Morphogenetic Fields And Beyond

New research is undermining old ideas of = separation

by Robert Gilman, including an interview = with Rupert=20 Sheldrake

One of the articles in The New Story = (IC#12)
Winter 1985/86, Page 32
Copyright = (c)1986, 1997 by=20 Context Institute

WHAT'S MISSING? Is there some way in which our description = of the=20 New Story is incomplete?

I hope so! To fulfill its role, the New Story needs to = be a=20 living thing, not a fixed dogma. New developments, discoveries and = understandings will likely keep it incomplete for a long time to = come.

"Yes, of course, details will continue to change," you may say, = "but=20 might there also be some really major aspect that we should be = able to see=20 now, yet have overlooked? After all, looking back over the past = 45,000=20 years suggests a tremendous amount of cultural continuity within = long=20 cultural epochs. The major elements of the Empire Story were = already=20 visible near the start of that epoch. If, as you claim, we are = close to=20 the beginning of the Planetary Era, after 500 years of transition, = we=20 should be able to see at least the broad outline of the Planetary = Story.=20 What assurance is there that we have the whole picture?"

To explore this question, we need to pull back from the = details, and=20 look at some of the fundamental differences between the Old and = New=20 Stories. That comparison should help to clarify the essential = vision of=20 each story, and may also help to reveal any major blind spots.

At the heart of the New Story, as I see it, are two testable = (and thus=20 contestable) understandings. The first has to do with our = relationship=20 with time. The New Story characterizes this relationship as = fundamentally=20 one of unfolding, evolution, and the creation of increasingly = complex and=20 conscious systems. The second has to do with our relationship to = each=20 other and the world around us, and is characterized by = interconnection,=20 interdependence, and interaction - neither total unity nor total=20 separation.

The Old Story of the Empire Era also, of course, deals with = these=20 issues. It begins by seeing time as characterized by cycles (as in = the=20 seasons) but beyond these, the world is seen as fundamentally = unchanging.=20 As an absolute vision, it is deeply disempowering, for it sees a = tragic=20 zero-sum world in which death is always cancelling out life, no = lasting=20 new creation is possible, and life is a perpetual uphill battle to = try to=20 beat the averages.

The cyclic perceptions of the Old Story can be placed within = the=20 evolutionary framework of the New Story, where they can carry = great wisdom=20 and add to our understanding of interconnection. The New Story's = view of=20 time also includes other refinements, like the role of entropy. = Indeed,=20 our relationship to time is one of the best developed aspects of = the New=20 Story, and I don't see any major missing pieces in this area. = While the=20 mechanisms and purposes of evolution are still hotly debated, even = Fundamentalists acknowledge the existence of large-scale = change.

As for relationships, The Old Story deals with these in terms = of=20 boundaries. Whether the circle is drawn around the individual, the = family,=20 the tribe, or the nation, the basic idea is that there is a high = degree of=20 connection (requiring conformity) within the circle, and no = significant=20 connection outside. It is a world of us and them. The New Story = converts=20 this black and white division into multicolored overlapping webs = of=20 relationships in which there are no absolute boundaries.

We have been slower to acknowledge the reality of = interconnectedness,=20 yet in the past few decades, the message has grown stronger - from = the=20 physical unity of the universe, to the unity of life on Earth, to = the=20 interconnectedness of ecological systems, to even the = interdependence of=20 our global economy. All this is comfortably there within the New=20 Story.

There is, however, one very important place where we still seem = to=20 think that absolute separation applies - between our minds. The=20 conventional wisdom of our culture is that our thoughts, memories, = emotions and perceptions are totally private. This idea of total = mental=20 privacy is so fundamental to our culture and the Old Story that I = could=20 hardly even begin to sketch its implications. Suffice it to say = here that=20 this is one of the cornerstones of our whole sense of personal=20 identity.

"Ah ha! So we have left out a deeply important topic," you say. = "What,=20 pray tell, does the New Story have to say about the separation of = our=20 minds, about our personal identity, and about consciousness?"

(I thought you'd never ask.)

