Outside-In vs Inside-Out Determinism


Paul Mawdsley

Recommended Posts

Xray and Bob, Tony considers you determinists. Is this how you see yourselves? My sense is you are both open to whatever the evidence presents and to the best theories that connect the dots. While I think no one here wants to inject supernatural explanations, is there the possibility of some basic principle in physics, outside of strict determinism, indeterminism and a supernatural grand designer, that can account for the emergence of an element of self-determinism or intrinsic determinism in the universe?

Determinism clashes with my sense of self-determinism and my sense that intrinsic determinism is an unaccounted for element in our understanding of a causal universe. Determinism is built from a view of causality that sees how things are influenced by forces outside themselves. What if there is a fundamentally intrinsic force within things? How does the universe look when we start by looking at things through a metaphysical lens from the inside-out instead of a physics lens from the outside-in? Is there an element of self-determinism built into every thing that exists? I'm NOT talking about intelligence or goal directedness here, although this may be a higher form of this principle. I'm simply suggesting the possibility of a simple intrinsic force in the fundamental stuff of existence that breaks strict determinism from the outside-in and adds an element of inside-out causation. Would this produce a very similar view of the physical and biological universe but better account for the appearance of and our inner sense of inside-out determinism? Is such an idea compatible with existing evidence, maybe even able to produce causal explanations of anomalous evidence like quantum entanglement, the causal leap between inanimate and animate matter and our enduring sense of free will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Xray and Bob, Tony considers you determinists. Is this how you see yourselves? My sense is you are both open to whatever the evidence presents and to the best theories that connect the dots. While I think no one here wants to inject supernatural explanations, is there the possibility of some basic principle in physics, outside of strict determinism, indeterminism and a supernatural grand designer, that can account for the emergence of an element of self-determinism or intrinsic determinism in the universe?

The success of quantum physics pretty well shows us that the physical world does NOT work along purely deterministic lines. With quantum physics we can calculate the odds very accurately.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xray and Bob, Tony considers you determinists. Is this how you see yourselves? My sense is you are both open to whatever the evidence presents and to the best theories that connect the dots. While I think no one here wants to inject supernatural explanations, is there the possibility of some basic principle in physics, outside of strict determinism, indeterminism and a supernatural grand designer, that can account for the emergence of an element of self-determinism or intrinsic determinism in the universe?

Determinism clashes with my sense of self-determinism and my sense that intrinsic determinism is an unaccounted for element in our understanding of a causal universe. Determinism is built from a view of causality that sees how things are influenced by forces outside themselves. What if there is a fundamentally intrinsic force within things? How does the universe look when we start by looking at things through a metaphysical lens from the inside-out instead of a physics lens from the outside-in? Is there an element of self-determinism built into every thing that exists? I'm NOT talking about intelligence or goal directedness here, although this may be a higher form of this principle. I'm simply suggesting the possibility of a simple intrinsic force in the fundamental stuff of existence that breaks strict determinism from the outside-in and adds an element of inside-out causation. Would this produce a very similar view of the physical and biological universe but better account for the appearance of and our inner sense of inside-out determinism? Is such an idea compatible with existing evidence, maybe even able to produce causal explanations of anomalous evidence like quantum entanglement, the causal leap between inanimate and animate matter and our enduring sense of free will?

Be guided by facts, not philosophical nonsense.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be guided by facts, not philosophical nonsense.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You see a choice between scientific and philosophical thinking, claiming science is right. Others might say philosophy should win over science. I see a choice between owning one part of my self while disowning the other, or the reverse. You see a dichotomy. I see a gestalt, a figure/ground image. When we look through a scientific lens we focus on the evidence while philosophy moves to the background creating the context, shaping our lens. When we look through a philosophical lens we focus on the evidence while holding science as a limiting filter in the background shaping our lens. The answer is not to choose science over philosophy or philosophy over science but is to learn to shift freely between lenses, seeing the universe from different but complementary perspectives, using each to guide the other as they both grow and reach for the truth.

Causality is a philosophical concept. Where would science be without it? Problem is: the issue between science and philosophy has been seen as a dichotomy. Science has officially won and philosophy has been disowned in our search for the truth. Philosophers in the twentieth century actually handed this over by suggesting it was their place only to correct the language...how ugly!!! Our stale notions of causality live on because of this dichotomy and disowning of our philosophical lens. And our stale notions of causality now poison our scientific lens and lead us to say causality is an illusion that is exposed at the quantum level, thus giving us proof for our need to give up on philosophy.

The ancient Greeks built an amazing culture focused on a philosophical orientation with a little science in the background. We have now come full circle and have a culture focused on a scientific orientation with a little philosophy in the background. What is needed is more balance, not a winner and a looser.

