Stephen - I pasted this from your link to Sheldrake's post on
morphic resonance:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hypothesized properties of morphic fields at all levels of
complexity can be summarized as follows:
1. They are self-organizing wholes.
2. They have both a spatial and a temporal aspect, and organize
spatio-temporal patterns of vibratory or rhythmic activity.
3. They attract the systems under their influence towards
characteristic forms and patterns of activity, whose
coming-into-being they organize and whose integrity they maintain.
The ends or goals towards which morphic fields attract the systems
under their influence are called attractors. The pathways by which
systems usually reach these attractors are called chreodes.
4. They interrelate and co-ordinate the morphic units or holons
that lie within them, which in turn are wholes organized by morphic
fields. Morphic fields contain other morphic fields within them in a
nested hierarchy or holarchy.
5. They are structures of probability, and their organizing
activity is probabilistic.
6. They contain a built-in memory given by self-resonance with a
morphic unit's own past and by morphic resonance with all previous
similar systems. This memory is cumulative. The more often particular
patterns of activity are repeated, the more habitual they tend to
become.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In my view, the above does not deny the reality of the brain in
those animals that have brains or the genetic role of organization of
matter.
I consider the above outline to be what I refer to as
Thirdness-in-Secondness. It is a non-genetic mode of information
processing and is vital to information dynamics. It promotes
adaptation and networking.
The genetic process of information I referred to as
Thirdness-in-Firstness. It promotes stability and continuity of Type.
That is, it isn't one mode OR the other; it is both. One mode
enables flexible adaptive interaction; the other enables stability.
The brain articulates these information processes and the larger
brain enables symbolic communication.
I reject the notion, however, of diffusion and experience and the
Bucket-Theory of the Mind.
Edwina
On Mon 11/12/17 6:31 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au
sent:
1) EDWINA: I] Essentially, you seem to be saying that there is no
such thing as stored knowledge - which can be stored both genetically
and epigenetically. You seem to be saying, if I understand you
correctly, that continuity of behaviour exists only by imitation,
where, I presume, the young imitate the elders. This is equally a
hypothesis/conjectural. I would guess that your species introduces
new behaviour..by accident?...and if it is successful..others imitate
it? I wouldn't agree to that accidental hypothesis..
Your idea of 'morphic resonance' [could you explain it
simply?]...seems to be rather similar to instinct/ communal
knowledge, i.e., stored general knowledge within the species.
STEPHEN: https://www.sheldrake.org/research/morphic-resonance [1]
Links:
------
[1] https://www.sheldrake.org/research/morphic-resonance
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
