Rupert Sheldrake : morphogenetic resonance

[Joseph Tracy]

I came to this book with similar reservations, and  as far as I can tell Sheldrake is very careful not to question what is known about physics. I saw no challenge to universal constants.  He spends a lot of time trying to show the gaps between what is known of  quantum and general theory and its ability to predict the generation and maintenance of form. What you get from current science is an explanation like" complicated interactions we don't yet understand".  He gives enormous attention to a similar gap in the ability of DNA and genes to perform the elaborate epigenetic tasks that shape a complex organism. Essentially, how does the DNA which is the same in each cell know that it is supposed to be making in a particular area of the organism ,when to make hair cells , when bone or liver?  He is very modest and careful and he is trying to distinguish his theories from untestable vitalist type ideas by proposing  falsifiable tests to his notion of a non-energetic resonant field. 

On Mar 29, 2012, at 10:32 AM, Matthew Cissell 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
>  
> From: Dave Monroe <against.the.dave at gmail.com>
> To: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> 
> Cc: P-list List <pynchon-l at waste.org> 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 6:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Rupert Sheldrake : morphogenetic resonance
> 
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> 
> > Slowly working my way through Sheldrake's" A New Science of Life: Hypotheses of Morpophogenetic Resonance.  I t is a radical hypotheses about fields somewhat like  Newtonian gravitation or electromagnetic fields, or quantum fields,  that proposes a  morphogenetic field that is generated by and resonates through space time from forms- forms meaning everything from molecules to crystals to complete organisms and their constituent forms.  One of his goals is to make a testable hypothesis with predictions and effects that could be falsified. One of his obvious  tasks is to establish that there are serious gaps in current theory and data, and that those gaps require such a new hypothesis. He takes that on through the first third of the book and as a recurrent theme, and iterates many questions in depth concerning genetics and physics as predictors of form. About 2/3rds along now and wonder who has read any of his work?
> >
> > Part of my attraction to Sheldrake is his persona. He is very modest, very humane, and incredibly brilliant but never a show off.  His search is a search for testable scientific truth that covers some of the gaps in our current science, and not a personal pursuit of fame. He is personally a Christian but was a friend and lecturer with Terrance McKenna and Ralph Abraham, so very open minded fellow. though seeming to be considerably more practical than McKenna.
> >
> > Any P-listers familiar? thoughts?
> 
> I might even have reread it @ least in part, way back when, + maybe ts
> "sequel' (The Presence of the Past) as well.  He's back, by the way:
> 
> http://www.sheldrake.org/homepage.html
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jan/27/science-delusion-rupert-sheldrake-review
> 
> For full-on SF:
> 
> http://www.davidbrin.com/practiceeffect1.htm
> 
> http://www.davidbrin.com/othersfbooks.htm#practice
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Practice_Effect
> 
>