Very true. I took up your use of the word, but I would hate to have to measure a spider’s IQ! Different kinds of intelligence would certainly be more appropriate.

BBELLA: Certain people (shamans, medicine men, etc) say they can observe even more levels than we see.
Dhw: Do they observe levels of consciousness in the abstract, or levels of consciousness within beings (and perhaps objects)?
BBELLA: That's a good question. Ive read a number of books on the subject but it's been quite sometime ago. If I remember correctly, they see/sense consciousness in everything. Some see it more than others. I will look more into that question and possibly have a better answer.

Sense/consciousness in everything takes us back to the interesting subject of panpsychism. I’d be very surprised if shamans were able to see consciousness that is NOT associated with beings/objects.

Dhw: Our physical life is impossible without breathing, without heartbeats, without blood circulation etc. Do “souls” have sex with one another? It has to be a different form of life, and I suspect what they mean by “never stopped living” is that they never stopped being themselves. Perhaps you or David know of NDEs that entail bodily experiences. But again see below…
BBELLA: I was expressing what those who have experienced NDE's or OBE's have said; they felt fully alive in every sense of the word, meaning; feeling as if nothing is missing in their "life".

I wonder if feeling fully alive does mean “nothing missing”. I seem to remember reading that some patients feel a sense of sheer freedom, almost as if a burden has been removed. The cares of earthly life no longer matter. If so, something is missing, but it’s not missed!

Dhw: We would have to add senses if we were to communicate with and experience the new world we enter. That is why I say we lose one form of life and enter another.

BBELLA: Maybe it is as if we enter another reality or memory field that is equipped with it's own senses. Like when the Coachman Rat entered the human memory field - he suddenly had senses he knew nothing about and was able to quickly pick up on how to use his new found sense from the human memory field. But when he went back to his own rat memory field, altho he retained the memory of being in the human memory field, he was not equipped to use what he knew. Some reports of NDE's and OBE's say they are not only able to fly and/or move through walls here in this world, they are able to sense many things about this world around them that humans are "normally" unable to see or sense. When they return back into this reality, they retain those memories, and even some are able to continue to sense similar things, even some say their sense have been heightened. But, they are no longer able flow thru walls or fly, because the human body is not normally equipped with those abilities.

That ties in with freedom from earthly constraints: we lose one form of life and enter another. If consciousness and identity survive the death of the body, I don’t see how it could be any other way!

BBella: Maybe it is as if we enter another reality or memory field that is equipped with it's own senses. Like when the Coachman Rat entered the human memory field - he suddenly had senses he knew nothing about and was able to quickly pick up on how to use his new found sense from the human memory field. But when he went back to his own rat memory field, altho he retained the memory of being in the human memory field, he was not equipped to use what he knew. Some reports of NDE's and OBE's say they are not only able to fly and/or move through walls here in this world, they are able to sense many things about this world around them that humans are "normally" unable to see or sense. When they return back into this reality, they retain those memories, and even some are able to continue to sense similar things, even some say their sense have been heightened. But, they are no longer able flow thru walls or fly, because the human body is not normally equipped with those abilities.

The NDE folks feel as if they are at one with the universe and know truths they never knew before.

True for many. And many also retain those truths, though some also say they remember being told much that they cant recall. Some also do not report that oneness, but do feel extreme warmth and safety, explained sometimes like being in a mother's womb. But I've also read many accounts where the experiencer reports their body is their same body, though with abilities to flow through walls, fly, sense and see things, etc.

BBella: Maybe it is as if we enter another reality or memory field that is equipped with it's own senses. Like when the Coachman Rat entered the human memory field - he suddenly had senses he knew nothing about and was able to quickly pick up on how to use his new found sense from the human memory field. But when he went back to his own rat memory field, altho he retained the memory of being in the human memory field, he was not equipped to use what he knew. Some reports of NDE's and OBE's say they are not only able to fly and/or move through walls here in this world, they are able to sense many things about this world around them that humans are "normally" unable to see or sense. When they return back into this reality, they retain those memories, and even some are able to continue to sense similar things, even some say their sense have been heightened. But, they are no longer able flow thru walls or fly, because the human body is not normally equipped with those abilities.

The NDE folks feel as if they are at one with the universe and know truths they never knew before.

Dhw: I don’t identify levels with fields. For me a spider field will contain a spider level of consciousness and whatever other immaterial attributes it may have.