I'd like to approach this through Rupert Sheldrake's theory of=20 formative causation involving morphogenetic fields (see his A = New=20 Science Of Life, J.P. Tarcher, 1982). I described this theory = in IN=20 CONTEXT #6, the issue on "Learning," but let me briefly = redescribe it=20 here. Sheldrake is a biologist, and for many years biologists have = found=20 it hard, using only physics and chemistry, to explain the way that = living=20 things grow into their normal forms. Most biologists have assumed = that=20 these difficulties just reflected the current limits of the = science, and=20 that in time an appropriately detailed application of the rules of = physics=20 could explain all biology. A minority, however, have held that = something=20 beyond physics was needed, some kind of non-physical "blueprint" = that they=20 called a morphogenetic field (meaning "giving birth to = form").

Sheldrake's brilliant contribution was to take what have been = fairly=20 loose ideas about morphogenetic fields and formulate them into a = testable=20 theory. Briefly, the theory goes as follows: Morphogenetic fields = carry=20 information only (no energy) and are available throughout time and = space=20 without any loss of intensity after they have been created. They = are=20 created by the patterns of physical forms (including such things = as=20 crystals as well as biological systems). They help guide the = formation of=20 later similar systems. And finally, a newly forming system "tunes = into" a=20 previous system by having within it a "seed" that resonates with a = similar=20 seed in the earlier form.

Thus, from this perspective, the DNA in the genes of a living = system=20 (like an oak tree) does not carry all the information needed to = shape that=20 system, but it can act as a "tuning seed" that tunes in the = morphogenetic=20 fields of previous systems of the same type. Morphogenetic fields = are thus=20 the repository of what might be described as genetic habits.

In addition, these same concepts can be used to explain some of = the=20 mysteries about human memory. In effect, our brains are not so = much=20 libraries as they are sending and receiving stations that leave a=20 continuous trail of experience imprinted in morphogenetic fields = and then=20 "recall" previous experiences by tuning into that trail.

If these ideas are correct, then the "storehouse of memory" is = not the=20 least bit private since morphogenetic fields are universally = available and=20 continue to exist regardless of what happens to their original = source. The=20 only thing that makes our mental processes seem private is = that we=20 naturally resonate most strongly with our own past mental states. = In other=20 words, each of us broadcasts on a unique channel to which, = generally, no=20 one else listens. Yet in principle, someone else could tune into = "your"=20 memory and thoughts, and indeed, in practice, we do - as the = common=20 experience of "reading" another person's mind attests.

These ideas can be carried further to consider what happens = when many=20 people have a similar thought. The information stored in the = morphogenetic=20 field should then be stronger and accessible over "more channels." = In that=20 case we would expect it to be easier for new people to also "have" = that=20 thought (or skill, insight, or whatever). One aspect of this would = be the=20 creation of what Jung called the collective unconscious.

What proof is there that these ideas have any validity? One and = a half=20 years ago when I wrote the article about morphogenetic fields for = IC=20 #6, most of the experimental support for Sheldrake's ideas = came from=20 the reinterpretation of old experiments. One of the most = intriguing=20 involved teaching rats to run a particular maze. Each new = generation of=20 rats learned it faster even though there was no direct physical = way for=20 any generation to pass its learning on to the next. Since then, a = variety=20 of new experiments have been performed. To catch up on these, I = spoke with=20 Rupert Sheldrake for the latest results:

Robert: What has been happening experimentally = with=20 regard to morphogenetic fields in the past two years or = so?

Rupert: There are a few new experiments that have been=20 completed. First, there was a series of three television = experiments that=20 used hidden images in puzzle pictures (see illustration below). =

Puzzle Picture 1 for BBC = Experiment

Puzzle Picture 2 for BBC Experiment

The experiment has three steps. You start by showing two of = these=20 puzzle pictures to a group of test subjects to establish a base = line for=20 how easily the hidden picture in each can be recognized. Next, on = TV so=20 that you can reach large numbers of people, you teach the TV = viewers how=20 to see one of the hidden images, but do not show the other. = Finally, you=20 get a new group of test subjects who did not see or hear about the = TV=20 show, and again test their ability to recognize the hidden images. = The=20 experimental question is, if lots of people learn to spot the = hidden image=20 in the puzzle picture, then does that make it easier for other = people to=20 spot it as well?

