Morphogenic fields are a subset of morphic fields, the later
being those fields in and around morphic units which determines it's
charachteristics and behavior. In organic systems, according to Rupert
Sheldrake's theory, a form belonging to a group with an established
morphic feild, will tune in to that morphic field and 'read' the
collective information contained therein. This is the process of
morphic resonance. The field acts as a data base for shared
information and is the basis for collective consciousness.
There are also holons to consider as well! Holons are evolving,
self-organized, dissipative systems that are maintained by matter
energy and information entropy. Holons are bothe whole systems and and
part of other holons (ie. We are one)
Acorrding to theory, information flows bidirectionally between
larger and smaller halons(systems) and when this flow is compromised
the system begins to break down. This is when the whole no longer
recognizes it's subsidaries and vice versa(the parts no longer
reconize the authoriy of the whole (ie. dualism)). Ken Wilber suggests
that the smaller parts are necessary in order for the whole to exist
(ie. DUH!).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holon_(philosophy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious
In contrast to the above, the collective consciousness is a willful
exchange of information between systems(or halons) by means of morphic
resonance. All organic systems have morphic fields and it is possible
for different systems share information by no other means but morphic
resonance (no need for words). I have posted links that disscuss the
collective conscious in the past, it is a wonderful study and
certainly will play a role in our evolution as a species. Here's
another link to some more links on the subject;
http://axeldenmark.tripod.com/collectiveconsciousness/
On Jun 24, 8:09 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Maybe primary emotions spark the reptile brain? They evoke more of a
> physical response/reaction.
>
> On Jun 24, 6:24 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Again another good question, one that I cannot answer except by asking
> > another question. How do babies think?
>
> > What of emotions too? Anger when felt contianes no vocalisation.
>
> > On 24 June, 10:01, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > yes but its primary though.. i mean visual forms dont you think.. can a
> > > person blind from birth have it though
>
> > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 2:22 PM, [email protected] <
>
> > > [email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Good question Pol.
>
> > > > It does seem that when we think, when we engae with our internal
> > > > diolouge that diolouge it is.
>
> > > > Is this all of thought though? Can you for example hold a 3D picture
> > > > in your head and twist it and turn it at your lesuire to examine it's
> > > > angles and properties? Yes yes of course you can, is this also
> > > > thought?
>
> > > > I would have to say yes.
>
> > > > On 24 June, 09:46, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > Why magnetic fields? The standard suggestion is morphogenetic fields.
>
> > > > > Am I getting you right that it is communication and not language that
> > > > > somehow forms thinking process?
>
> > > > > On 24 Jun., 04:35, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > How about Magnetic Fields?
>
> > > > > > I think thinking is an innate human trait and evolves as soon as the
> > > > > > child's mind can grasp the rudiments of language, objects and
> > > > > > persons-
> > > > > > even before he/she can speak. But the language can be other than
> > > > > > words
> > > > > > also. So thinking is not confined to language unless it is necessary
> > > > > > to convey beyond the self.
>
> > > > > > On Jun 23, 8:57 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I don't engage gravity as I have found it incongruous with my
> > > > > > > nature.
>
> > > > > > > The nature of thought as you put it is highly complex and in need
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > volumes of discussion. Personally I've often wondered if thought
> > > > > > > is
> > > > a
> > > > > > > product of the individual mind or a product of the collective
> > > > > > > consciousness or collective subconsciousness. I frequently find
> > > > > > > analogous value with radio wave or any other "out there" wave and
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > human mind. The question is.......who or what is really doing the
> > > > > > > thinking?
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 23, 4:35 pm, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > first of all... has every one gravitated towards gravity or wat!
> > > > ..few
> > > > > > > > people post here...Anyways.. so i was thinking .. and then i got
> > > > > > > > thinking about my thoughts.. i was wondering wat the nature of
> > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > thoughts is.. i mean how would thoughts come to us if we had no
> > > > > > > > language.. or how did they come when we had no language.. i
> > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > could not imagine...this is really rough and lame.. but i hope
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > guys get the idea and post your thoughts about it.. (or maybe
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > would ignore it and post at gravity instead...)- Hide quoted
> > > > > > > > text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > --
> > > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