I was thinking different levels as in consciousness, subconsciousness, etc. But human consciousness may just be complex instead of having levels. After all, levels is only a label.

BBELLA: I think of the morphic field as an imprinted memory field. [....]
Dhw: Yes, that’s how I see it too: [...]What would be the ghost of consciousness?
BBELLA: It would seem to me, the ghost of consciousness (an excellent metaphor or title to some great work of art/ book - fiction or non lol) may only be evidenced by it's observed presence; like, "it takes one to know one"? The lines may be blurred, but by the levels of consciousness we appear to have, we have the ability to observe many different levels of consciousness in the life around us. Certain people (shamans, medicine men, etc) say they can observe even more levels than we see.

Dhw: Do they observe levels of consciousness in the abstract, or levels of consciousness within beings (and perhaps objects)?

That's a good question. Ive read a number of books on the subject but it's been quite sometime ago. If I remember correctly, they see/sense consciousness in everything. Some see it more than others. I will look more into that question and possibly have a better answer.

Bbella: [....]when the "body dies" the body does lose life and consciousness - from the observer's standpoint. But clear evidence from people having actually experienced it (by NDE's and OBE's), from their point of view, they say they did not lose any part of life. They never stopped living. In every sense of the word.[/i]

Dhw: I don’t see how it can be in every sense of the word. Our physical life is impossible without breathing, without heartbeats, without blood circulation etc. Do “souls” have sex with one another? It has to be a different form of life, and I suspect what they mean by “never stopped living” is that they never stopped being themselves. Perhaps you or David know of NDEs that entail bodily experiences. But again see below…

I was expressing what those who have experienced NDE's or OBE's have said; they felt fully alive in every sense of the word, meaning; feeling as if nothing is missing in their "life".

Dhw:We would have to add senses if we were to communicate with and experience the new world we enter. That is why I say we lose one form of life and enter another.

Maybe it is as if we enter another reality or memory field that is equipped with it's own senses. Like when the Coachman Rat entered the human memory field - he suddenly had senses he knew nothing about and was able to quickly pick up on how to use his new found sense from the human memory field. But when he went back to his own rat memory field, altho he retained the memory of being in the human memory field, he was not equipped to use what he knew. Some reports of NDE's and OBE's say they are not only able to fly and/or move through walls here in this world, they are able to sense many things about this world around them that humans are "normally" unable to see or sense. When they return back into this reality, they retain those memories, and even some are able to continue to sense similar things, even some say their sense have been heightened. But, they are no longer able flow thru walls or fly, because the human body is not normally equipped with those abilities.

I don’t identify levels with fields. For me a spider field will contain a spider level of consciousness and whatever other immaterial attributes it may have.

BBELLA: I think of the morphic field as an imprinted memory field. It is not the thing itself made of matter and energy, it is an imprint of the thing. Similar to what we might think of as a ghost - an imprint of what makes a thing a thing but not the thing itself.
Dhw: Yes, that’s how I see it too: the imprint of you, me, the tree, the spider, each with its own individual identity. But to follow the image, what imprint can there be of consciousness? What would be the ghost of consciousness?
BBELLA: It would seem to me, the ghost of consciousness (an excellent metaphor or title to some great work of art/ book - fiction or non lol) may only be evidenced by it's observed presence; like, "it takes one to know one"? The lines may be blurred, but by the levels of consciousness we appear to have, we have the ability to observe many different levels of consciousness in the life around us. Certain people (shamans, medicine men, etc) say they can observe even more levels than we see.

Do they observe levels of consciousness in the abstract, or levels of consciousness within beings (and perhaps objects)?

BBELLA: How would you separate life from consciousness? If we drop both words, life and consciousness, and just observe what IS; we see no life when a body dies. And we can only know a body is dead when no life is observed in the body. But, some have said, that even though no life was observed in their body, they were never without life! As far as they could tell they were fully alive. So where in what we just observed can we separate life from consciousness?

I thought unconsciousness was quite a common state among the living: accidents, comas, knock-outs, drugs…don’t they also separate life from consciousness? If the body dies and the “soul” lives on, I agree that the two are inseparable, but…see below.

Dhw: A materialist will say that consciousness dies when the body dies, and so we lose both life and consciousness.
BBELLA: And the materialist would be right, that when the "body dies" the body does lose life and consciousness - from the observer's standpoint. But clear evidence from people having actually experienced it (by NDE's and OBE's), from their point of view, they say they did not lose any part of life. They never stopped living. In every sense of the word.

