The blog began with a consideration of Upanishadic metaphysics culminating in Shankeracharya’s Advait philosophy of Transcendental Monism, – then moved to the metaphysics of science with David Bohm’s theory of an Implicate Order and we now reach metaphysics in biology with Rupert Sheldrake’s theory about Morphogenetic Fields and Morphic Resonance. While the first two were concerned with the cosmos ( and beyond) the last has more to do with manifest Nature.
 Sheldrake is an eminent biologist who had studied at Cambridge and Harvard, travelled widely attending conferences on holistic thought, science and mysticism, where Bohm and Capra represented physics and Sheldrake was the most prominent biologist. Renee Weber (see previous post) in her book ‘The Search for Unity’ extensively interviewed Sheldrake ( among others). Below I have sought to present the substance of her seminal dialogues with Sheldrake on his hypothesis on Morphogenetic Fields.
Like Bohm was dissatisfied with the lack of interpretations of quantum mechanics by scientists for us, being confined to math. and equations, so too Sheldrake was dissatisfied with the mechanistic – reductionist view of biology among
physiologists, biochemists and biophysicists who he felt were more physicists and chemists than biologists. This he called a major internal crisis in biology. A dissident tradition was on the other hand looking for something going beyond such a view – this group consisted of developmental biologists and embryologist, according to him the true biologists with whom he identified. They dissented from the mechanist view that the DNA and chemicals in human organisms were the sole cause of their form and properties. Everything was attributed to DNA in the mechanistic model. He felt that this was grossly over-rated. DNA was attributed unexplained powers and properties which could not be specified in molecular terms at all. This he describes as the fantasies projected onto the DNA.
Like Bohm sought to make sense of quantum mechanics by proposing an Implicate Order (previous post), Sheldrake postulated Morphogenetic Fields to explain what the DNA clearly was not doing. All that the DNA did was to provide a code enabling cells to make certain proteins. How then the cells used the proteins, organized themselves into particular forms and grouped together in tissues of certain forms and shaped them into an organism of forms was still a mystery. He gave an example to explain. DNA gave us the bricks and mortar with which the organism is built but how these are assembled into patterns, shapes and structures remained beyond known capabilities of DNA.
Sheldrake said that primary forms are defined by two fields, gravity and electromagnetism. Gravity is a kind of formation field but at a lower level, creating forms like spheres. Electromagnetic fields are also simple in contributing form but neither can explain the complexity or multiplicity of forms of organisms. He explains that as animals and plants develop, the complexity of their structures becomes greater and greater – more form coming from less, defying physical explanations.
His theory of Morphogenetic Fields proposes that there is a field which is responsible for development of form (the things which the DNA evidently does not do ). The form pre-exists in the field which guides the developing organism and controls its form and development. Each organism has a field dedicated to it. The fields are derived from past organisms of the same species through ‘Morphic Resonance’. Past forms influence present ones through the field by a kind of resonance and present forms feed-back into the field in a two-way kind of on going evolution of the same form.
He explains ‘Morphic Resonance’ with the analogy of radio and TV. Wires and transistors receive transmissions from stations. The DNA of a chicken are the wires and transistors which receive the transmissions from the Morphogenetic field of Chickens. the present approach to biology is like looking at a picture on the TV screen and examining the transistors, wires and chemicals in the TV set without accounting for the fact that the transmissions are not coming from the box. Indeed he holds that Morphic Resonance can be tested. An example is that of rats learning a new trick in one place and the rats of the same breed then learning that trick more quickly all over the world (in a later post I propose to show numerous examples of scientifically tested cases of so-called Morphic Resonance).
Weber then asked Sheldrake about the nature and characteristics of Morphogenetic fields. He explained that the fields are invisible, and like gravity has spatial patterns. The spatial patterns of a magnetic field can be seen in the iron filings on the magnet. Therefore the fields are invisible but detectable only through their effects. Morphogenetic Fields are also invisible and undetectable directly but only through the Morphogenetic effects. However they are not ‘energetic’ like magnetic fields because they are outside space and time.
