Musing About Morphogenic Resonance❓
The concept of morphogenetic fields was initially introduced in the 1920s by scientists like Alexander Gurwitsch and Paul Weiss, but Dr. Rupert Sheldrake expanded this into the concept of morphic resonance.
Morphogenetic resonance, or morphic resonance, is a controversial hypothesis proposed by biologist Rupert Sheldrake suggesting that nature possesses a collective memory through invisible ‘morphic fields’. It posits that patterns, behaviors, and forms become easier to repeat and more habitual over time through non-material, nonlocal, and cumulative connections based on similarity across time and space.
Core Principles of Morphic Resonance
Nature’s Habits: Rather than fixed laws, nature behaves based on evolving habits. The more often a process (such as protein folding or learning a behavior) occurs, the easier it becomes for future similar systems to replicate it.
Morphogenetic Fields:
These are nonmaterial, “form-shaping” fields, or blueprints, that guide the development of organisms and systems, from cells to societies.
Nonlocal Connection: Morphic resonance connects similar systems across space and time without physical interaction. A new system tunes into the memory of previous similar systems.
Collective Memory: Each species and self-organizing system draws upon and contributes to a collective memory, allowing for shared behaviors or structures to be reinforced.
Proposed Applications and Examples
Behavioral Learning: Rats in new locations can learn a maze faster if other rats elsewhere have already learned it.
Chemical Crystallization: New chemical compounds become easier to crystallize over time because the “form” has been established, potentially increasing melting points.
Biological Development: The development of embryos is guided by the memory of previous similar organisms’ forms.
Human Behavior: Concepts like learning complex tasks (crossword puzzles) or instinctive behavior might be influenced by collective human memory.
Scientific Reception
Skepticism: Many mainstream scientists consider the theory to be pseudoscience or ‘heretical’ because it lacks rigorous, independent empirical evidence, notes the National Institutes of Health.
Critique: Critics argue that the alleged phenomena can be explained by traditional genetic or environmental factors, and that tests, such as the ‘feeling of being stared at,’ lack proper controls, says Scientific American.
