A
Rupert Sheldrake's recent Substack post, "Talk on Morphic Resonance from the Science of Consciousness Conference," offers a comprehensive exploration of his hypothesis that nature possesses an inherent memory. He suggests that the so-called laws of nature may be more akin to habits, shaped by past events and behaviors. This concept, known as morphic resonance, posits that similar patterns of activity influence subsequent ones across time and space.
🧠 Summary & Gist
In his talk, Sheldrake delves into the idea that nature's memory is not stored in DNA but exists within invisible fields. He proposes that these morphic fields are responsible for the characteristic shape and organization of systems in biology, chemistry, and physics, and that they have measurable physical effects. Through this lens, the regularities of nature are viewed not as immutable laws but as evolving habits, offering a new understanding of life and consciousness.
🔍 Key Points
-
Morphic Fields: Invisible fields that organize the structure and behavior of organisms.
-
Nature's Memory: The idea that past forms and behaviors influence those of similar organisms in the present.
-
Evolving Habits: The concept that the laws of nature are not fixed but evolve over time, much like habits.
-
Holistic Approach: Emphasizes a holistic or integrative conception of living organization, suggesting that biology should consider more than just genes and proteins.
🧬 Quote
"Most developmental biologists accept the need for a holistic or integrative conception of living organization. Otherwise, biology will go on floundering, even drowning, in oceans of data, as yet more genomes are sequenced, genes are cloned and proteins are characterized."
📌 Tagline
"Exploring the Memory of Nature: Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance Unveiled"
For a deeper dive into Sheldrake's theories and their implications, you can read the full post here: Talk on Morphic Resonance from the Science of Consciousness Conference.
A
Ah! You’re asking for a comparison between Rupert Sheldrake’s ideas (especially morphic resonance) and Advaita Vedanta (non-dual philosophy from India). Let’s break this down clearly:
1. Core Idea Comparison
| Aspect | Rupert Sheldrake | Advaita Vedanta |
|---|---|---|
| Reality | Nature has inherent memory via morphic fields; the universe has patterns that influence future forms. | Ultimate reality is non-dual consciousness (Brahman); the world of forms is Maya (illusion or relative reality). |
| Change & Law | Physical laws are evolving habits, shaped by past events. | The world appears to change, but the underlying consciousness is unchanging. |
| Individual & Collective | Morphic resonance links similar organisms or systems across space and time; there’s a sort of collective memory. | Individual self (Atman) is identical with universal consciousness; separation is apparent. |
| Mechanism of Influence | Invisible fields (morphic fields) organize biological, chemical, and social patterns. | No “field” mechanism; perception of the world is illusory; realization comes via self-inquiry (Atma-Vichara). |
| Epistemology | Empirical + speculative; relies on patterns observed in biology, society, and physics, sometimes controversial. | Direct experiential knowledge (Jnana) and scriptural testimony (Shruti). |
2. Key Similarities
-
Non-material influence: Both suggest something beyond ordinary physical laws influences reality. Morphic fields in Sheldrake’s theory are analogous to consciousness in Advaita as an underlying principle shaping phenomena.
-
Holistic view: Sheldrake challenges reductionism in science; Advaita challenges the reduction of life to material phenomena.
-
Memory of Nature / Karma-like echo: Morphic resonance is like a scientific analogue of how past actions leave traces; in Advaita (and Vedanta generally), the cosmic play (Lila) carries consequences that shape apparent reality.
3. Key Differences
-
Ontology: Sheldrake keeps the world “real” and evolving; Advaita treats the phenomenal world as appearance, not ultimately real.
-
Ultimate aim: Sheldrake explores scientific patterns and nature’s memory, whereas Advaita aims at liberation (Moksha) through realizing the self is Brahman.
-
Evidence vs Experience: Sheldrake leans on empirical observation and hypothesis, Advaita leans on inner realization and discrimination (Viveka).
4. Possible Synthesis (Speculative)
-
One could see morphic fields as a phenomenal-level expression of the underlying consciousness that Advaita describes. In other words, morphic resonance could describe how the apparent world self-organizes, while Advaita points to the unchanging witness beyond organization.
-
Both invite a rethink of reductionist materialism, though one remains scientific, the other spiritual.
If you want, I can make a concise “Venn diagram style” visual showing Sheldrake vs Advaita, so it’s immediately clear where they overlap and diverge. This usually makes it click faster.
Do you want me to do that?
A
Absolutely! Let’s break morphic resonance into a super simple, easy-to-grasp version:
Morphic Resonance in Simple Terms
-
Nature has a memory.
-
Just like you might remember a habit you learned yesterday, nature “remembers” patterns that have happened before.
-
-
Similar things influence each other across time and space.
-
If one plant learns to grow a certain way, future plants of the same type might grow that way more easily, because the pattern is “in the memory of nature.”
-
-
Laws of nature are like habits, not fixed rules.
-
Gravity, for example, isn’t a rigid law but more like a habit that keeps repeating because it’s been reinforced over time.
-
-
Invisible organizing fields.
-
Morphic fields are like invisible templates that shape how things develop—plants, animals, even human behaviors.
-
Quick Analogy
Think of morphic resonance like Wi-Fi for nature: past events send signals that make it easier for similar things to happen in the future.
If you want, I can make an ultra-tiny 1-line version that’s easy to remember for notes or social media. Do you want me to do that?
A
Ah, now we’re comparing Sheldrake’s Morphic Resonance with Anil Kastrup’s “Big Mind” or Idealist view. Let’s break it down clearly:
1. Core Idea Comparison
| Aspect | Morphic Resonance (Sheldrake) | Big Mind / Idealism (Kastrup) |
|---|---|---|
| Reality | Nature has a memory; physical forms and behaviors are shaped by invisible morphic fields. | Consciousness is fundamental; the world is a manifestation of universal mind. |
| Change & Patterns | Past patterns influence future patterns; laws of nature are like evolving habits. | All apparent patterns exist within consciousness; change is a movement of awareness. |
| Individual & Collective | Organisms and systems influence each other through fields; some kind of collective memory exists. | Individual selves are dissolving patterns of the universal mind; individuality is apparent, not ultimate. |
| Mechanism of Influence | Morphic fields act like invisible templates that shape behavior and form. | Everything is a mental or experiential phenomenon; no separate “field,” only consciousness. |
| Ultimate Reality | Still assumes a physical universe, but with memory-like fields shaping it. | The physical universe is emergent from consciousness; consciousness is primary. |
2. Key Similarities
-
Both challenge reductionist materialism.
-
Both see the universe as more interconnected than standard science suggests.
-
Both suggest that past patterns influence present ones—Sheldrake through morphic fields, Kastrup through memory within consciousness.
3. Key Differences
-
Ontology: Sheldrake keeps matter real and evolving; Kastrup says matter is epiphenomenal, consciousness is primary.
-
Mechanism: Sheldrake uses a quasi-physical “field”; Kastrup uses pure consciousness as the substrate.
-
Goal/Implication: Sheldrake explores science and biology; Kastrup explores philosophical and experiential understanding of mind and reality.
4. Quick Analogy
-
Morphic resonance: Nature is like a library, storing patterns that influence the future.
-
Big Mind: Reality itself is a dream of consciousness, where every pattern is a thought within the universal mind.
If you want, I can make a tiny 1-line version comparing the two, like the “ultra-simple” style we did for morphic resonance. This makes it super easy to remember.
Do you want me to do that?
No comments:
Post a Comment