So determinism lives on by default. There is no one to challenge it because the part of us that should has been disowned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Paul,

since you have opened an extra thread on the topic 'determism']:

I have replied here to the question you asked on the 'Empathic Lensand/Connected Universe' thread:

Xray and Bob, Tony considers you determinists. Is this how you see yourselves?

My thoughts are heading off on a tangent that doesn't fit this thread. See here for my response.

Thanks,

Paul

Paul,

The term 'determinism' is used in a variety of meanings; it is also connotatively quite 'loaded', which is why I feel somewhat 'uncomfortable' with it; those highly loaded terms can easily lead to misunderstandings (like for example 'altruism'), a reason why I tend to avoid using them.

I personally associate with "determinism" a lack of variety, a lack of options, an unappealing 'closedness', a lack of dynamic.

My philosophical focus is more on the options we humans do have than on those which we don't have.

So to answer your question: No, I don't see myself as a determinist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xray and Bob, Tony considers you determinists. Is this how you see yourselves? My sense is you are both open to whatever the evidence presents and to the best theories that connect the dots. While I think no one here wants to inject supernatural explanations, is there the possibility of some basic principle in physics, outside of strict determinism, indeterminism and a supernatural grand designer, that can account for the emergence of an element of self-determinism or intrinsic determinism in the universe?

Determinism clashes with my sense of self-determinism and my sense that intrinsic determinism is an unaccounted for element in our understanding of a causal universe. Determinism is built from a view of causality that sees how things are influenced by forces outside themselves. What if there is a fundamentally intrinsic force within things? How does the universe look when we start by looking at things through a metaphysical lens from the inside-out instead of a physics lens from the outside-in? Is there an element of self-determinism built into every thing that exists? I'm NOT talking about intelligence or goal directedness here, although this may be a higher form of this principle. I'm simply suggesting the possibility of a simple intrinsic force in the fundamental stuff of existence that breaks strict determinism from the outside-in and adds an element of inside-out causation. Would this produce a very similar view of the physical and biological universe but better account for the appearance of and our inner sense of inside-out determinism? Is such an idea compatible with existing evidence, maybe even able to produce causal explanations of anomalous evidence like quantum entanglement, the causal leap between inanimate and animate matter and our enduring sense of free will?

Be guided by facts, not philosophical nonsense.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You are aware aren't you that the history of science is also a history of scientific nonsense with many "facts" not facts at all? As scientific nonsense has not destroyed science, philosophical nonsense won't destroy philosophy, even though there is a lot more of it comparatively.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody can be totally determinist, or they coudn't survive, probably not even live.

They would have to ignore their own introspection - or the fact that our

species no longer inhabits caves.

Still, it's peculiar how few people explicitly uphold volitionism, and how many keep

rationalizing deterministic fallacies.

The nub is: volition towards what? for whom?

I think to be a volitionist, one has to hold selfish values, selfish principles and virtues,

and be as much self-responsible and self-authoritative - as is possible to humans.

So there's the problem: volition equates with selfishness.

THAT's the premise the neo-determinist backs away from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ancient Greeks built an amazing culture focused on a philosophical orientation with a little science in the background. We have now come full circle and have a culture focused on a scientific orientation with a little philosophy in the background.

What is needed is more balance, not a winner and a looser.

A dialectical perspective would call for a synthesis now, where science and philosophy fruitfully complement each other. There is no need for an 'either-or' dichtomoy. Either-or oppositions often hinder a process of creative integration.

Causality is a philosophical concept. Where would science be without it? Problem is: the issue between science and philosophy has been seen as a dichotomy. Science has officially won and philosophy has been disowned in our search for the truth. Philosophers in the twentieth century actually handed this over by suggesting it was their place only to correct the language...how ugly!!! Our stale notions of causality live on because of this dichotomy and disowning of our philosophical lens. And our stale notions of causality now poison our scientific lens and lead us to say causality is an illusion that is exposed at the quantum level, thus giving us proof for our need to give up on philosophy.

Why has the idea of "causality" become a philosophical concept turning out to be of such 'resilience', of such 'hardiness', that we find it so difficult to free our minds from it, despite being confronted with certain phenomena of reality where causal thinking doesn't seem to work?

I think it is rooted in our condition as biological beings living in a 'mesoscopic' world, where cause-effect thinking is necessary for our survival.

It was, for example, important to develop the ability to make causal connections between natural events.

Seeking the 'cause' of a phenomenon can also be biologically hardwired in us, like for example our instant alertness on hearing a strange noise that we cannot attach to a source. A strange noise can mean "danger", hence our alertness.

For the same reason we will instantly get alert at smelling smoke coming from an unidentified smoke.

Without causal thinking, we would not be able to survive.

Imo it is this human psychobiological condition which makes it so hard for us to think of the cosmos as (possibly) having ('deep down', so to speak), "no cause" and "no purpose".

