Fields
= "The scientific enterprise ... consists of fields within fields often in hierarchical order, with the broader fields associated with more general interpretants, the broadest being metaphysical theories, being the condition for the development of more specific fields of enquiry". [1]
Context
Arran Gare:
"It is necessary to take seriously and examine Peirce’s anti-reductionism. This is a major challenge. We are dominated by a culture in which it is assumed that we should begin by identifying the ‘atoms’ of anything being investigated. Advances in physics are characterized in terms of particle physics, for instance, or more recently, in terms of information. However, in physics fields are now recognized as more fundamental than particles. The current use of Shannon’s notion of information as equivalent to negative entropy (another ‘atom’), taking this as a basic unit of the universe, was questioned by Shannon himself in the 1950s (Gare, 2020). Robert Rosen (1999, 147) characterized information as a possible answer to a question, thereby presupposing a context for posing the question. For those at the cutting edge of research in other sciences, the concept of fields is now central (Gare, 2017a). Along with physical fields, biofields of various types are being recognized as essential components of life, while in the human sciences, the notion of fields has been invoked by the French anthropologist and sociologist Pierre Bourdieu and others to go beyond methodological individualism. Information is an answer to a question posed in a particular field of inquiry. ‘Individuals’ are then always seen as individuated components of fields, dependent upon these fields while not completely determined by them."
(https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1061/1691)
Typology
Biofields
Arran Gare:
"There are other radical developments in theoretical biology associated with efforts to takes eriously the implications of field theory. Alexander Gurwitsch continued to develop his ideas, and his research program was never completely abandoned. In a book published in English in 1970, A.S. Presman demonstrated impressive results of research in the Soviet Union and elsewhere on the role of electromagnetic fields in biological processes (Bischof, 2000; Presman, 1970). Based in Russia withallies in Western Europe, particularly Germany, biologists inspired by Gurwitsch have continued to explore what role electromagnetic and other physical fields play in not only morphogenesis, but also the development of consciousness (Beloussov et.al., 2000; Popp and Beloussov, 2003; Tzambazakis,2015). This has been associated with a revival of interest in biophotons. Catcha and Poznanski (2014)defending biophoton field theory, argued that this can actually account for consciousness. This research program has been taken up in USA by Beverly Rubik (2002; 2015), who has promoted the notion of the biofield as a bridge between the mind and the body. The proponents of photonic fields are not the only group arguing for the importance of physical fields in biology, however. Herms Romijn (2002) has tried to explain consciousness through virtual photons (a transient fluctuation that exhibits many of the characteristics of ordinary photons, but exist for a limited time in the interaction between charged particles). Romijn did not refer to the proponents of biophoton field theory, and they did not engage with his work. D. Lehmann (1992), a Swiss neurologist aligned with the research program of synergetics inspired by Hermann Haken, argued that electric fields are central to functioning of the brain and are responsible for its integration. It has been suggested more recently by the British biologist, John Jo McFadden on the basis of experimental work that electromagnetic fields synchronize nerve firing, pulling together coherent ion channels in different parts of the brain, and this could playa role in the transition from being unconscious to being conscious (2006). If biophotons and weak electric or electromagnetic fields are central the organization of the body and to brain functioning, this indicates that, as Presman (1970) argued, integration associated with electromagnetic fields should be seen as communication rather than through an imposed force. If this argument is accepted, then such work could also be understood as a contribution to biosemiotics.