Philosophical musings on Quanta & Qualia;  Materialism & Spiritualism; Science & Religion; Pragmatism & Idealism, etc.

The
Morphogenetic Field

Post 43. 07/01/2018

Morphogenesis & Enformation

The Origin of Form

Biologist and Parapsychologist, Rupert Sheldrake's theory of Morphogenesis (origin of form) is similar to my own thesis of Enformationism in many ways. He presents a lot of technical scientific evidence to support his idea that biological evolution is not just a mechanism of particles in motion, but also a product of organizing fields. That's why he looks at the whole system, Holism, instead of just the parts, Reductionism, for under-standing of the living forms he studies. That may also be why the name of his specialty is “Parapsychology” instead of just plain Psychology. Holistic theories are easy to grasp intuitively, but difficult to prove empirically. Over the years, most of the para-sciences have been unable to show any significant empirical evidence to confirm their theoretical speculations. So, most of their hypothetical psychic phenomena remain unrecognized by mainstream Science. But their metaphorical terminology is readily accepted by pseudo-scientists and mind-over-matter psychics. Nevertheless, I am intrigued by the parallels between his theory of Form Fields, and my own concept of Enformy.

For example, his hypothetical biological fields are modeled on the energy fields of physics that act as a medium for the trans-mission of particles & forces. Both physical and biological fields are imagined to be immaterial constructs of geometry that determine the shape of their contents, similar to the way gravity warps space. As Sheldrake notes : "Morphogenesis also depends on organizing fields. . . . . variously called biological fields, or developmental fields, or positional fields, or morphogenetic fields. . . . Genes are part of this organization. They play an essential role. But they do not explain the organization itself." He goes on to describe in general terms how his form-giving fields work :

“Most developmental biologists accept the need for a holistic or integrative conception of living organization. . . . How are these fields inherited? I propose that that they are transmitted from past members of the species through a kind of non-local resonance, called morphic resonance. . . . Social groups are likewise organized by fields, as in schools of fish and flocks of birds. . . . From the point of view of the hypothesis of morphic resonance, there is no need to suppose that all the laws of nature sprang into being fully formed at the moment of the Big Bang, like a kind of cosmic Napoleonic code, or that they exist in a metaphysical realm beyond time and space. . . . enforced? The law metaphor is embarrassingly anthropomorphic. Habits are less human-centred.”

The “Morphic Resonance” that actually causes new things to emerge from the evolutionary chain of cause & effect can be envisioned as a pattern of vibrations (energy) that carry in-formation like radio waves. The binary “code” contains meaning that enforms matter, similar to the way a genetic code directs the construction of proteins. But, as he said, “genes are only part of the whole biological system”, which is precisely organized to work together in a coordinated manner, and eventually results in matter that can move itself around and recognize itself in a mirror. But coordinated by what or whom? Sheldrake calls it a “self-organizing” system, apparently implying that the fields (energy, forces) & laws (habits) & vibrations (codes) are inherent in Nature. . . .

Post 43 continued . . . click Next

Note 1 :
   Sheldrake’s theory of morphogenetic fields has been enthusiastically accepted by New Agers, who believe in Chakras and Etheric Bodies. But staid old scientists are not impressed by imagery and fantasy. They patiently and stubbornly wait for empirical data.
   Without hard evidence, it’s “just a theory”. Actually, it’s a hypothesis, which will remain theoretical until a mathematical formulation is found to integrate it into the accepted canon of scientific facts, such as the standard model of physics.
   Likewise, Enformationism is “just a theory”, with a possible “why” explanation for “how” observations. So it will remain in limbo until a formal logical and physical formulation is developed.

Note 2 :
   Sheldrake’s notion of form memory retained in the field for use of later entities, may be related to Plato’s concept of perfect eternal Forms, that contain the information necessary to replicate those ideal designs in the real world.
   In the Enformationism theory, I don’t imagine little scale models of earthly things floating around in space. Instead I think of Forms as the infinite possibilities inherent in the omniscient Mind of G*D. Only when actualized by intention do those potentials convert into actual things.
   Anyway, I imagine the Forms, not as memories, but as undefined potentials in the Mind of G*D.

What is Morphogenesis ?
“Morphogenesis is one of the major outstanding problems in the biological sciences. It concerns the fundamental question of how biological form and structure are generated”.
http://www.morphogenesis.virginia.edu/whatis.htm

Who is Sheldrake?
Renegade, Heretic, or Visionary? “Yes, I believe in God. I am a practicing Christian, specifically an Anglican (in the US, an Episcopalian).”
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/scientific-heretic-rupert-sheldrake-on-morphic-fields-psychic-dogs-and-other-mysteries/

A Skeptical Review :
I find the general idea of morphic fields to be compatible with my own notion of enformation. But I’m skeptical of some of Sheldrake’s weird app-lications of the theory. For example, flocking-schooling-swarming behaviors have been ex-plained by local interactions instead of non-local field influences. Maybe, maybe not.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ruperts-resonance/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flocking_(behavior)

Natural Laws :
Created or Learned? Science is based on the assumption of fixed laws of nature. But Sheldrake’s theory views them as acquired habits, stored in field memory. Without observations over eons, how can we tell the difference?

Dialogue on Materialist and Post-materialist Science : https://thebestschools.org/special/sheldrake-shermer-dialogue-nature-of-science/#TOC