I was looking at one of The Daily Grail's news items this morning and noted a name, which led me to Morphogenetic Fields. I then did a search on this latter phrase and came up with the theory.
It seems we can all learn in some way what others have learned before us.
The suggestion may be down to morphogenetic fields if you want to use a scientific term, but to me it represents the old adage, the 100th monkey syndrome.
This related to the idea that one monkey, if it learned how to do something, would pass the information onto others, and by the time 100 monkeys had learned it then monkeys anywhere, without being specifically taught by those already in the know, would suddenly be able to do it.
The number of 100 is I think a fictitious number, used to give people an idea of ratio, but it may require a lot more than that for it to work.
However, there have been many experiments done with relation to morphogenetic fields and these apparently do point to something being at work, as people either in later generations, or on a wider scale do seem to have some "memory" or "recognition" of things having been done before.
Some put this under mind control, and in a sense it is, but not in the expected sense.
The idea of a universal consciousness is becoming more accepted and proven, a species consciousness, superconsciousness, call it what you will, but we all seem to be linked into it if only we realised this more and used the knowledge sitting there.
I find the idea fascinating, and I want to thank TDG for this link, and subsequent insight.
Monkey business
the "100th monkey" seems to me nothing but a concocted New Age meme, but as everything in fortean lo re, Ido think there's a kernel of truth hidden beneath all the monkey poo :-)
There's something to the notion of a collective or cultural consciousness that needs to be researched further, although maybe we don't have the means of conducting such large-scale experiments. Maybe the Internet can be of help in this issue.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
Paradoxes again
There's something to the notion of a collective or cultural consciousness that needs to be researched further, although maybe we don't have the means of conducting such large-scale experiments.
This addresses the very issue that our scientific method, which is based on objective observation, can never adequately address.
Conscious experience is subjective in nature. Neuroscientists like Andrew Newberg are conducting studies to analyze what happens in the brains of different people during widely different experiences, but science can't ever know with certainty what any individual other than themselves is actually experiencing in the moment. They have to rely on the word of their subject as to what they are experiencing. We can't get inside of another's skin and actually view the world from their perspective.
What each of us can do is investigate and explore our own consciousness, and then share, to the best of our ability, what we discover and perceive to be true. I've done enough of this to perceive that there is a higher consciousness that we are all connected to, but only those who have had a similar experience themselves can ever know it as a fact - it can't be demonstrated to someone else.
Yep
[it can't be demonstrated to someone else.
Like the Matrix!—Sorry, can't help myself ;-)
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
Sure, we can explore our own
Sure, we can explore our own conscious experience but, as science can tell us (for example this recent news link) there's a lot more going on unconsciously that, by definition, we don't have experiential access to.
What we do experience is an elaborate illusion - like the Matrix - but which (hopefully) serves to ensure our continued survival.
------
I don't believe in belief!
Perceval
Zen
This addresses the very issue that our scientific method, which is based on objective observation, can never adequately address.
As the Zen teaching goes, it can not be explained, it has to be experienced. It can't be proven, it has to be experienced.
Spooky 'coincidence'!
Whaddaya know Carol, it seems the man who coined the term "100th monkey" has just passed away.
Eerie!
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
Sorry to hear that..
The whole idea of the monkey thing brings a lot up to conscious level to think about.
When I read the story, I felt it was a wonderful parable of our interconnectedness.
Death of 100th Monkey idealist
Carol A Noble
Red Pill Junkie, I was not aware of the name of the person who actually coined this idea, but I am sad to hear the person has recently died. Perhaps his idea might now suddenly become part of the general psyche of humankind!
As for the testing of these ideas, yes it is subjective, and I agree that science will never be able to prove precisely what is happening as not everyone uses exactly the same part of the brain to do the same thing. I admit that there is a generalisation of majority usage for specific actions in a particular part of the brain, but not every brain follows that trend, so no-one can guarantee that in every situation a particular part of the brain will automatically be used. We are not all the same.
And just because someone can simulate an experience by stimulating a particular part of one person's brain, doesn't mean that a person automatically is hallucinating all of the time, or hoaxing the situation. If it has to be an external stimulant then perhaps there are external stimulants that are not visible to everyone, but nevertheless bring about results such as has been seen?
I am a sceptic in many things, but because so much has actually happened to me, either I am mad (which means many others in this world are mad too as they often have similar experiences) or there is something else happening that no-one can yet explain. But unlike some sceptics I don't dismiss every situation just because it doesn't fit the present preferred public theory.