Forms are not mere archetypes in the mind of God unlike what Augustine would have said. Sheldrake proposes that they are evolutionary not fixed. While they are affected by past forms of the same type of organism through a kind of cumulative effect, the field is also affected by existing forms – a kind of two-way process through a feed-back. This is similar to Bohm’s idea of the Implicate Order ‘unfolding’ and then ‘enfolding’.
He agrees that there is a kind of persistence of memory on a cosmic scale. He then approaches the God thought. He believes that Nature itself has a source beyond the natural world. Creativity within the universe and the universe itself can only be explained through a kind of idea of transcendence – some non-physical, trans-physical reality, spiritual in nature.
Once again I sat back to allow the mind-blowing concepts to settle in. Yet another scientist, a biologist this time had opened his mind to speak of science and metaphysics seeking this time to explain development of form, their multiplicity and evolution. When the circuits had stopped whirring and the alignments had been made, once again a new mind-set had evolved. Nature was indeed alive, intelligent with memory, intent and transcendental influences. No less important the fact that we are not merely products of nature but active participants in its evolution. As Bohm’s Implicate Order was affected and transformed every time we ‘enfolded’ back into it, so too Sheldrake’s Morphogenetic Fields evolved through our individual ‘contributions’.
I would just like to remark that according to Jung, also archetypes were dynamic and not fixed.
I am really fascinated by Sheldrake’s theory. Thanky you for delineating it so clearly.
LikeLike
thanks – so dynamism is a common feature – like god wants inputs?
LikeLike
Absolutely, the divine needs us!
LikeLike
sure he does – he produced us for a purpose QED
In Hinduism there is this universal thought belief – god yearns more for his devotees love than does the devotee for his – when that love is offered He will do anything.
LikeLike
Thought we were the divine ourselves (;
LikeLike
we? they are divine – the content is divine not the container – we have divinity within – does not make us divine – God wants inputs / God yearns for his devotees = the soul wants embodiment and will be with the incarnations (devotees) for numerous lifetimes.
LikeLike
A beautiful explanation of the inexplicable —-
LikeLike
thanks – important that we to share in evolution
LikeLike
I am skeptical about morphogenic fields. I think that the mechanisms of self assembly afford the coherence of the unity and coherent construction of an organism. I will concede however that external magnetic and electrical fields lend to the chirality bias of life on this planet however, and would not be surprised that a similar grand scale field accounts for the the chirality biase at both the atomic and the scale of the galaxies.
Stem cells are undifferentiated cells and as an organism developers from stem cells two things happen, the polarity of each cell is established and the cells differentiate. The established polarity seems to dictate coherence and convey spatial information, and the role of specialization between cells developing within an organism.
I think it is the stem cell itself that contains all the information required to assemble and develope an organism itself, and that this process is a process of self assembly!
LikeLike
you may be right – im no biologist or scientist of any kind – but stem cell contains all the info and self assembly without directions – DNA? or from where does it get this ability or info – sounds like what sheldrake said about biophysicists and bio chemists – saying things just happen on their own till we know better – Robert?
LikeLike
Indrajit,
I think there are some overlooked mechanisms that mainstream science is neglecting, and that these provide an adequate explanation for morphology.
The dominance of L -Form amino acids was adequately explained decades ago as the result of being formed in a north/negative magnetic field, scientists have still not accepted this widely. The work of Gerald Pollack on water now explaines this fully and is accounted for in the fact that most of the water in the cytoplasm is negatively charged and structured.
By not recognizing this principle science is largely blind to the causes and consequences of these principles and are grasping in the dark!
LikeLike
what about an eminent wide awake imaginative biologist like Sheldrake saying the same thing you are about the DNA being allowed more than it can manage to explain how organisms form and develop?