This explains the religious longing for a "deeper sense", and "higher purpose" transcending our short-lived existence.

The philosophical question I'm grappling with: how to deal with our propensity for causal thinking (a thinking that no doubt can act as a life-saver in so many concrete situations) when learning about phenomena (like e. g. quantum entanglement) where our causal thinking seems to be more a mental barrier than a tool of cognition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ancient Greeks built an amazing culture focused on a philosophical orientation with a little science in the background. We have now come full circle and have a culture focused on a scientific orientation with a little philosophy in the background.

What is needed is more balance, not a winner and a looser.

A dialectical perspective would call for a synthesis now, where science and philosophy fruitfully complement each other. There is no need for an 'either-or' dichtomoy. Either-or oppositions often hinder a process of creative integration.

I couldn't agree more. We get to choose our lens. The lens that sees oppositions as paradoxes in a creative dialectical process is very different from the lens that sees oppositions as dichotomy in a competitive either-or process. And it produces very different relationships between camps and results in the worldviews created. The lens we choose can shape our reality.

Causality is a philosophical concept. Where would science be without it? Problem is: the issue between science and philosophy has been seen as a dichotomy. Science has officially won and philosophy has been disowned in our search for the truth. Philosophers in the twentieth century actually handed this over by suggesting it was their place only to correct the language...how ugly!!! Our stale notions of causality live on because of this dichotomy and disowning of our philosophical lens. And our stale notions of causality now poison our scientific lens and lead us to say causality is an illusion that is exposed at the quantum level, thus giving us proof for our need to give up on philosophy.

Why has the idea of "causality" become a philosophical concept turning out to be of such 'resilience', of such 'hardiness', that we find it so difficult to free our minds from it, despite being confronted with certain phenomena of reality where causal thinking doesn't seem to work?

I think it is rooted in our condition as biological beings living in a 'mesoscopic' world, where cause-effect thinking is necessary for our survival.

It was, for example, important to develop the ability to make causal connections between natural events.

Seeking the 'cause' of a phenomenon can also be biologically hardwired in us, like for example our instant alertness on hearing a strange noise that we cannot attach to a source. A strange noise can mean "danger", hence our alertness.

For the same reason we will instantly get alert at smelling smoke coming from an unidentified smoke.

Without causal thinking, we would not be able to survive.

Imo it is this human psychobiological condition which makes it so hard for us to think of the cosmos as (possibly) having ('deep down', so to speak), "no cause" and "no purpose".

This explains the religious longing for a "deeper sense", and "higher purpose" transcending our short-lived existence.

The philosophical question I'm grappling with: how to deal with our propensity for causal thinking (a thinking that no doubt can act as a life-saver in so many concrete situations) when learning about phenomena (like e. g. quantum entanglement) where our causal thinking seems to be more a mental barrier than a tool of cognition?

I get where you are coming from with this question but see it differently. We have a philosophical concept of causality, an intuitive vision of causality, learned programming built around causality and even genetic programming built around causality. This presents a very strong case for causality, as a concept, representing something real in existence, something that has shaped our very beings across our lifetimes and across evolutionary timelines. On the other hand, we have a very specific concept of causality, which has shaped philosophical and scientific thought for centuries, which doesn't work for a specific class of phenomena. Some might suggest it is only quantum phenomena that causality falls short in explaining. I would suggest the class of phenomena that our most established concept of causality, action-to-action/outside-in causation, cannot account for is phenomena that appear to have actions initiated from the reciprocal relationship between the whole and the part of a system and those that appear to have actions initiated from the inside of an entity moving outward, which includes quantum phenomena, and the emergence of life, consciousness and will from inanimate matter.

Causality is a principle for building models of the world and a general theory about underlying relationships that shape events. It emerges when we abstract patterns from across specific events into a general theory. As a principle for building models of reality, our action-to-action/outside-in concept of causality has carried us a long way, guiding science and philosophy well in almost all areas. It guided the early models of the atom, even Bohr's, and led to important refinements in order to accommodate Planck's quanta. Now we find our model of causality, acting as a principle guiding our models of reality, can't make sense of quanta and the phenomena that arise from them. My question is: why do we say causality is an illusion instead of simply revising our theory of causality? Why do we see our concept of causality as a never to be questioned given? It's a theory. Every other theory we have gets revised when it meets with phenomena it cannot accommodate. Why is it not the same for causality? Following Rand and N. Branden's lead, I've played with pulling the concept of causality apart and redesigning it for over 20 years now. Why doesn't anyone else seem to do this? What makes us hold so rigidly onto such an inadequate theory that has been shown to not be able to make sense of quantum events and the emergence of life, consciousness and will?

I think the answer is that causality is not just a theory. Our concept of causality defines a paradigm. It defines the lens through which we view existence. Redefining causality means redefining our unconscious processing of our world. There's the catch. Redefining our unconscious processing of the world requires making sense of our unconscious processes so we can take control of them and shape them, and this requires a concept of causality that can make sense of and model our unconscious processes. It's a catch 22. How do we define a new model of causality if we can't make sense of and shape our unconscious processes and how do we make sense of and shape our unconscious processes if we don't yet have an adequate model of causality?

The answer is to stay open to the flow of information, allow the dots to find their own alignment, explore, experiment and play with ideas, and learn to invent many wheels anew. The information is all their. We just need to be open to seeing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one I have ever heard of has ever denied that one thing leads to another.

--Brant

The most influential interpretation of quantum mechanics denies this. At the foundations of reality, actions are determined by superpositions and probabilities, not one thing leading to another, according to the Copenhagen interpretation. In fact, the theories that maintain one thing leads to another, hidden variable theories, have probably been the least influential, precisely because they rest on a view of causality that cannot accommodate the reciprocal whole-to-part dynamics that can account for non-local effects and intrinsically generated action that can account for the collapse of the wave function. They are also seen as a throwback to classical ether-type theories that were more philosophically based and which completely lost validity with the Michelson-Morley experiment and special relativity.

Schrodinger's thought experiment, which holds his dead/alive cat in superposition with equal probability, illustrates the difficulties with interpreting quantum events and the mathematics that describe them. All interpretations assume an outside-in perspective. To suggest the wave function collapses on observation or measurement is to see the system as being acted upon from the outside by an observer...a version of "To be is to be perceived." Many worlds view tries to bypass this issue by positing multiple universes corresponding to each superposition of each quantum event...an ugly theory that sneaks a supernatural reality into physics. Hidden variable theories need to hold onto a causality that cannot accommodate important elements of quantum events. None hold much philosophical water. That's okay, all we need to do is invalidate philosophy and we can choose whichever theory who's deficits we find easiest to ignore.

What if we looked, in the spirit of philosophy instead of physics, from the inside-out for a moment? What if there was energy for action intrinsic to an entity? Now we can say the wave function collapses deterministically based on energy in the wave/particle itself. Reality independent of the observer is restored. It is only by fixating on the outside-in approach, intrinsic to our scientific lens itself, that the problem of reality being dependent on observation arises. There is no need to posit theories about observers collapsing wave functions and certainly no need to open up supernatural dimensions for multiple universes. Now we need to look at hidden variable possibilities to explain underlying realities, but first, we need to further develop our theory of causality to account for reciprocal whole-to-part causation (this can provide a causal mechanism for non-locality) and intrinsic energy (which can account for the collapse of the wave function independent of an observer). Causality is not necessarily dead. It just needs to evolve.

A full theory of causality will do much more than make sense of quantum mechanics. It will make possible a physical description of the inside dynamics of special and general relativity. It will show how special relativity, general relativity and quantum theory are related. It will account for the emergence of life and consciousness and will from inanimate matter. It will make sense of unconscious processing and bring ourselves and our lives so much more within our conscious control, leading to more fulfilling lives. Well, that's my vision anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one I have ever heard of has ever denied that one thing leads to another.

The most influential interpretation of quantum mechanics denies this. At the foundations of reality, actions are determined by superpositions and probabilities, not one thing leading to another, according to the Copenhagen interpretation. In fact, the theories that maintain one thing leads to another, hidden variable theories, have probably been the least influential, precisely because they rest on a view of causality that cannot accommodate the reciprocal whole-to-part dynamics ...

Brant,

Even when we watch a school of fish or flock of birds simultenanously changing directions, doesn't the idea of 'one thing leading to another' collapse?

Our idea of causality often has a connotation of 'linearity' which has its roots in our daily experience: we kick a ball and it rolls; we drop an object and it falls to the floor; our plane has been delayed because of a storm, etc.

But as for swarm intelligence phenomena, we cannot operate with "linear" causal thinking, where A leads to B:

Nor does it work with QM, as Paul has pointed out.

From Paul's post on another thread:

we need to further develop our theory of causality to account for reciprocal whole-to-part causation (this can provide a causal mechanism for non-locality) and intrinsic energy (which can account for the collapse of the wave function independent of an observer). Causality is not necessarily dead. It just needs to evolve.

Maybe it is necessary to abandon a (too linear) "A leads to B" thinking which might block the path for an evolved theory of causality that works on a whole-to-part basis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't our concept of causality dependent on our concept of "event"?

An event is an entity bound by borders we create in our heads. It's mentally isolated from everything else going on in the universe, and everything that came before and after.

Without an event that can finish happening, there is nothing to "cause" a subsequent event to begin happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't our concept of causality dependent on our concept of "event"?

An event is an entity bound by borders we create in our heads. It's mentally isolated from everything else going on in the universe, and everything that came before and after.