I don’t see how it can be in every sense of the word. Our physical life is impossible without breathing, without heartbeats, without blood circulation etc. Do “souls” have sex with one another? It has to be a different form of life, and I suspect what they mean by “never stopped living” is that they never stopped being themselves. Perhaps you or David know of NDEs that entail bodily experiences. But again see below…

dhw: Those who believe in an immortal, individual soul will probably say we lose one form of life and enter another with our consciousness intact.
BBELLA: ….they would say they felt no loss of any kind; only their loved ones felt a loss of life, although their loved ones body was still fully there - physically. So, maybe we do not lose any of our form of who we are in any sense of the word when we "die". Though, maybe, we possibly add senses by moving into another level of life/consciousness?

That makes more sense to me. We would have to add senses if we were to communicate with and experience the new world we enter. That is why I say we lose one form of life and enter another.

BBella; Ok, Truce! I've got it! Information is simply a labeling device that we humans use, allowing us to categorize the different aspects of what IS so we can communicate with words, right?

Don't forget that life runs by using implicit information stored in DNA. Information is not just at the 'brain' level.

BBELLA: But every thing that IS seems to have individual fields as well as a whole morphic field. So why not consciousness? Why does the pattern of all that IS stop with consciousness? If consciousness does not have a whole field, why is it different?
Dhw:[..] let me try a different approach. Do you think beauty, love, thought, imagination have morphic fields? For me consciousness is in that sort of category: an immaterial quality, an attribute, a state that may form part of each individual field but has no independent existence of its own.

I agree, that each of those attributes you mention probably do not have a field of their own (i could be wrong) but we do know there are different degrees/levels/ of consciousness, so possibly the attributes you mention could be in one of those levels/fields.

Dhw: I don’t see the individual’s morphic field as the body anyway.
BBELLA: I agree. But, the body itself has a morphic field. I've said before, I think of the morphic field as an imprinted memory field. It is not the thing itself made of matter and energy, it is an imprint of the thing. Similar to what we might think of as a ghost - an imprint of what makes a thing a thing but not the thing itself.
Dhw: Yes, that’s how I see it too: the imprint of you, me, the tree, the spider, each with its own individual identity. But to follow the image, what imprint can there be of consciousness? What would be the ghost of consciousness?

It would seem to me, the ghost of consciousness (an excellent metaphor or title to some great work of art/ book - fiction or non lol) may only be evidenced by it's observed presence; like, "it takes one to know one"? The lines may be blurred, but by the levels of consciousness we appear to have, we have the ability to observe many different levels of consciousness in the life around us. Certain people (shamans, medicine men, etc) say they can observe even more levels than we see.

Dhw: [...] information is not matter. I see what IS as being constantly created by interaction between matter and matter, matter and energy, individual morphic fields, and individual and generic morphic fields. All of these are filled with information, but information creates nothing: it is used but doesn’t use.

Ok, Truce! I've got it! Information is simply a labeling device that we humans use, allowing us to categorize the different aspects of what IS so we can communicate with words, right?

Dhw: I don’t know if consciousness gives a living thing life, or consciousness depends on life.
BBELLA: If we think of life, not as consciousness, but as that which leaves a living thing when it dies, that is what I am labeling consciousness. We could call it something else - but what would that be?
Dhw: I’m afraid I can’t follow this. If life is what leaves us when we die and we label it consciousness, we are equating life with consciousness.

How would you separate life from consciousness? If we drop both words, life and consciousness, and just observe
what IS; we see no life when a body dies. And we can only know a body is dead
when no life is observed in the body. But, some have said, that even though no life was observed in their body, they were never without life! As far as they could tell they were fully alive. So where in what we just observed can we separate life from consciousness?

Dhw: A materialist will say that consciousness dies when the body dies, and so we lose both life and consciousness.

And the materialist would be right, that when the "body dies" the body does lose life and consciousness - from the observer's standpoint. But clear evidence from people having actually experienced it (by NDE's and OBE's), from their point of view, they say they did not lose any part of life. They never stopped living. In every sense of the word.

Dhw: Those who believe in an immortal, individual soul will probably say we lose one form of life and enter another with our consciousness intact.

Probably, those who believe might express it that way. But from the accounts of those that do not just believe, but have experienced death (and came back to tell), which truly gives us the best evidence we can gain to address your comment; they would say they felt no loss of any kind; only their loved ones felt a loss of life, although their loved ones body was still fully there - physically. So, maybe we do not lose any of our form of who we are in any sense of the word when we "die". Though, maybe, we possibly add senses by moving into another level of life/consciousness?.

dhw:I think it’s all the information and the energy that constitute the nature of whatever is.