LikeLike
his analogy about the tv set and the transmissions not possible in the tv box without a transmission from somewhere?
LikeLike
I don’t agree with the mysterious transmission and morphogenic fields. Within the context of the environment here on earth, the living organism is capable of self organization, self assembly, and self propagation, and this is the result of everything in our external and internal environments. Water, and the aqueous internal environment of the cell is the unrecognized and critical behaviour we need to understand to keep exploring to fully understand life.
LikeLike
my mystical nature happily makes me believe that this self organization arises from an external impetus – id rather be a mystic than a scientist who is not mystical – thats how i am made – but thanks nevertheless for explaining that the cell is king
LikeLike
I’m not exactly saying that the cell is king either, but that the forces responsible for life are many, and that they all work together in concert with each other, and in the proportions required. This does seem magical if you consider it like a person will. People are also creators, and we have insights into our own creations, but this often becomes wholly inadequate when considering creations not created by the hand of man.
LikeLike
Chirality is the left handed or right handed bias demonstrated in atomic physics, biology, and at the large scale cosmos. Amino acids on earth are L-Form, matter dominates our section of the universe and not anti-matter(one chiral form and not the other), and galaxies in the northern hemisphere are left handed but the ones in the Southern Hemisphere are right handed.
LikeLike
ok hope that helps me understand anything but thanks for trying
LikeLike
I agree with Sheldrake in that way too much is somehow attributed to DNA, as if DNA was magic, when all it really is is a recipe book for polypeptides. Attributing everything to DNA like our scientific culture does, is simply an admission that they haven’t got a clue as to what is going on.
LikeLike
sure and give it a name like ‘genetic programmes’
LikeLike
what pray is Chirality bias – i could of course find that on the internet if its too long to explain.
LikeLike
I have always enjoyed reading about Sheldrake’s theory. Thank you Indrajit.
LikeLike
makes one so secure to know that nature is not random but intentful and we too are participants – wow
we and nature together in control – do it right and nature likes it cause it helps her development – we together – nice – thanks
LikeLike
“they dissented from the mechanist view that the DNA and chemicals in human organisms were the sole cause of their form and properties.”
See related: Research and Esoteric Respective on DNA, brain, and body
http://mystic1muse.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/research-and-esoteric-respective-on-dna-brain-and-body/
LikeLike
To simplify the argument , the matter and energy in the universe is not self caused, it is a separation of qualities that is likely maintained by separate standing fields, and even these fields likely cancel each other out, and in the end only the void remains.
But since our experience of the world appears for the most part to be a physical one, it may actually be prudent to understand the physical realm first, and once we have that mastered, then proceed to the primary nature of underlying all things given this foundation?
Trivializing the physical world and its mechanisms is a denial of clarity and insight in exchange for ambiguity and incoherence? I cannot believe we as physical beings, in a physical universe are here to ignore physicality!
LikeLike
I entyirely agree with you – for that reason in a post I quoted Meister Eckhart that if the soul could have known god without the world the world would not have been created – spirit and matter are two important sides of the coin and neither can do without the other
LikeLike
thanks will do
LikeLike
Interesting to read about Sheldrakes morphogenetic fields and your interpreation of it. Nice hypotheses if we cant explain biological varity and ‘morphic resonance’ by better ones and scientifically proof them.
I like the idea of the ‘two-way-traffic’ and ‘god yearning for the devotees too’.
For Robert: what are your – or the – physical hypotheses about the way something starting from ‘The void’. Sounds quite mystical to me. Good title for a scifi-movie by the way (:
LikeLike
“What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). “…Schrodinger
Particles are produced by the exclusion of space, and space is an independant entity itself capable of being compressed, stretched and rarefied. Matter and energy owe their primary existence to space itself.
What space is itself is still not understood, but it is not nothing…this much is obvious!
LikeLike
Here is the WSM link I was looking for the other day for you guys!
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Erwin-Schrodinger.htm
😉
LikeLike
thanks
LikeLike