest of contexts, he contrasts the view of the universe as a whole with the view that it consists of individual parts. (The distinction between parts and fragments was clear and significant, in that parts function but fragments don't.) Personally, however, I see no reason why one should not hold both views. In some aspects of our existence we are linked with everything else, and in others we are isolated. The same applies to every other lump of matter.

In a narrower context, though, I don't think any of us on this website would disagree that humans need to think of the world as a whole, both socially and ecologically. Unfortunately, neither history nor the current orientation of our world suggests this will ever happen.

The two interviews (the other having been with Michael Talbot) left me feeling very sad at the fate of these two brilliant men, but I do see why their ideas are so attractive, linking physics, the paranormal and eastern mysticism. This gives me a much better insight into the ideas you yourself have been putting forward. Many thanks again for the references.

Holographic Universe: The old and new

by David Turell @, Monday, August 29, 2016, 19:46 (269 days ago) @ dhw


dhw: The two interviews (the other having been with Michael Talbot) left me feeling very sad at the fate of these two brilliant men, but I do see why their ideas are so attractive, linking physics, the paranormal and eastern mysticism. This gives me a much better insight into the ideas you yourself have been putting forward. Many thanks again for the references.

I've mentioned two other books before about the interconnected universe: The Non-Local Universe. The New Physics and Matters of the Mind , 1999, and The Conscious Universe. Part and Whole in Modern Physical Theory , 1990. Both are right on this subject without the mysticism overlay. Authors: Nadeau and Kafatos. Worth reading.

Holographic Universe: The old and new

by BBella @, Friday, September 02, 2016, 07:16 (265 days ago) @ dhw
edited by BBella, Friday, September 02, 2016, 07:51

The two interviews ([with David Bohm and] the other having been with Michael Talbot) left me feeling very sad at the fate of these two brilliant men, but I do see why their ideas are so attractive, linking physics, the paranormal and eastern mysticism. This gives me a much better insight into the ideas you yourself have been putting forward. Many thanks again for the references.

Thank you very much for taking the time to watch the two interviews. It is sad that both these men died in ways you wouldn't expect, given both their brilliant minds. But both contributed much in the way of knowledge before they left. For that, many are thankful.

I hope it is not too much to ask you to watch this interview with Rupert Sheldrake describing the morphogenic field. I have been watching videos of the three men (Talbot, Bohm & Sheldrake) searching for interviews similar to the ones I read those years back that had such a profound effect on my thinking, given that they expressed views of what I had experienced during my illness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Uhw11MxZvU

Holographic Universe: The old and new

by dhw, Friday, September 02, 2016, 12:47 (265 days ago) @ BBella

BBELLA: I hope it is not too much to ask you to watch this interview with Rupert Sheldrake describing the morphogenic field. I have been watching videos of the three men (Talbot, Bohm & Sheldrake) searching for interviews similar to the ones I read those years back that had such a profound effect on my thinking, given that they expressed views of what I had experienced during my illness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Uhw11MxZvU

Thank you for this link. I'm well aware of Sheldrake's theory, but it will be good to gain a deeper insight into his thinking. I shall need time, though. My own personal field is rather crowded at the moment!

Holographic Universe: The old and new

by David Turell @, Friday, September 02, 2016, 23:20 (265 days ago) @ dhw

BBELLA: I hope it is not too much to ask you to watch this interview with Rupert Sheldrake describing the morphogenic field. I have been watching videos of the three men (Talbot, Bohm & Sheldrake) searching for interviews similar to the ones I read those years back that had such a profound effect on my thinking, given that they expressed views of what I had experienced during my illness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Uhw11MxZvU

dhw:Thank you for this link. I'm well aware of Sheldrake's theory, but it will be good to gain a deeper insight into his thinking. I shall need time, though. My own personal field is rather crowded at the moment!

I'm a great fan of Sheldrake.

