Morphic Response

Recently read a book The Rebirth of Nature by R.Sheldrake who has theorised the existence of morphic response, which can be defined as:

ABSTRACT: Memory is inherent in Nature, and what we think of as the laws of Nature may be more like habits. The basis of this memory process is morphic resonance, which is the influence of like upon like through or across space or time. Its implication, in the realm of heredity, is that inheritance depends not only on the chemical genes coded in DNA but also on morphic resonance from past members of the species. Other implications are an accelerated rate of evolution of new patterns of form and behavior; memory in individuals being based on self-resonance and not stored in the brain; the existence of a collective memory, to which we all contribute and on which we all draw; and providing understanding of past-life memories, survival of bodily death, telepathy, and ritual.


Sheldrake uses the information that Blue **** seemed to discover, in different parts of Britain, to peck open the silver top of a milk bottle, within a week of each other in Scotland and in England, without any tit having done it before. And they were too far away from each other to have communicated. And this theory arose of what’s called, as Sean said, morphic resonance.

Morphic resonance is alive and well.

You've no doubt come across it in many forms before, for instance, where people from entirely unrelated locales, with no knowledge of each other, have the same idea at the same time.

A fascinating subject.

Hi Morning Mist,

im glad others have heard of it, your right in saying its fascinating! certainly food for thought, its a shame many other scientists have rejected a lot of Sheldrakes ideas and work.

As they do, Spiral, as they do :(

Hugs
MorningMist

I have not read or even heard of Sheldrake. I find the "definition" of morphic resonance you give to be inadequate; it doesn't allow me to understand exactly what it is we are talking about, what the fundamental idea is. "Morphic" implies body or form... the root morph suggests form and appearance, structure or substance, character or circumstance; it has to do with form and structure.

Darwin and Wallace, completely independently of each other, arrived at nearly identical ideas regarding evolution at the same time. The phenomenon can be seen repeatedly; Newton and Leibnitz both invented the calculus at the same time, for somewhat different reasons and by different routes. But I'm not sure the idea of morphic resonance (whatever that is) is necessarily the underlying cause.

I worked on an ostrich farm for some time, and noticed that birds widely separated spatially (communication would have been possible, but unlikely) seemed to function as one. They did the same things at the same time. The ostrich lives almost entirely by instinct; its behavior and responses are inborn. I took it to mean that the entire population of birds (dinosaurs, really) were a single unified organism, in the same sense as a hive of bees, or a village of humans.

Similar environmental circumstances tend to produce species that share morphological characteristics. The American horned toad has its counterpart in the spiny lizard of Australia. They evolved from completely different roots, but both have a similar appearance, live on ants.... The plant life of Mesoamerica has a great similarity to the plant life of Africa at the same latitudes yet are of different plant families. I am not so sure that the idea of morphic resonance (again, I don't understand it) is the explanation for these similarities; environmental factors are.

But not all members of a single species "resonate." Separate populations, exposed to differing conditions, are quite likely to evolve (metamorphose) in different ways. Thus, a small relatively isolated population can develop into a new species. So-called "ring species" give a good illustration of the process.

Anyway, can you expand and clarify the definition?

Hi GreyBeard, I can certainly try;

Sheldrake discusses morphic response as almost like a collective consciousness which when one learns something new then others of the same species learn the same thing even if they are on a different continent and they learn it faster than the one before. What has been learnt is stored in the collective consciousness which can be accessed by all other member of that species and their ancestors also leave their knowledge in the consciousness so that future offspring can continue and grow. And once a learnt thing becomes so ingrained to that species it turns into instinct, such as how female mud wasps who build their nests in a way so that their main predator cannot climb into it to eat the lava. That knowledge was learnt at one point in mud wasps history.

He also applies this theory to chemistry as when a new compound or crystal has been grown for the first time, this may have taken weeks or even months, but once it has been done the first time, others grow it much quicker and easier than that first time

I hope thats given a clearer picture :)

If interested, Greybeard, here is a link to Sheldrake's articles and papers: http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Pa...hic_intro.html

MorningMist