BBella I possibly disagree. I'm thinking that all information is matter and energy is energy. Energy may possibly be the force that guides the matter to be what it is. But the morphic field, I see as an imprint (memory) that energy is guided by to continuously create what IS.

David: Information is not material.. Life's code is material but the information it imparts is immaterial

BBella: Can you give more detail, David? Not sure how information is not material? If not material, what is it?

A book of information is material, but the information itself is at the level of thought, as you read and interpret it.

Again, I can’t separate consciousness from whatever has consciousness. I can refer to a single spider. I can’t refer to a single consciousness. I can only refer to BBella’s/a spider’s/a bird’s consciousness.

Dhw: 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: But every thing that IS seems to have individual fields as well as a whole morphic field. So why not consciousness? Why does the pattern of all that IS stop with consciousness? If consciousness does not have a whole field, what makes it different than every thing that IS?

As above. But let me try a different approach. Do you think beauty, love, thought, imagination have morphic fields? For me consciousness is in that sort of category: an immaterial quality, an attribute, a state that may form part of each individual field but has no independent existence of its own.

Dhw: I don’t see the individual’s morphic field as the body anyway.
BBELLA: I agree. But, the body itself has a morphic field. I've said before, I think of the morphic field as an imprinted memory field. It is not the thing itself made of matter and energy, it is an imprint of the thing. Similar to what we might think of as a ghost - an imprint of what makes a thing a thing but not the thing itself.

Yes, that’s how I see it too: the imprint of you, me, the tree, the spider, each with its own individual identity. But to follow the image, what imprint can there be of consciousness? What would be the ghost of consciousness?

Dhw: I think it’s all the information and the energy that constitute the nature of whatever is.
BBELLA: I possibly disagree. I'm thinking that all information is matter and energy is energy. Energy may possibly be the force that guides the matter to be what it is. But the morphic field, I see as an imprint (memory) that energy is guided by to continuously create what IS.

As David has pointed out, information is not matter. I see what IS as being constantly created by interaction between matter and matter, matter and energy, individual morphic fields, and individual and generic morphic fields. All of these are filled with information, but information creates nothing: it is used but doesn’t use.

Dhw: I don’t know if consciousness gives a living thing life, or consciousness depends on life.
BBELLA: If we think of life, not as consciousness, but as that which leaves a living thing when it dies, that is what I am labeling consciousness. We could call it something else - but what would that be?

I’m afraid I can’t follow this. If life is what leaves us when we die and we label it consciousness, we are equating life with consciousness. A materialist will say that consciousness dies when the body dies, and so we lose both life and consciousness. Those who believe in an immortal, individual soul will probably say we lose one form of life and enter another with our consciousness intact.

dhw:I think it’s all the information and the energy that constitute the nature of whatever is.

BBella I possibly disagree. I'm thinking that all information is matter and energy is energy. Energy may possibly be the force that guides the matter to be what it is. But the morphic field, I see as an imprint (memory) that energy is guided by to continuously create what IS.

Information is not material.. Life's code is material but the information it imparts is immaterial

Can you give more detail, David? Not sure how information is not material? If not material, what is it?

dhw:I think it’s all the information and the energy that constitute the nature of whatever is.

BBella I possibly disagree. I'm thinking that all information is matter and energy is energy. Energy may possibly be the force that guides the matter to be what it is. But the morphic field, I see as an imprint (memory) that energy is guided by to continuously create what IS.

Information is not material.. Life's code is material but the information it imparts is immaterial

dhw: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!).

BBella: I look forward to your formulation!

I agree

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.

Ok, I see where you are going with that. I was thinking more like how trees have individual morphic fields but also are a part of a whole morphic field. The same with everything. All things have individual fields as well as whole fields. I'm not seeing how a whole consciousness field would be any different than a whole tree, human, spider, bird, planet, etc., field. It has individual fields and a whole field. Seems that is how it should be.

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.

But every thing that IS seems to have individual fields as well as a whole morphic field. So why not consciousness? Why does the pattern of all that IS stop with consciousness? If consciousness does not have a whole field, what makes it different than every thing that IS?

I don’t see the individual’s morphic field as the body anyway.

