Dennis Coffey
George,
The Hamlet quote is a favorite of Rick Tarnas, the author of “The Two Parables.”
I also use it as one of my favorites.Dennis
George,
I wish I could give an informed answer to your question; I cannot. I do have several of his books which I hope to read in the near future.
I hope no one ever labels me a fundamentalist of any stripe. I have always been a questioning individual.
There was a book of essays that I at one time had, and Sheldrake wrote about morphogenis in his contribution to the collection. The other authors actually ridiculed him. Hmmm
Dennis
George,
I have listened to the Sheldrake-Segall interview twice, and I likely will listen to it again. The interview is thought-provoking. I wrote the following as part of my final paper for Andrew Davis’ class:
Morphogenetic Fields and Morphic Resonance
The next flyover was above the site relating to morphic fields and morphic resonance. In A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Formative Causation, Rupert Sheldrake (1987) develops his highly controversial theory regarding how plants develop according to a pattern that has emerged over time. He argues that genetics alone cannot explain why plants (and perhaps other living entities) have similar forms and shapes. Two key concepts are central for understanding what he is proposing. First, morphic resonance posits that past forms and behaviors influence similar forms in the present through resonance across time and space. The more often a particular pattern occurs, the more likely it is to occur again (a kind of collective memory). This transmission happens directly through the morphogenetic fields, not through conventional physical mechanisms.
Morphogenetic fields act as a kind of blueprint or template, and they exist beyond physical space and conventional energy. They carry information that shapes the development of systems, and they have a cumulative memory of similar forms that came before. Sheldrake when discussing these fields states “for although morphogenetic fields can only bring about their effects in conjunction with energetic processes, they are not in themselves energetic (75). This posited aspect of morphogenetic fields is like the nonagency of eternal objects. Another possible parallel consideration is that presentation in the mode of causal efficacy may have a potential role in Sheldrake’s theory.
I have many more questions pertaining to morphogenetic fields. One pertains to their provenance. My understanding is that they begin through self-organization. Then collective memory takes over and is used to shape the form of a species. New fields develop (through self-organization) to accommodate new life forms. Even though Sheldrake is a believer in God, as far as I can tell, he never directly attributes the development of morphogenetic fields to God, unlike the necessity of a Primordial God to the development of eternal objects.I failed to explicitly consider Whitehead’s concept of prehension. I do think it plays a role in Sheldrake’s overall program of morphogenesis.
___________________________________________________________________
This was a great interview. I have far more questions. One particular one pertains to recall versus pre-call. Hmmm.
Dennis
George,
I agree with most of what you state. However, I disagree that it defines who we are. I think it partially defines who we are. I think I have a strong sense of morality–that did not come from technology. There are other ways in which technology has had a hand in defining who I am. Without glasses, without ocular lens implants, I would be quite different.
That said, I embrace technology.
Dennis
Bill,
This is another thoughtful response from you. I am a technologist, but I recognize how harmful relying on it (technology) can be. I took a graduate course titled “The Philosophy of Technology.” In that course we read several works including Langon Winner’s classic, The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology. Winner argues that technology is not neutral; it has the ability to impact negatively or positively society. In this book, one of Winner’s themes asks the question of whether society can still retain control over technological developments or if we are becoming subjugated to the systems we’ve created. Hey, how about his thinking as it relates to AI?
Thanks for your posting.
Dennis
Eric,
You left out one (and possibly other) ism, panexperientialism in the initial part of your response. This I subscribe to, but it is not enough as you indicate
Ken Wilber? I went down that “rabbit hole,” but I managed to extricate myself from Wilberism. I will never “buy in totally” to any framework. I will keep exploring like I have been all my life. I think stopping the search would be a disservice to myself.
Thanks for your response.
Dennis
George,
I have been reading quite a bit of David Chalmers. In “Could a Large Language Model be Conscious?” (Boston Review, August 9, 2023) he states “I should say there’s no standard operational definition of consciousness.” (3rd page of article). Chalmers, someone who knows much about consciousness, has much to say about the topic but does not offer a clear-cut definition of consciousness. Like I said, I have an intuitive understanding of consciousness, but I feel like something is missing.
I too wonder about how increasing sophistication of experience leads to consciousness. I think a key is the aforementioned lack of an operational definition of consciousness.
I am writing all over the place because I am all over the place in my thinking. I will attempt to have more focus.
I am intrigued by Chalmer’s book, Reality +. I agree with his conclusion that reality even if it exists in a simulation is still valid. He doesn’t conclude we do live in a simulation.
Dennis
PS. Maybe consciousness, whatever that is, is an emergent phenomenon. I don’t know.
Joshua,
Fun, informative interactions!
Thanks for leading this class.
Dennis
P.S. The guest speaker was awesome.
Bill,
It’s there now.
Dennis
George,
For what it’s worth, I like what you say. I asked Claude for an opinion on what Whitehead meant by life, and this is the answer:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Alfred North Whitehead developed a distinctive philosophy of life through his process philosophy, most fully articulated in his major work Process and Reality (1929).For Whitehead, life is fundamentally characterized by novelty, creativity, and aim. Rather than viewing organisms as static substances, he saw them as dynamic processes—what he called “actual occasions” or “occasions of experience” that are constantly becoming.
Key aspects of Whitehead’s conception of life:
Living vs. Non-living: Whitehead distinguished life from inorganic matter not by a sharp boundary, but by degree. Living organisms exhibit greater intensity of experience, novelty in response to their environment, and purposive activity directed toward ends beyond mere mechanical repetition.
Creativity and self-determination: Life involves an element of self-creation. Each living occasion takes in data from its past and environment (what Whitehead called “prehensions”) but then exercises creativity in how it synthesizes these influences into something new. This gives organisms a degree of spontaneity and freedom.
Teleology: Living things are characterized by subjective aim—they act toward goals and purposes. This isn’t necessarily conscious but represents an inherent directedness in organic activity.
Society of occasions: An organism isn’t a single static thing but rather a “society” of interconnected occasions of experience that maintain a continuity of pattern through time while constantly changing.
Whitehead saw life as reality at its most intense and creative, representing the universe’s fundamental drive toward novelty and greater complexity rather than mere mechanical determinism.
_______________________________________________________________________________I really cannot quarrel with any aspect of this answer. Maybe others can.
Dennis
Bill and Joshua,
I have a copy of “Archetypal Process: Self and Divine in Whitehead, Jung, and Hillman.” Initially I was going to review this book for Andrew Davis’ class, but I diverted to another topic. I did read Griffin’s part of the book, but admittedly I haven’t finished the entire book. I am a huge fan of James Hillman, even though much of what he writes I don’t understand. I am not alone in my failure to understand Hillman. Thomas Moore is someone who I refer to as the Hillman Whisperer. He interpreted Hillman so that the common person could understand him. He was especially effective in his work in Hillman’s A Blue Fire. I was fortunate to have had Thomas Moore as an instructor in a class in another program.
Also, I had pretty much arrived at the conclusion that archetypes are indeed eternal objects. As such, I think they did precede the actual development of humans.
Dennis
ChrisD,
I respectfully disagree with the assertion that definitions are falsifiable. Definitions, by nature, are stipulative or conceptual; they establish the meaning of terms without making claims about reality. In contrast, theories make empirical assertions that can be tested through observation or experimentation, either confirming (not proving) or falsifying those claims. Definitions provide the framework, while theories function within that framework.
In essence, a definition is a statement that outlines the meaning of a term, concept, or symbol, specifying its boundaries—what qualifies as an instance of it and what does not. A theory, in turn, relies on these definitions to establish clear, operational terms, which facilitate consistent application, testing, and communication of its ideas. Poorly specified definitions can lead to outcomes that are meaningless (or dangerous).
A couple of points. A good theory must be falsifiable. Also, a theory can never be proven. It can be disproven but not proven.
Dennis
Reference: Reynolds, Paul D. 2007. A Primer in Theory Construction. NY: Laureate Education.
ChrisD,
“We have to be careful that defining “life” too broadly robs it of all meaning. It becomes no longer falsifiable so the definition is empty (as Antony Flew would say).”
I don’t think a definition can be falsifiable; only theories can (or should be per Popper). A definition is just that, a definition, perhaps necessary and perhaps sufficient as you state (though I wonder about this). I think a definition reflects or should reflect what one intends about a topic. I don’t think you can falsify a definition that I proffer. Now, when we are talking about Whitehead’s definition of life, we can meaningfully debate what he means, but we cannot falsify his definition of life.
If I am wrong, please correct me.
Dennis
ChrisD,
What you write makes sense (and deep scholarship). As I responded to George, if I understand what Whitehead means by life, then I can abide by that.
For grins and giggles I decided to ask co-pilot the definition of life, and this is the answer:
Defining life is one of the most profound and elusive challenges—scientifically, philosophically, and even poetically. There’s no single definition that satisfies all disciplines, (my emphasis) but here are a few lenses through which you might explore it:
—
**Biological Definition**In biology, life is typically defined by a set of characteristics:
– **Organization**: Composed of one or more cells.
– **Metabolism**: Uses energy to maintain internal order.
– **Homeostasis**: Regulates internal environment.
– **Growth**: Increases in size or number of cells.
– **Reproduction**: Produces offspring.
– **Response to stimuli**: Reacts to environment.
– **Adaptation**: Evolves over generations.This is useful for distinguishing living from non-living matter, but it doesn’t capture the essence of what life *feels* like or *means* (my emphasis).
**Philosophical Perspectives**
Philosophers have long wrestled with life’s meaning:
– **Aristotle** saw life as the actualization of potential—especially the soul’s capacity for reason and virtue.
– **Whitehead** described life as “the creative advance into novelty,” emphasizing process and change. (my emphasis)
– **James Hillman** might urge us to see life as animated by psyche, imagination, and myth—not just biology.These views invite us to see life not just as a system, but as a story, a striving, a becoming.
**Cosmic or Spiritual Views**
Some traditions define life as:
– A **spark of consciousness** or divine essence.
– A **journey of the soul** through experiences.
– A **manifestation of universal energy** or interconnectedness.These definitions often emphasize purpose, transcendence, or unity beyond the material.
**A Working Definition You Might Try**
> “Life is the dynamic interplay of matter, energy, and consciousness, organized to persist, adapt, and express meaning.”It’s broad enough to include cells, minds, and myths—and flexible enough to evolve with your understanding.
Surprisingly, I like co-pilot’s response.
Thank you for your deep response.
Dennis
George,
I agree that these seem to be examples of non-biological life in Whitehead’s philosophy, and increasingly, in my own thinking as well. Everything you’ve mentioned makes sense.
However, my question is this: Does Whitehead explicitly state anywhere in his writings that life does not have to be biological? Many of us, I think, tend to define life as biological. I haven’t found a direct statement from Whitehead saying that life can be non-biological; instead, his views on this seem more implicit.
I can follow the framework you’ve outlined. I might struggle to accept the idea that all actual occasions are alive, but if that’s the definition, then I can accept it. I’m curious if others are also having trouble with this particular definition of life. Of course, I may simply be an outlier.
Thanks,
Dennis