Holographic Universe: The old and new (General)

by dhw, Thursday, September 08, 2016, 12:43 (2996 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.