I agree. But, the body itself has a morphic field. I've said before, I think of the morphic field as an imprinted memory field. It is not the thing itself made of matter and energy, it is an imprint of the thing. Similar to what we might think of as a ghost - an imprint of what makes a thing a thing but not the thing itself.

I think it’s all the information and the energy that constitute the nature of whatever is.

I possibly disagree. I'm thinking that all information is matter and energy is energy. Energy may possibly be the force that guides the matter to be what it is. But the morphic field, I see as an imprint (memory) that energy is guided by to continuously create what 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.

Yes, I agree.

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.

If we think of life, not as consciousness, but as that which leaves a living thing when it dies, that is what I am labeling consciousness. We could call it something else - but what would that be?

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!).

I look forward to your formulation!

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.

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!

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.

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”.

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? 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

...humans, dogs, cats, bacteria are all species of living organisms. Consciousness is not – it forms part of the morphic field of living organisms.

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. 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.

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.

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.

But I agree that individual morphic fields “inhabit” all or many things. Hence my example of cellular intelligence, with individual cells combining to make up different organisms. A colony of ants might be another example: individuals with their own fields working together to create a colony field.

I gave the example of evolution, using my hypothesis of individual intelligent cells/cells communities, each with its own morphic field, combining their intelligences to create every organism that ever lived.

BBELLA: Ok, I see where you were going with the word "forces" instead of force, by using it interchangeably with the word intelligence's. Although, I was using the word force to sum up all forces, like someone would use the word wood to sum up all things wood, even though there is a lot of different types and kinds of wood - they are all wood. So it was on that level I used the word force instead of forces. Because all forces are force. But is all force intelligent? I'm not sure. I'm not even sure intelligence is another word for force or more a type/kind of force? Maybe intelligence has it's own morphic field and is one of the many forces?

I used cellular intelligence to illustrate what I mean by different forces. But I gave you another example which did not (in my opinion) involve intelligence: the wind driving the waves to bring down the cliff. I would describe them as separate, non-intelligent forces, although of course they can combine, just as intelligent ones do. 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!

Dhw: Yes, all morphic fields are part of the one great morphic field which is the universe, and morphic fields can connect up with each other, but I can’t see disembodied “consciousness” as a morphic field that exists independently of individual beings.
BBELLA: I agree that all morphic fields are a part of the one morphic field, and do not see consciousness as an independent, disembodied morphic field. But, I can see how consciousness can have it's own morphic field. No morphic field is an independent field separate unto itself. All fields are dependent and exist within a symbiotic relationship with other fields.

That is why I say it depends on the level you are focusing on. BBella’s morphic field is not dhw’s morphic field. Each individual has his/her own. But our morphic fields depend on other morphic fields for their existence, for example, what I called the generic one of the human race. We are not chimps – they have their own generic morphic field as well, though each chimp will also have its individual morphic field . But I cannot see consciousness as having a morphic field all of its own. It is always part of individual beings.(I can't "see" anything anyway - I'm just groping around for a pattern that makes sense to me!)

BBELLA: Consciousness may exist as a morphic field in different levels of existence within all or many things - yet effect all things. We believe we are the highest level of consciousness - though some may think there is a God that has a higher level of consciousness than our own. Then some may think there are levels higher than humans but not as high as God, like alien beings or angels, etc. Humans may just be a different level of these types of beings. So, it makes sense to me then that consciousness could have it's own levels of morphic fields as well.

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”.

Dhw: Even David’s world of the afterlife, in which we retain our identity, would consist of individual consciousnesses, not consciousness as a whole with a morphic field of its own. Only a universal consciousness (= some sort of God) of which all consciousnesses are a part would have a morphic field of its own.
BBELLA: Yes, of course there are individual consciousness, just like there are individual bacteria, humans, plants and animals etc. But that doesnt preclude there being one morphic field for consciousness - just like there is one morphic field for humans, dogs, etc. Bacteria live in all those mentioned, so might morphic fields inhabit all or many things as well on many different levels.

Same problem for me: humans, dogs, cats, bacteria are all species of living organisms. Consciousness is not – it forms part of the morphic field of living organisms. 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. But I agree that individual morphic fields “inhabit” all or many things. Hence my example of cellular intelligence, with individual cells combining to make up different organisms. A colony of ants might be another example: individuals with their own fields working together to create a colony field.

BBELLA: What is generic information?

I’ll try again. The above distinguishes between individual (ever changing) and generic (unchanging), which I hope is now clear. But even the generic fields change, because humans were not always humans. The generic morphic field that kept pre-humans pre-human eventually changed into the generic morphic field that keeps humans humans.

