Rupert Sheldrake : morphogenetic resonance

[malignd at aol.com]

Sheldrake's a quack.  So was Jung.



-----Original Message-----
From: David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
To: Matthew Cissell <macissell at yahoo.es>
Cc: pynchon-l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Thu, Mar 29, 2012 11:18 am
Subject: Re: Rupert Sheldrake : morphogenetic resonance


It seems Sheldrake is coming up with his own version of Jung's
Collective Unconscious.  But his version seems really absurd:

"The more people who learn a new skill, such as snowboarding, the
easier it will be for others to learn it because of morphic resonance
from previous snowboarders."

Seems he thinks the Collecive Memory is instantly updated, as if all
minds are linked by a psychic internet.  I can accept the concept of
collective memory, but only as a function of evolution, a genetic
process that is far from instantaneous.  As I've said before, in
humans I would call it "instinct," something form over millions of
years.

David Morris

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Matthew Cissell <macissell at yahoo.es> wrote:
> From what little I have read, I am skeptical.
> Mr. Sheldrake's new book "The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of
> Enquiry" was also covered in the April issue of the Fortean Times. FT quotes
> him:  "The formation of habits depends on a process called morphic
> resonance. Similar patterns of activity resonate across space and time with
> subsequent patterns. This hypothesis applies to all self-reorganising
> systems, including atoms, molecules, crystals, cells, plants, animals, and
> animal societies. All draw upon a collective memory and in turn contribute
> to it... A growing oak seedling follows the habits of growth and development
> of previous oaks... The more people who learn a new skill, such as
> snowboarding, the easier it will be for others to learn it because of
> morphic resonance from previous snowboarders." Apparently, Sheldrake  thinks
> memories are not located in the brain but rather outside of it. He also has
> doubts about the speed of light as a constant.
> Now, Sheldrake may be a Cambridge-trained biochemist with a PhD ,as the
> article informs the reader, but does that qualify him to doubt universal
> constants in physics?
>
>  Although I haven't read any of his books, the article brought out my
> skeptical side. Of course, Sheldrake is not responsible for the article, but
> it gives pause. The author of the article states that "any modern
> research programmme is under a good deal of pressure to not produce
> unexpected or unwanted results." This is simply not true, look at the
> hullabaloo about the faster-than-light neutrinos. In fact scientists yearn
> to find something unexpected since it will get them recognition.
>
> I appreciate what thinkers like Kuhn, Feyerabend and Latour have done to
> shake up the way we think about science and the questions we ask of and
> about it. However, it has helped a school of thought that says that science
> is dogmatically constrained or, worse, that it is not open-minded, fair and
> unbiased. This can in turn play into the hands of climate change doubters or
> evolutionists.
>
> Sheldrake does sound like a nice fellow, but until he establishes "a
> testable hypothesis with predictions and effects that could be falsified" he
> only has my respectful disbelief.
>
> mc otis

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20120329/45bc7998/attachment.html>