Let's talk about morphic resonance

Glenn Turner

(Please don't just post to attack Dr. Sheldrake. Ad hominem attacks are not helpful--they don't disprove the ideas being discussed.)

The business of philosophy is to explore new ideas.

I want to discuss the idea of morphic resonance. I'm somewhat acquainted with it through a couple videos, a book and the web site. Maybe on this web site are some people who know about biology and can give some insight.

I want to ask about the following natural phenomenon.
You know how a large school of fish will suddenly change course as though they all have one mind?
What law of nature causes that?

One hypothesis is a so-called "morphic field."

I quote Sheldrake:

"2. This field is within and around the system it organizes, and is a vibratory pattern of activity that interacts with electromagnetic and quantum fields of the system...including (c) Social fields that link together and coordinate the behavior of social groups."
Sheldrake, Science Set Free, p. 100

What laws of physics are involved here?

fresco

↪Glenn Turner

I like the concept of 'morphic resonance', but I suggest we should also bear in mind that for Sheldrake this appears to lead inevitably to concepts of 'holistic consciousness' which have resulted in his advocating 'the benefits' of general ritual religious practices.

Glenn Turner

Thanks for mentioning it. I haven't heard of 'holistic consciousness,' I'll look into it.

tim wood

What laws of physics are involved here? — Glenn Turner

electromagnetic and quantum fields of the system...including (c) Social fields that link together and coordinate the behavior of social groups."
What laws of physics are involved here? — Glenn Turner

Hm. Let's see. QED (quantum electrodynamics) - or QM - and social fields. What laws of physics are involved here? I'm pretty sure not one single one.

And what makes the fish seem fast is very likely that compared to the fish, you're slow. I think if we could consult the fish that did not turn fast enough, he - or she - would complain about the slowness.

I am going to guess that in the "social fields" like the school of fish, the word "social" is extremely misleading, and that a simple explanation is that each fish is aware not only of the fish near him, but also the fish relatively far away. If, for example, fish commuted in cars on streets, they would not leave a red light in succession as we do, but rather all would be aware at the same time that the light had turned green and all would start up simultaneously. Btw, flocks of birds exhibit similar behaviour.

Glenn Turner

Yes flocks of birds act that way too, all turning at once. There are a lot of examples of unexplained animal behavior. Morphic fields is attempting to figure it out. Sheldrake says that they could do experiments to test it. I don't know yet if they have.

I won't speculate on the behavior of fish driving cars.

:smile:

Pantagruel

Flocking behaviour can be simulated pretty easily using the principles of alignment, cohesion, and separation. Since brains do function computationally to some extent at least, Occam's razor suggests to me this is probably the natural mechanism also.

Glenn Turner

Thanks for mentioning flocking behavior principles. I guess I need more science to actually delve into the possibilities. It seems that principles of alignment, cohesion and separation merely describe outer behavior, not the inner workings of the birds' instincts.

Pantagruel

↪Glenn Turner

Yes, it doesn't explain exactly how that behaviour was happening, but presumably a similar set of brain mechanisms to other behaviours, and aligned with those 'variables' or dimensions describing the external activities.

Galuchat

What laws of physics are involved here? — Glenn Turner

"...boids and all of the other marvellous computer models of collective animal behaviour, from ant colonies to herd animals on the prairie, would remain little more than hi-tech parlour games, had physicists not begun to see that they are really a form of non-equilibrium statistical physics."

Ball, Philip. (2004). Critical Mass: How One Thing Leads to Another. (pp. 152-156). Random House. London.

Wayfarer

What laws of physics are involved here? — Glenn Turner

I don't think any laws known to physics. That is why he is routinely castigated as 'fringe/alternative', although I don't at all agree with that view. I think in terms of metaphors and similes, the description of morphic resonance sounds very like C S Peirce's 'habits of nature'. Of course the problem that this poses for mechanistic science is that 'habituation' doesn't seem very much like the kind of thing that you could expect from mechanical systems, which is why it is usually dismissed.

Anyway, I'm a Sheldrake fan. I met him years ago, have read many of his books and regularly peruse his website. But then, I'm one of the forum's committed non-materialists, so it's a natural fit.

Janus

↪Glenn Turner

Sheldrake's idea of morphic resonance has affinities with Ervin Laszlo's conception of the akashic field and David Bohm's implicate order. Ervin Lazslo specifically equates the akashic field with the quantum vacuum, and David Bohm is a quantum physicist, so you might find some clues to what you are seeking in investigating Bohm's and Laszlo's ideas.

Pantagruel

I don't know if it relates but there is lots of evidence of the effects of quantum tunneling in biological systems, including higher animals, helping to govern the migratory navigational capabilities of some birds for example.

Arne

What laws of physics are involved here? — Glenn Turner

7 and 8 and in particular 9, paragraph B, clause II.

And you are welcome.

Glenn Turner

↪Wayfarer

Wayfarer, nice to meet you. Yes Sheldrake mentioned "habit of nature" in the book.
Thanks, Janus, I'll look into those 2 philosophers you mentioned, I'm getting too busy all of a sudden. Great stuff.

Gnomon

What laws of physics are involved here? — Glenn Turner

I think that's the problem here : not physics, but logic. Sheldrake's Morphic Field hypothesis is philosophical, not scientific -- holistic, not analytic. It seems to assume top-down causation, from field to object. And, I agree that it does seem as-if some invisible hand is enforming living and growing things. But I have come to a different conclusion, in which progressive Evolution is top-down in conception, but bottom-up in execution.

By that I mean the world works like an Evolutionary Program, with general teleology set by the Designer, but specific steps toward the desired end are determined ad hoc and heuristically. This is the thesis of my Enformationism worldview. I sometimes use the metaphor of an Enformation Field, or the force of EnFormAction. But when translated into scientific terminology, its just plain old erratic Evolution, motivated by Energy. So, most science-minded folks miss the point of the thesis. :smile:

Let's talk about morphic resonance

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions