Sheldrake's Morphogenic Field - Innovation (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, October 05, 2016, 13:17 (2753 days ago) @ BBella

We seem to be in agreement now on the idea that the collective field comprises ALL fields, all are interdependent, but individuals are able to make their own decisions which in turn may have their impact on all existing fields. So far we are also following Sheldrake. The one area that remains open seems to be thishw: I do not know whether the collective field can be regarded as a single conscious being (God), or as having any consciousness at all of its own. It may simply be an ever expanding field of information that can only be accessed by individual consciousnesses.-BBELLA: Sheldrake's work/study on the collective (memory) field seems to disagree with your assessment. He has concluded, so far, even that which seems unconscious, like crystals and water, - are also able to access the collective memory field - quite quickly - according to fluidity. 
Dhw: This is panpsychism: that all things have some mental aspect. Maybe they do.
BBELLA: There doesn't seem to be a "maybe". They do - according to his study.-The “maybe” is mine. -BBELLA: Whatever one might want to call it, it happens. Though I cannot or would not say it happens because "all things have some mental aspect". -Are you disagreeing with Sheldrake's panpsychism, or saying that what happens is NOT as a result of all things having a mental aspect?-BBELLA: Is this what that would mean? It does happen! What are the implications? It is one of the very reasons, even the main reason that I looked forward to this discussion. To maybe have a bit more clarity on the implications of this particular process and maybe even expand on it a bit.-That is what we are doing, but there is a limit to the degree of clarity we can get. Hence the maybe's. What I wrote below seems to me to be an accurate summary of how far we can take the discussion, but you often come up with new angles!-Dhw: That still gives us individuals accessing the expanding field of information, but it does not make the field of information itself conscious or inventive. We have no way of knowing the extent of consciousness, from crystals (and their individual fields and their “species'” collective field) right through to the ultimate collective field of all that IS, which some people think is God.
BBELLA: I tentatively agree.-So I guess the next question is why your agreement is only tentative.