Without an event that can finish happening, there is nothing to "cause" a subsequent event to begin happening.

This is one way to define event. Try turning your mind from running like a linear, classical computer to running like a quantum computer. What other possible definitions can you allow to open up inside you, and hold in superposition with the first, before deciding which definition works best?

Try to let go of the words that lock your thinking and think from a place of experience, images and feelings. This frees you from the confinement of rigid definitions to think outside of the box that your culture has handed to you. Personally, I use words for understanding what others see and for organizing, expressing and communicating what I come to see. I find words too confining for my own internal processing.

Learning in and thinking in words forces linear thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I think no one here wants to inject supernatural explanations, is there the possibility of some basic principle in physics, outside of strict determinism, indeterminism and a supernatural grand designer, that can account for the emergence of an element of self-determinism or intrinsic determinism in the universe?


Paul,

Actually, there is. It is called field theory. A field is different than energy in that it emanates from an entity (from what I understand so far), but is only known by the effect it has on objects that fall within it. Gravity and magnetism are fields, for example.

There is a scientist I have been looking into recently who is developing a whole series of experiments on this and publishing them in peer-reviewed publications. The determinists can't stand him (especially Dawkins) because he studies things like telepathy. I took a really long time to look at him because of the nasty and vicious things I read from the determinists. But after seeing several videos and reading a few articles, I see this guy actually obeys scientific method. Also, his direction of inquiry makes a lot of sense to me. He is being smeared and that's the long and short of it. I'm sorry I let the smears influence me for so long. From what I have seen so far, at the very least, he makes as much sense to me as quantum physics, parallel universes and the big bang do.

The name of this scientist is Rupert Sheldrake. Here is a video where he explains field theory (as causality, which I am sure will interest you) really well. He calls his idea morphic fields (riffing on morphogenetic fields from developmental biology). I'm hooked, but I find the memory idea with them especially fascinating. From the tenor of your comments, I think this is in your ball-park. I know it's in mine. I've been talking and thinking about top-down and bottom-up metaphysical organization (including things like holons) for a long time--and I have not meant this as an apology for a standard religious God concept.


Michael
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Michael. I remember reading about Sheldrake before. I think you put me onto his work about four years ago. I had forgotten all about it. I like looking at those that step outside of the regular box. Interesting food for thought. Thanks for reminding me.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

That was probably Bruce Lipton. I have only started looking at Sheldrake the last month or so. I think I remember someone mentioning him back then, though.

As for Lipton, he's a really good cell biologist and knows how to explain it in terms that are easy to understand, but he goes much further into mysticism than I can agree with. Still, I like his stuff and I believe there is much truth in it that is needlessly ignored and trashed. This seems to be the case with all major players in science who claim that differing fields emanate from living beings.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rupert Sheldrake has been around for a while, publishing his first book in 1981, A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance

He does not have a high-profile in any of the fields you might expect to find him in, outside of the shrinking field of parapsychology. His ideas are generally marred by confirmation bias and the kinds of scientific errors cranks make -- at no point in his career has he responded to criticism by altering or abandoning any of his theses.

He is thus a player, and an author, but not a player in the science leagues - he has long hied off in his own direction after cosmic principles, seeking an alternative paranormal 'God Particle'/Field -- all to undergird parapsychology. Everything goes in or gets hooked up by the morphic field, every persistent hangover from psi research, ghosts, telepathy, mediums, psychic imprinting, etcetera.

Toe get the full flavour of Sheldrake's very large set of beliefs, you will need to read his books, but it seems there is nothing Fortean or 'anomalous' that Sheldrake does not consider some kind of anecdotal confirmation of his theories, be they crop circles or ley lines or past life regression or whatever..

At heart, despite his many books and attempts, the theory of morphic fields has no adherents outside Sheldrake and the paranormalists. That is just the way things go. No matter how much we might want to think there are multiple converging lines of evidence giving support to the notions, there just isn't. After all these years, Sheldrake is still no further towards his explanatory goals, let alone a 'new science.'.

See the article by our Rand-friendly skeptic Michael Shermer, Rupert's Resonance -- and if you follow the Shermer exchange, read Sheldrake collaborator Steven Rose: So-called "formative causation" - A hypothesis disconfirmed & Sheldrake's response.

What makes Sheldrake appealing to some is, I think, a function of a sense of wonder, and a realization that the world is a very complex and mysterious place at times (the world consisting of the universe). If you believe in things like telepathy or life after death, and if you are kind of turned on by something like "Cosmic Consciousness,' it sure would be nice to have a sciencey-sounding set of arguments that tries to explain it all as manifestations of some as-yet-hidden-from-view mechanics. Sheldrake provides this.

Who would not want to understand how ghosts work, what scientific 'field theory' can explain spirit manifestations and extra-sensory perceptions? I mean, if you accept that ghosts and life after death and telepathy are real and not artifacts.

But. As always, but. What can we rationally expect of experiments testing hypotheses of this field? Whenever I think of field I think of particle (as with gravity a graviton, electricity an electron, etc, at least a mutuality and a mathematical description of implicated forces). A something and its effect on other somethings.

If there is and can be a 'field' (like the purported Higgs Field, or a magnetic or electrical field(, then I expect that the field can be not merely rumoured, theorized and described, but measured -- and made to fit in with the fundamental forces and fields which already interpenetrate our world..

We can measure an electrical field, a magnetic field, and we can measure gravity. We can detect a storm of high-energy particles and predict their effect on the magnetosphere. We can measure all of the fields because we have seen or sensed them (with our instruments of perception) in action.

This is I think what made me cough up morphic notions of Sheldrake, where actual sensing of the field is absent. I could find nothing reliable that showed up as indicator of the posited 'morphic field' or the even more fabulous 'morphic resonance' -- nothing firmly observed and thus positing its necessary existence (as with the 'extra' gravity adduced as evidence of necessary dark matter).

In other words, the morphic field of Sheldrake seems essentially invisible to human perceptive apparatus. The morphic field as posited is non-corporeal, spiritual rather than material, a field of memory -- a non-genetic repository of plans and experiences, of the instructions for species and the Jungian archetypes and more -- and so it has been difficult for Sheldrake to test this concept directly.

What kinds of behaviours and relationships are tested by Sheldrake? Well, in his book, Seven Experiments That Could Change the World are included research into 'dogs that seem to know when their owners are coming home' and 'the sense of being stared at.' These two have been featured in later books. His newest book is called The Science Delusion.

I find Sheldrake's notions about morphic resonance to be his most incoherent. This is the thing that is supposed to be operating in the dogs and in the people.

What Sheldrake actually knows about the world is not small, I am sure. But what he thinks he knows about the world is quite large and quite unfit to be nailed to the wall of fact just yet, in my opinion. Many are those like Sheldrake in the history of rational inquiry, in one part Velikovsky, in another part Reich. We need ask of each one and his peers where his studies fit in with the general march of knowledge, what fruit they have born, and what products they have brought to market. Caveal emptor and all that..

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I read that Sheldrake's work was supported by David Bohm. Not surprising. They both seem to operate from the same metaphysical morphic field...intuitive sense of reality that unconsciously shapes their theoretical pursuits and constructs. Despite finding resonance with elements of each of their theories, I find myself also drawing a line at the more mystical parts: Sheldrake's morphic resonance and Bohm's implicate/explicate order. My own metaphysical morphic field won't allow it without some serious evidence. Regardless, truly valuable food for thought.

I don't have a problem with the suggestion of morphic or morphogenetic fields. The principle fits with my own thinking. I do have an issue with the idea of a complexly patterned field being maintained in the absence of matter, which is what is suggested by Sheldrake with his idea of morphic resonance and a kind of collective unconscious. Actually, despite my great respect for Jung's work, I have this same nagging issue.

My sense of reality (or "my little finger") says we will eventually find one unifying field that encompasses all others. The concept of force free plasma filaments from plasma physics, that can attract ions to electromagnetic fields of force, could point the direction towards a causally reciprocal relationship between electromagnetic fields/currents, on the one hand, and complex molecules, like amino acids, on the other. As such, the emergence of life can be seen as the result of the development of a stable synergy between plasma fields/currents and matter. Morphogenetic fields could then be seen as a natural development from electromagnetic fields/currents shaped and maintained by stable molecules. This maintains a unity of fields which definitely works for me.

Makes sense to my metaphysical vision. But again, take away the matter that maintains the fields and I don't see a way for the electromagnetic patterns to be maintained and passed along. I need big evidence for that big leap.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did either of you watch the video I embedded?

I know it's over an hour, but just wondering...

I suspect you guys are not looking at what I am looking at....

I actually got interested in Sheldrake because I saw a 2008 lecture he gave at Google Tech Talks on his idea of the extended mind. I figured those Google guys are not silly, so if they are looking, why not I should look? Eh? Well, I looked and I have liked what I have seen so far. So I am going to keep looking.

I just got his 2000 book Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home: And Other Unexplained Powers of Animals.

Frankly, it looks cool...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our posts crossed but it seems we are saying very similar things from very distinct angles. We must be right...lol.

I am a cranky old skeptic who has had a snootful of wobbly notions and wish-horses. Sometimes I half-jokingly suggest to MSK that where we disagree but are fixed on the same thing, chiseling away, we might each reveal something true from the thing under scrutiny. Where we most often disagree is perhaps where I see harsh critical scrutiny and he sees attack or bashing.

Paul, Sheldrake extrapolates beyond reason, to my eyes. That might be the framework for both our senses of his theories' shortcomings. This is what I refer to when I indicate notion profusion, over-extrapolation, a cart-before-horse process of discovery. Here is some commentary summarizing his first book. What occured to me when first reading the book and what recrystalized on reading the summary was how all these incongruous elements could all be knitted up without first checking initial premises.

[sheldrake's] basic argument is that natural systems, or morphic units, at all levels of complexity -- atoms, molecules, crystals, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, and societies of organisms -- are animated, organized, and coordinated by morphic fields, which contain an inherent memory. Natural systems inherit this collective memory from all previous things of their kind by a process called morphic resonance, with the result that patterns of development and behavior become increasingly habitual through repetition. Sheldrake suggests that there is a continuous spectrum of morphic fields, including morphogenetic fields, behavioral fields, mental fields, and social and cultural fields.

Yow! Everything is a murky, untouchable field with an inherent memory.

Of course what makes Sheldrake a bit of an untouchable is this insouciance in overturning Darwin, DNA and genetics -- he pays no nevermind to epigenetics or the answers to interesting questions in developmental biology, he just does not engage with current research ... only the murky fields of his imagination can properly explain evolution. This is the first and most obvious sign of a crank, self-exclusion and withdrawal from the larger community.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did either of you watch the video I embedded?

I know it's over an hour, but just wondering...

I suspect you guys are not looking at what I am looking at....

I actually got interested in Sheldrake because I saw a 2008 lecture he gave at Google Tech Talks on his idea of the extended mind. I figured those Google guys are not silly, so if they are looking, why not I should look? Eh? Well, I looked and I have liked what I have seen so far. So I am going to keep looking.

I just got his 2000 book Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home: And Other Unexplained Powers of Animals.

Frankly, it looks cool...

Michael

Spent a lot of time in and out of hospital today (family member in for day surgery) and watched the video whenever I could get signal on my phone.

I say keep on looking Michael. Life is an adventure to be explored, played with and experimented with. We each have our own unique path, being pulled by our own morphic field, all looking for the truth. Along the way we share our stories and experiences and learn to see things from different angles. I enjoy your angle and find it illuminating, so keep it coming. I will gladly look at the things you point to, and will be interested in seeing how you see it, but will not forget my vision. I see the value in Sheldrake's vision and see limitations.

My metaphysical morphic field does not allow for unextended entities or disembodied actions...no gods nor ghosts. Exploring the universe has taught me there is no evidence of gods and ghosts except in people's projections of a sense of duality and separateness of our consciousness to the physical world. Sheldrake gives me the sense of going into a place of gods and ghosts with his morphic resonance. That's where I draw the line. I talked about my limits but would also like to talk more about the doors his work opens while staying this side of the physical/non-physical causality line. His view of morphic resonance breaks my view of causality, which I am otherwise confident can account for all kinds of unexplained phenomena.

Show me, in the physical universe, just one example of complex fields existing without being tied to matter in order to maintain their complexity. This is where his and Bohm's theories lose me. This is where a pre-existing belief in the separateness of consciousness and the desire for supernatural connectedness twists their pursuit of the truth. Show me an example of consciousness existing separate to a physical body or of communication between beings separate to physical processes. IMO, there is no valid precedence for believing in this type of reality. Vision that goes beyond the dots we discover in, connect from and test with experience leads us to fantasy, at best or delusion, at worst.

My issues with Sheldrake and Bohm come from my sense of reality and my view of causality. I have the same issues with more orthodox modern physics. There are many gods and ghosts in our stories that explain the universe. Ask yourself: what is the nature of energy? Conveniently, it's a question that science can't answer and philosophy is too crippled to even realize is a valid question. In the meantime, we intuitively think of energy as the ghostly stuff that is transferred between things when they collide, thus causing equal and opposite reactions. We know the math works but has anyone asked: Just how does this process really work? Going beyond measurements and mathematics, try to picture what happens within and between two billiard balls to cause them to act the way they do when they collide? What you picture is the transfer of ghostly stuff we call "energy." This is the basis of our physical understanding of how the universe works. The big question: Is there another way to visualize this that does not resort to gods or ghosts? This is where we will find one step to a more evolved view of causality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course what makes Sheldrake a bit of an untouchable is this insouciance in overturning Darwin, DNA and genetics -- he pays no nevermind to epigenetics or the answers to interesting questions in developmental biology, he just does not engage with current research ... only the murky fields of his imagination can properly explain evolution. This is the first and most obvious sign of a crank, self-exclusion and withdrawal from the larger community.

Like your social angle here. We keep ourselves real by maintaining our connection to peers and testing our theories by peer review. It's an important means of maintaining objectivity. It doesn't mean you have to agree with the group. God knows I frequently don't. But objectivity on the social plane requires that we include, rather than exclude, contrary views. And we must be prepared to openly question our own motives, processes and conclusions in the face of contrary perspectives. I wonder, though, just how conducive his larger community's attitude is to staying included with contrary views. It's like writing on OL. There are some threads where a sense of safety to be more open and vulnerable is created, where someone might openly question their own motives, processes and conclusions. Other threads create a need for a sense of defensiveness where no such vulnerability or openness is prudent. Or compare OL to other Objectivist sites that are full of crisis, conflict and "Objectivist Rage" waiting to boil over. I assume they haven't changed much since I last checked them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheldrake gives me the sense of going into a place of gods and ghosts with his morphic resonance.

Paul,

Where do you get this sense from? You keep mentioning this line of thought. I have seen several videos by Sheldrake and read several articles. I haven't read any of his books yet, but I have yet to encounter this proposition by him. I'm not saying he hasn't made it. I'm merely saying I haven't seen it so far.

All I've seen is a relatively good-natured scientist merrily going about making experiments on all kinds of things others call bunk and pissing them off when he gets his results published, especially in peer-reviewed journals, or when he gets employment at places like Harvard.

I will say I have seen him (on video several times) in the company of people who are very mystical and totally in the "place of gods and ghosts," and he is quite nice to them and respectful. But the impression I have gotten is that he is among them because they treat seriously, albeit unscientifically, the "bunk" others dismiss, and he happens to be interested in that "bunk." Thus, they are a preliminary data source, sort of pointing the way to what would be a good idea to test. I can't say for sure if this is his intent, but it is the impression I have gotten so far.

Anyway, I'm still looking and I'm pretty sure I will not be 100% on board with Sheldrake when I learn more (I never am that with anyone), however, I've seen enough to know I am not looking at a quack. I'm looking at a very serious researcher who believes in his work.

But this is the last I want to talk about the quackery stuff. I'm interested mostly in the ideas I am looking at, not at defending someone like Sheldrake against the opinions of differing establishment figures. I know he is accepted enough to get published in standard scientific media, speak at places like Google and work at top-rate universities, so to me, at least, that means something more than fringe quack.

Well... maybe I get amused because he... just... won't... go... away... and I can't help but look at the reactions of the people going nuts about it and smile. Boy, does he piss some folks off! :smile:

Back to the issue you raised, I don't have an opinion about disembodied actions (whatever that may be) or disembodied anything. I have had no experience with that because I seem to be stuck in my body. :smile: I do think the morphic field and morphic resonance ideas are intriguing and I want to learn more about them. To my mind right now, I am more convinced about the fields that emanate from entities--beyond their physical confine, like a field surrounding a magnet--than anything else. Notice that if you remove all scraps of metal from the field, the field still exists. And it is invisible. Also, as Sheldrake mentioned in the video, there is that thing about their fractal nature. You cannot slice a part of a field off. If you take a piece of a magnet, it will still produce a whole field.

(btw - What on earth is an "unextended entity"? I mulled that one over and the more I think about it, the weirder it gets and I end up not understanding the idea at all...)

I have held for a long time that there may be a part of reality that humans have not yet developed a sense organ for perceiving--or have partially developed one. After all, humans are still evolving. I hold it is arbitrary to claim we are at the peak of where evolution can take the human species and can go no further. To explain by example, light exists, even though a living being without eyes does not realize it. I don't say with certainty that this is the case, i.e., there are parts of reality human beings have no organ to perceive, but I see no reason to claim this simply cannot be the case, either. So I think it's a good thing that people like Sheldrake look into it.

Like he said, the stuff he looks at is not "paranormal." It's totally normal. People have been relating such experiences since before recorded history. So if someone is to look into all this (and since there are such widespread experiences constantly being claimed, I believe it's kind of stupid to dismiss them outright), I greatly prefer Sheldrake's approach to that of the uga-ugas (like you get in the deity religions in Brazil), tarot card readers or physics for hire to attract romance and riches in your life. Or even to that of your local preacher.

I say let him do his experiments. Let him write. Let him lecture. And if his theories, hypotheses and speculations do not pan out 100%, well... so what? He certainly will not be the first scientist that has happened to. I think it's great there is someone like him to test this stuff since so many up their noses at it.

I believe it was at Google (or maybe in an interview with Lipton) he mentioned why he believes things like telepathy are so maligned in the scientific community, whereas really weird science fiction things like parallel universes are accepted as fully plausible. He said in ancient times people were highly superstitious and they believed in all kinds of supernatural things. Then the Enlightenment came along. It could not unseat the big religions, but as a reaction to enshrining reason, the things on the fringe of religion like witch and sorcerer stuff were banished as bunk. And this attitude has persisted up to modern times. The weird quantum stuff doesn't get this treatment because it is new, without this historical baggage.

It's an interesting thought.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now