Holographic Universe: The old and new

by dhw, Sunday, September 04, 2016, 13:08 (263 days ago) @ BBella

BBELLA: I hope it is not too much to ask you to watch this interview with Rupert Sheldrake describing the morphogenic field. I have been watching videos of the three men (Talbot, Bohm & Sheldrake) searching for interviews similar to the ones I read those years back that had such a profound effect on my thinking, given that they expressed views of what I had experienced during my illness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Uhw11MxZvU

Many thanks for this. I already knew the gist of his morphic theories, but it was good to have more flesh put on the bones. I made copious notes during the lecture, and found that it ticked many boxes with me, especially the different forms of energy, the presumptuousness of materialism, the importance of investigating what appear to be paranormal phenomena such as telepathy. There are huge ramifications to his proposal that memory is not situated in the brain (see also below), and at one point he seemed to be about to tell us that the individual's morphic field supported the concept of an afterlife, but he swiftly added that the question remained open. He wisely refrained from extending the whole concept to that of an all-encompassing “morphic field”, which would be God, but he did say that he was once an atheist, and my guess is that he is now a theist. (I haven't got time to delve.) I can only admire his courage in standing up to his materialist colleagues, and I'm sure he's right that some of them are too afraid to lend him support.

There are a few things that are not clear to me, which perhaps you can explain. He used a clever image concerning buildings to explain how each organism also needed to be preceded by a plan, and this was not provided by the genes. The plan was what he called the morphogenetic field - the coming into being of form. But the forms we know are established, and so these fields are not for genesis but for preservation. If form is not a physical product, and if the field preserves the form, how can there be innovation? Is this an argument against evolution and for a God who has to devise new plans for each new organ/organism?

Furthermore, the plan precedes the building, and so the suggestion seems to be that my morphogenetic field preceded me. Where is the separation between my morphogenetic field (which gives me my form) and my morphic field - the one which will contain my memories, as well as containing collective memories of my species, and which presumably also contains the rest of my thinking faculties, unless memory is “morphic” and thought is physical? If there is no separation, and if my morphic field is to contain my form, my memory and my thoughts, the potential me must have existed before I was born! These may be very stupid observations, but perhaps I am not the only one who finds these different fields confusing.

At the beginning of the lecture, Sheldrake acknowledged that what the fields actually are is still a mystery. This was in the midst of remarks concerning energy and space-time. He may even have said they WERE space-time, but I may have misheard. He certainly did say later that every organ and every organism has its own field, and he even demonstrated that single cells had their own fields (they must do, since they take on so many different forms). This means that every single one of these morphic/morphogenetic (what is the difference?) fields must have a memory - otherwise, it could not reproduce the same form. But memory as a form-maker is useless without the means of applying it to the materials that make up the physical body. And so the implication seems to be that the morphic field is some kind of mind that directs the body (as I said earlier, even before the body has come into existence), and indeed directs every form of matter. We are therefore entering the realm of panpsychism. I just don't have time to follow this up now, but it would be interesting to know if Sheldrake is a panpsychist, just how far he takes this concept, and in what way it differs from his own.

Thank you again, BBella, and my apologies if I have sometimes missed the point!
.

Holographic Universe: The old and new

by BBella @, Thursday, September 08, 2016, 07:26 (259 days ago) @ dhw

BBELLA: I hope it is not too much to ask you to watch this interview with Rupert Sheldrake describing the morphogenic field. I have been watching videos of the three men (Talbot, Bohm & Sheldrake) searching for interviews similar to the ones I read those years back that had such a profound effect on my thinking, given that they expressed views of what I had experienced during my illness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Uhw11MxZvU

Many thanks for this. I already knew the gist of his morphic theories, but it was good to have more flesh put on the bones.

So sorry for taking so long to reply. Our family (extended) hosted this years family reunion, so we had family visiting from out of state. Thanks so much for taking the time to watch the video, dhw. I am hoping you will have patience with me and again find time to watch another video and read this short interview. I think it will help answer some of the questions you asked and give more information for our discussion to take off on.

The video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUP87PCcT1Y

The interview:
https://grahamhancock.com/interview-rupertsheldrake/

Holographic Universe: The old and new

by dhw, Thursday, September 08, 2016, 12:43 (259 days ago) @ BBella

BBELLA: So sorry for taking so long to reply. Our family (extended) hosted this years family reunion, so we had family visiting from out of state. Thanks so much for taking the time to watch the video, dhw. I am hoping you will have patience with me and again find time to watch another video and read this short interview. I think it will help answer some of the questions you asked and give more information for our discussion to take off on.
The video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUP87PCcT1Y

The interview:

https://grahamhancock.com/interview-rupertsheldrake/

Family must always come first! I hope you had a great reunion.