Ok, got it. What confused me is your use of the word "information". When I exchanged the word information for morphic field/s, that helped me understand what you meant.

Dhw: And so there are different forces that bring into being all that IS in every moment.
BBELLA: Or, just as possible, one force that brings into being all that IS in every moment.
Dhw: It depends what level we are talking on: […] you can say that whatever drives the universe brings into being all that IS in every moment. Or you can say that each individual force interacts with other individual forces to bring everything into being. Top down, or bottom up?
BBELLA: Again, I am lost. Can you give an example of the level you are talking about that has different forces? I am only thinking of one force that holds all things together, processing all matter and energy to create what IS, including the memory of the morphic field/s.

I would regard evolution as an example. If life began with single cells, and if each of those cells had the intelligence to cooperate with other cells, you ultimately have billions of individual intelligences (each with its own morphic field and memories) combining to produce every single organism (each with its own morphic field and memories) that ever existed. There would then be no single force creating all that IS in the organic world, but only billions of individual forces (intelligences) building more and more individual forces in an endless process of creation.

Ok, I see where you were going with the word "forces" instead of force, by using it interchangeably with the word intelligence's. Although, I was using the word force to sum up all forces, like someone would use the word wood to sum up all things wood, even though there is a lot of different types and kinds of wood - they are all wood. So it was on that level I used the word force instead of forces. Because all forces are force. But is all force intelligent? I'm not sure. I'm not even sure intelligence is another word for force or more a type/kind of force? Maybe intelligence has it's own morphic field and is one of the many forces?

BBELLA: I don't know where consciousness begins and ends either, but I do believe it's possible that consciousness too has its own morphic field.
Dhw: If consciousness has a morphic field which is independent of all matter (including organisms),...
BBELLA: I dont know if consciousness is independent of all matter…

Nor do I, but consciousness on its own (= having its own morphic field, as you suggest), separated from a material being, would have to be part of what we might call the spirit world. If it’s not separated from a material being, then it’s not on its own!

Dhw:...it could only be the sort of immaterial power people call God.
BBELLA: I cannot (at this time) agree with that statement. If consciousness has it's own morphic field and is itself a part of, connected to, resonates with the other many morphic fields, does not mean to me that it is God. It is one part of a whole.

Yes, all morphic fields are part of the one great morphic field which is the universe, and morphic fields can connect up with each other, but I can’t see disembodied “consciousness” as a morphic field that exists independently of individual beings.

I agree that all morphic fields are a part of the one morphic field, and do not see consciousness as an independent, disembodied morphic field. But, I can see how consciousness can have it's own morphic field. No morphic field is an independent field separate unto itself. All fields are dependent and exist within a symbiotic relationship with other fields. Consciousness may exist as a morphic field in different levels of existence within all or many things - yet effect all things. We believe we are the highest level of consciousness - though some may think there is a God that has a higher level of consciousness than our own. Then some may think there are levels higher than humans but not as high as God, like alien beings or angels, etc. Humans may just be a different level of these types of beings. So, it makes sense to me then that consciousness could have it's own levels of morphic fields as well.

Even David’s world of the afterlife, in which we retain our identity, would consist of individual consciousnesses, not consciousness as a whole with a morphic field of its own. Only a universal consciousness (= some sort of God) of which all consciousnesses are a part would have a morphic field of its own.

Yes, of course there are individual consciousness, just like there are individual bacteria, humans, plants and animals etc. But that doesnt preclude there being one morphic field for consciousness - just like there is one morphic field for humans, dogs, etc. Bacteria live in all those mentioned, so might morphic fields inhabit all or many things as well on many different levels.

But memory is an ongoing accumulation. I have a morphic field, but I am not what I was fifty years ago, and so my morphic field must keep changing. But if you mean that my morphic field is confined to the information that makes me a human being, then we must differentiate between types of morphic field.

BBELLA: What is generic information?

I’m using the term to mean the basically unchanging information that makes me a human being and not an orang-utan, as opposed to the ever changing information that makes me dhw and not BBella.

BBELLA: So sorry to be completely lost here with your above comment and other comments I left out.

I’ll try again. The above distinguishes between individual (ever changing) and generic (unchanging), which I hope is now clear. But even the generic fields change, because humans were not always humans. The generic morphic field that kept pre-humans pre-human eventually changed into the generic morphic field that keeps humans humans.

Dhw: And so there are different forces that bring into being all that IS in every moment.
BBELLA: Or, just as possible, one force that brings into being all that IS in every moment.
Dhw: It depends what level we are talking on: […] you can say that whatever drives the universe brings into being all that IS in every moment. Or you can say that each individual force interacts with other individual forces to bring everything into being. Top down, or bottom up?
BBELLA: Again, I am lost. Can you give an example of the level you are talking about that has different forces? I am only thinking of one force that holds all things together, processing all matter and energy to create what IS, including the memory of the morphic field/s.

I would regard evolution as an example. If life began with single cells, and if each of those cells had the intelligence to cooperate with other cells, you ultimately have billions of individual intelligences (each with its own morphic field and memories) combining to produce every single organism (each with its own morphic field and memories) that ever existed. There would then be no single force creating all that IS in the organic world, but only billions of individual forces (intelligences) building more and more individual forces in an endless process of creation.

BBELLA: I don't know where consciousness begins and ends either, but I do believe it's possible that consciousness too has its own morphic field.
Dhw: If consciousness has a morphic field which is independent of all matter (including organisms),...
BBELLA: I dont know if consciousness is independent of all matter…

Nor do I, but consciousness on its own (= having its own morphic field, as you suggest), separated from a material being, would have to be part of what we might call the spirit world. If it’s not separated from a material being, then it’s not on its own!

Dhw:...it could only be the sort of immaterial power people call God.
BBELLA: I cannot (at this time) agree with that statement. If consciousness has it's own morphic field and is itself a part of, connected to, resonates with the other many morphic fields, does not mean to me that it is God. It is one part of a whole.

Yes, all morphic fields are part of the one great morphic field which is the universe, and morphic fields can connect up with each other, but I can’t see disembodied “consciousness” as a morphic field that exists independently of individual beings. Even David’s world of the afterlife, in which we retain our identity, would consist of individual consciousnesses, not consciousness as a whole with a morphic field of its own. Only a universal consciousness (= some sort of God) of which all consciousnesses are a part would have a morphic field of its own.

BBELLA: I am feeling my way through this (as I know you are as well) - so hope you will be patient with me.

We are in the same boat! But we agree that there must be connections between different fields, though we don’t know the degree. I shan’t repeat the rest of your post, but your experiences are a very important factor in all these discussions, and I am the one who has to ask for your patience!

Dhw: When you say matter and energy keep changing but the morphic fields stay the same, I’m not sure which fields you are referring to.

All the morphic fields stay the same in the sense they are the memory of what's gone before - so they provide guidelines for matter and energy to continue to be what they ARE creating. Even matter and energy may have their own morphic fields. I am assuming everything has a morphic field. Morphic field being the memory of all that IS.

Inanimate water in a bucket of dirt will become something different, which will then have its own morphic field. So in inanimate matter we have an unchanged generic morphic field (it's still water) within a new individual morphic field. But the generic information which made a pre-human

I'm, again, confused. What is generic information?

Dhw:...But the generic information which made a pre-human must have changed when the pre-human underwent the innovations which turned it into a human.If you believe in common descent - which I think you do - every single species (broad sense) must have gone through the same process. So the generic field has changed. Where, then, does one individual/generic morphic field begin/end in its connection with other individual/generic morphic fields? I find all this rather confusing - but the concept intrigues me. I'm just trying to get to grips with it.

So sorry to be completely lost here with your above comment and other comments I left out.

Dhw: And so there are different forces that bring into being all that IS in every moment.
BBELLA: Or, just as possible, one force that brings into being all that IS in every moment.

It depends what level we are talking on: We can argue that all matter is subject to natural laws, to cause and effect, to God’s will. We see individual forces constantly interacting, but there is no limit to the causal links between them and the interactions that preceded them, all the way back to the beginning of the universe, if it had one. So you can say that whatever drives the universe brings into being all that IS in every moment. Or you can say that each individual force interacts with other individual forces to bring everything into being. Top down, or bottom up?

Again, I am lost. Can you give an example of the level you are talking about that has different forces? I am only thinking of one force that holds all things together, processing all matter and energy to create what IS, including the memory of the morphic field/s.

BBELLA: I don't know where consciousness begins and ends either, but I do believe it's possible that consciousness too has its own morphic field.

Dhw: If consciousness has a morphic field which is independent of all matter (including organisms),...

I dont know if consciousness is independent of all matter, in the same way I dont know how far each independent interconnections reach between the morphic fields. Through morphic resonance, it seems there is a vibratory relationship between fields, so consciousness itself may resonate with other fields in the same way.

Dhw:...it could only be the sort of immaterial power people call God.

I cannot (at this time) agree with that statement. If consciousness has it's own morphic field and is itself a part of, connected to, resonates with the other many morphic fields, does not mean to me that it is God. It is one part of a whole.

I am feeling my way through this (as I know you are as well) - so hope you will be patient with me. I did recently purchase one of Sheldrake's books (for the first time), so I will see if he can shed light on any of my/our muddling through this (as I have a chance to read). But as I have said many times before, when I was ill, I went through some mind expanding dreams and insights that are very difficult for me to put in words. But Sheldrake, Talbot (Holographic Universe) (Bohm and Krishnamurti as well to some extent) seemed to express as near as I've read to what I experienced "seeing". I've not tried to express it except initially in a few poems and then here in the forum, now and then. So I am wading through, fleshing out what I experienced, along with similarities to Sheldrake (at this point) which seems to be the closest to my experience. As I said before, I dont know if Sheldrake and I agree on everything (no one does), but his work can be a jumping off point for our discussion.

BBELLA: I don't know where consciousness begins and ends either, but I do believe it's possible that consciousness too has its own morphic field.

dhw: If consciousness has a morphic field which is independent of all matter (including organisms),it could only be the sort of immaterial power people call God.

Now you are in my field of thought.

I touched on that yesterday, when I wrote: “inanimate matter is a collection of information (unless you believe in total panpsychism) which is, so to speak, at the mercy of its own properties and those of other collections, whether animate or inanimate.” In your example water, inanimate matter, is at the mercy of animate matter (the owner of the bucket), which DELIBERATELY causes a change (e.g. making cement). In my example of inanimate wind, waves and cliffs, all the components are at the blind mercy of one another. The changes take place without any intention, accessing, inventing, tuning into, remembering….

However, I’m not sure what you actually mean by morphic fields in this post. As I understand the concept, each individual thing or being has its own, but there are also generic morphic fields (e.g. for species, for elements), and there is the one ALL THAT IS morphic field that encompasses them all. So when you say matter and energy keep changing but the morphic fields stay the same, I’m not sure which fields you are referring to. Inanimate water in a bucket of dirt will become something different, which will then have its own morphic field. So in inanimate matter we have an unchanged generic morphic field (it's still water) within a new individual morphic field. But the generic information which made a pre-human must have changed when the pre-human underwent the innovations which turned it into a human.If you believe in common descent - which I think you do - every single species (broad sense) must have gone through the same process. So the generic field has changed. Where, then, does one individual/generic morphic field begin/end in its connection with other individual/generic morphic fields? I find all this rather confusing - but the concept intrigues me. I'm just trying to get to grips with it.

Dhw: And so there are different forces that bring into being all that IS in every moment.
BBELLA: Or, just as possible, one force that brings into being all that IS in every moment.

It depends what level we are talking on: We can argue that all matter is subject to natural laws, to cause and effect, to God’s will. We see individual forces constantly interacting, but there is no limit to the causal links between them and the interactions that preceded them, all the way back to the beginning of the universe, if it had one. So you can say that whatever drives the universe brings into being all that IS in every moment. Or you can say that each individual force interacts with other individual forces to bring everything into being. Top down, or bottom up?

Dhw: They are all interconnected, and they can’t exist without one another…

BBELLA: Morphic fields are all interconnected by morphic resonance, like drawing like…[dhw: like drawing like would be my generic fields]…as well as the separate parts all contained in the whole (holographic idea). I'm not sure one morphic field cannot exist without another - since it seems to me that a morphic field could possibly, eventually disappear; like an animal going extinct for example - though I'm not sure if they completely disappear or remain in the field memory forever.

I agree. I was over-generalizing. Fields are constantly interacting, but it must be perfectly possible for them never to meet. We just can’t know the extent of interconnectedness.

Dhw:…but some seem to be non-conscious collections of information, and some seem to be conscious collections of information that consciously (though not necessarily with human self-awareness) access other collections of information. As I said earlier, I don’t know where consciousness begins and ends, but if pushed, I’m inclined to opt for the line between animate and inanimate.
BBELLA: I don't know where consciousness begins and ends either, but I do believe it's possible that consciousness too has its own morphic field.

If consciousness has a morphic field which is independent of all matter (including organisms),it could only be the sort of immaterial power people call God.