From: Dace (email@example.com)
Date: Mon 09 Jun 2003 - 18:25:23 GMT
> From: "Scott Chase" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Please don't make the asociation between the developmental biological
> concept of the morphogenetic field and Sheldrake's morphic mumbo jumbo.
The "developmental biological concept of the morphogenetic field" is
*exactly* what Sheldrake discusses in his hypothesis of formative causation. The only difference is that he regards form-giving fields as being irreducible to either atoms or equations.
Since you already know this, why am I explaining it to you?
> Sheldrake hijacked the concept from developmental biology and
> it to cover more than what it was intended, conceptualizing the four
> dimensional (ie- spatiotemporal) aspects of form generation
> Sheldrake has created way too much confusion on this topic with his psi
> phenomenal abuse of the term "morphic field" that the knee jerk reaction
> someone talking about morphogenetic fields is that they believe in psychic
> pets (ie- clever Hansian hamsters that know when their owners have just
> pulled up in the driveway and are about to open the front door and get the
> box of hamster treats out of the pantry).
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon 09 Jun 2003 - 18:34:24 GMT