I am the one who needs to say thank you. Both you and David are wonderfully patient with my inability to latch onto ideas which are so clear to you. I will have to watch the video another time. But I have read the Q & A section, and pounced upon the following, which do indeed answer some of my questions:

QUOTE: This doesn't mean that the evidence for evolution is poor. I think it's very good. Evolution has happened and is still happening. But the evidence that it all happens through random genetic mutations and natural selection is a big assumption and is hotly contested within evolutionary theory as well as outside it.

One of the few subjects on which David and I agree!

QUOTE: I think panpsychism is almost the only reasonable way to account for the material systems, like brains are associated with consciousness. The usual alternatives are much less satisfactory. Dualism says that consciousness is totally different from matter, and is a very unhelpful theory from a scientific point of view. Materialism tries to explain consciousness away and has been an unhelpful model in consciousness studies. Idealism tries to explain matter away, making consciousness primary. Panpsychism seems to me a much more fruitful theory, and I discuss it in my new book THE SCIENCE DELUSION (CA, UK, US), especially in the light of the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead and the panpsychist tradition in western philosophy.

I had commented on the resemblance between panpsychism and his concept of morphic fields. It would be interesting to know just how far his belief in panpsychism goes. I find it totally believable in relation to all living organisms, but I have trouble attributing any sort of mental power to inorganic matter. Maybe the video will tell us. I wish I had time to read all the books!

QUOTE: I don't think that intelligent design is the right metaphor for living organisms. It takes for granted a machine theory. Machines require designers because they themselves have no design or purpose within them. That's why we have engineers and machine designers. 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.

Aha! It looks as though Sheldrake and Shapiro are following the same line of thought, which has to culminate in the autonomous creative intelligence of cells/cell communities. In his latest post, even David wrote: “I couldn't agree more that God may have given organisms the ability to 'work it out for themselves'.” We are slowly inching towards agreement, but of course David wants “proof that such a mechanism exists”. Fair enough. “Until then pre-planning or dabble.” Apparently no proof required.

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". Again, maybe the video will tell us more. Another "however" is that I suspect this is not the direction in which you would like our discussion to go. Please feel free to be more specific.

Holographic Universe: The old and new

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 08, 2016, 23:50 (259 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".

"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."

How did organisms obtain or develop this self-organizing ability? Are the fields just there to b e grown into? 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???

Holographic Universe: The old and new

by dhw, Friday, September 09, 2016, 13:18 (258 days ago) @ David Turell

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? Are the fields just there to be grown into? 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???

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

Holographic Universe: The old and new

by BBella @, Friday, September 09, 2016, 20:13 (258 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?

Holographic Universe: The old and new

by dhw, Saturday, September 10, 2016, 13:26 (257 days ago) @ BBella

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".

I shan't reproduce David's post or BBella's replies, because it appears that my response to David corresponds to BBella's own interpretation of Sheldrake's ideas. However, my final comment and BBella's question may require further discussion.

dhw (to David:) 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.

BBELLA: Exactly!
Dhw: And I would propose that the term “morphogenetic” be abandoned!
BBELLA: Why

Because “genesis” suggests that the fields themselves generate new forms, whereas the impression I got was that they contain existing forms. That is why I have suggested (as Sheldrake also argues) that it is the creativity of the organisms themselves that can change forms. Then these changes are fed back into the morphic field. To use the “in” word, the morphic fields contain existing “information” (you refer to memory in your post to David), while creative organisms add new information to those fields. “Morphic” would therefore seem to me far more appropriate.

I have now watched the video. Brilliant! David has quoted an article under "Far out cosmology”, which concludes: “In the words of the rock band Buffalo Springfield, ‘There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear...'” This applies just as much to ourselves as to the cosmos. Shakespeare's Hamlet says much the same thing, after seeing the ghost of his father:
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

Sheldrake is modestly cautious - he's not insisting that he is right. He just wants the challenge to materialism to be discussed openly. Admirable. And it all makes a lot of sense to me. Thank you again, BBella.

I'll follow up on your latest post next time.

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum