IDEALIZING MORPHOGENESIS

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

IDEALIZING MORPHOGENESIS:

Substance Of Reaction, Sensation, And Sentience:

PHYSICALIST: A Physicalist may consider that Reality is truly based and constituted only in Substance.

IDEALIST: An Idealist may consider that Substance is truly constituted only in respect of a Metaphysically Idealized System of Mathematical Functions.

CONCEPTUALIZING IDEALISM: Presently, I seem to be an Idealist.
As such:
How may I conceptualize the appearance of substantive reactions --- which seem to be neither sensate nor sentient?
May I conceptualize distinctions in kind among reactive-ness, sensate-ness, and sentience?
What role may “I-ness” play in effecting determinations, permitted within parameters, in interactions among reactions, sensations, and sentience?
How may some reactions not be either sensate or sentient?
In what does reaction, sensation, or sentience consist?
Is all of reactive-ness determined, secondary to holistic laws and parameters in concert with holographically morphic resonances?
What sort of connectivity or inter-contact is requisite to support inter-reaction?
Does sentience consist in channeling a focusing of choices availed by parameters, in order to translate translations of mathematically represented patterns?
Does sentience consist in reacting to the translating of translations of others?
Ultimately, “Who” is the sentience?

INANIMATE, ANIMATE, AND CONSCIOUS CHOICES:

FUZZY EXISTENCE: “Reactiveness,” insofar as it is anywhere un-sensed, is only “there” as random fuzzy or default background --- for recording and respecting the sequential applying of holistic rules that govern parameters for engaging our universe.

FOCUSING EXISTENCE: Specifiable aspects of such parameter-providing-background may eventually relate, come into contact with, or interact with a pre-set point-of-view or frame-for-measuring or recording perspective --- as by a sensing device, recorder, observer, or locus of being.

Upon such interaction, parameters availed for experiencing or measuring each such specifiable aspect “collapse,” so as to afford a relatively consistent interpretation or translation for each such measurer. Upon such interaction, there occurs a specifying, collapsing, or constricting of determinations or choices from among previously availed parameters of ambiguity-preserving fuzziness.

TRANSLATION OF FOCUS: Sentience consists in translating such collapsed sensations or evaluations of experiences into specifiable information or representative format, for affecting or being stored in consciousness.

HOLOGRAPHISM OF TRANSLATION: Holographic I-ness is what experiences sensation and sentience. Holographic I-ness participates in feedback-possibilities or choices, of which some choices may be determined with loaded dice, and some may be determined in association with evaluating sentience.

DELEGATION OF DETERMINATIVE AUTHORITY: Thus, Holistic-I establishes a system that facilities DELEGATION of specific determinations, such that: the collapsing of otherwise fuzzy background (inanimate or non-conscious) REACTIONS is delegated to “meta-dice” that are random; the collapsing of reactions that associate with (animate or subconscious) SENSATIONS are delegated to meta-dice that are loaded; and the collapsing of reactions that associate with (conscious) SENTIENCE are delegated for involvement with conscious evaluation and choice among competing possibilities.

INANIMATE REACTIVE FIELDS:

As a raindrop falls, in reaction to environmental factors, is anything necessarily, or in any interconnecting or holographic sense, sensing it? No.

Does the “raindrop itself” sense? No.

Does the raindrop only manifest as an “inanimate thing that may be sensed”? Yes.

EXISTENCE RELATIVE TO CONCEPTUALIZATION: The raindrop is neither conscious, nor does it exist “in itself.” It merely reacts along a default path that is necessarily and commonly in place for the sustenance of all sensate and sentient beings. Holistic-I need not specially sense the raindrop, apart from idealizing, generally, the functional background rules in respect of which all holography proceeds.

RANDOMNESS OF DETERMINATIONS WITHIN PARAMETERS:
Such inanimate Reactions are interactions that default to a path in respect of fair dice.
Sensations, however, are interactions that proceed along a path of loaded dice.
And Sentient experiences are interactions that proceed along a path of feedback-appreciation of Will.

DELEGATING AUTHORITY OF WILL: Well, then, which interactions are holographic? Perhaps, holographism proceeds along a tree of delegation of authority, such that:

Sentience is holographic in respect of Holistic-I;

Sensateness is holographic in respect of a particular Holographic-I-ness ("to sense" is to form a representative, figurative sensation or mathematical model about what is being interpreted as being sensed; "to react," on the other hand, need not entail forming a model about what is being reacted with); and

Reaction is holographic in respect of all that experiences, observes, or conceptualizes a frame of reference that encompasses it.

PRAYER: Except against trump of rules of Holism, the desires, prayers, and meta-wills of particular beings or perspectives of I-ness may harmonize or merge to effectuate results, in non-confirmable respect of a sort of morphic resonance, or morphogenesis.


MORPHIC RESONANCE:

SHELDRAKE: I do not fault all of Sheldrake’s views about Morphic Resonance. But I do take issue with two such views.

HABITS OF NATURE: First, I do not think we are presented only with habits, rather than laws. If nothing presents laws to us (such as for enabling common potential, conservation, direction, and chronological sequencing), then I fail to appreciate how we, as holographic perspectives, could appreciate or communicate anything. It counters my intuition to suppose there could be liberty without order, freedom without law, or holographic experience without holistic rules.

TESTABILITY OF METAPHYSICS: Second, I fail to appreciate why anyone should suppose that the intuitively metaphysical should be subject to the substantively testable or empirical. To me, trying to prove metaphysics empirically disserves both physics and metaphysics. The key to metaphysics is direct, intuitive appreciation of “I-ness” --- not empiricism.

MORPHIC FIELD: Subject to such necessary mathematics, rules, or laws as are imposed by Holistic-I, I DO INTUIT and believe a field of “morphic resonance” emerges in respect of conserving competitions and expressions of will among holographic iterations of I-ness (Elohim).

NOMA: However, nothing in empiricism can confirm or falsify morphic resonance. (There are too many “Morton’s Demons.”) Rather, like Stephen Jay Gould, I think morphic resonance, as a conceptualization, pertains to a non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA).

CONCEPTUALIZING HOLISM: Apart from empiricism, how may it be conceptualized that Holistic-I is receptive to iteration by Holographic-I-ness, to experience and appreciate myriad perspectives of a system of universal representation of otherwise empty units of space?

Well, I cannot measure or say “how.”

ALONENESS: I can only suggest that, were we not able to be tied to such a system, we could not iterate among numerous holographic expressions in respect of it. Either nothing would exist, or we would exist only in unification --- as incredibly lonely One-ness.

NON-TRIVIAL KNOWLEDGE: Regardless, why should we expect to definitively answer such an ultimate concern, any more than we should expect to answer why Holistic-I should exist (or why “Existence should exist”)?

REINCARNATION OF PERSPECTIVES OF I-NESS: We, as iterations of Holographic-I-ness, have been here before --- because empathy for each civilization must inevitably break down and perish. That may be our “holographic sin,” chaining us to a perpetual cycle for pushing-up civilization --- like Sisyphus.

REDEMPTION OF I-NESS: Yet, each new push-way is redeemed in respect of the scents, scenes, and stories we share along the way. We will be back. Or, if not, we will not care.