[To see the hidden images, click here for = Picture 1=20 and here = for Picture=20 2]

The first of these TV experiments was done in Britain in 1983 = with 2=20 million viewers. Several thousand people were then tested in = different=20 parts of the world and the result was very positive and = significant. The=20 percentage recognizing the hidden image shown on television = increased=20 after this broadcast whereas the percentage recognizing the = control=20 picture, the one that wasn't shown on TV, didn't change.

This was then done on a larger scale on BBC television in 1984 = with 8=20 million viewers. It was on one of the popular science programs = called=20 Tomorrow's World. Now in that one, the image to be shown was = selected at=20 random, live, at the moment of broadcast. Post-broadcast tests = were then=20 carried out in North America, in Western Europe, and in the = Southern=20 Hemisphere, particularly South Africa. The results are puzzling. = The=20 percentage of people recognizing the hidden image in the picture = that was=20 shown on television increased very significantly in Western = Europe, but=20 not in North America, and in neither case was there a change in = the=20 control picture. So there seems to have been an effect, but the = effect was=20 confined to Western Europe. Now at first this looks as if it might = be a=20 distance effect but I don't expect distance effects. Then, in = looking at=20 the data from South Africa, there was also an effect there, = although not=20 as significant because the sample size was rather small. One = possibility=20 is that this has to do with people being in similar time zones, = being more=20 in phase. South Africa and Western Europe are only one hour = different from=20 Britain, whereas America is 5 to 8 hours different.

The third experiment was done in West Germany on North German=20 Television in early 1985. There again the control picture showed = no change=20 at all. The only change was for the puzzle picture shown on TV. = But this=20 time, after the pictures had been shown on German television, it = seemed to=20 become harder for people to spot in England. Not in = America. In=20 America there was again no effect. But in other parts of Europe,=20 particularly in England, there was a significant effect but a = negative=20 one. Another thing that happened in the German experiment was that = people,=20 even in North America, started giving the right answers to the = pictures=20 shown in the previous BBC experiment. So there were a number of = anomalous=20 features - rather puzzling and bizarre!

Robert: It sounds as though, by pursuing the same = genre of=20 experiment, you perhaps are beginning to get some interference=20 effects.

Rupert: Yes. I think it sounds very much like that, = which I=20 suppose one might have expected. In any case, I find this series = of=20 experiments inconclusive so far, but encouraging. I mean, if there = had=20 been no significant effects then it would have been very = discouraging but=20 we have gotten significant effects in all three. The results are = just more=20 complex than we expected.

I hope the next series of experiments of this type will involve = repeated exposure of subjects to hidden images, because the whole=20 hypothesis is based on the idea of habitual patterns of response, = and in=20 this run, pictures were shown only once. They could be shown = repeatedly,=20 for example, if they were used in an advertising campaign. You = know, on=20 billboards.

Another experiment of considerable interest is one done by Dr. = Arden=20 Mahlberg of Madison, Wisconsin using Morse code. Dr. Mahlberg, who = is a=20 psychologist, has done experiments testing the ability of subjects = who=20 don't know Morse code to learn two codes - one is the real Morse = code and=20 the other is a new code that he's invented by reassigning dots and = dashes=20 to different letters in such a way that it should be equally easy = to learn=20 from the conventional point of view. And the question is, is it = easier to=20 learn the real Morse code than the new Morse code, because = millions of=20 people have already learned the real Morse code? And it turns out = that it=20 is.

Related work is being done, not as a test of this theory, but = as a=20 technique for speeding up learning. I recently was in Holland = where I met=20 a Dutch woman who had been developing a new system of teaching = based on=20 the idea that children can pick up things from the collective = memory. It's=20 very like a morphic resonance theory and she's been obtaining = remarkable=20 results by starting from that assumption. There's also, in = California,=20 something called the Marshall Faber Accelerated Learning Forum, = which is a=20 kind of business school that teaches businessmen extremely = rapidly. That=20 again is explicitly based on the idea of morphic resonance. So the = idea of=20 accelerated learning using this principle in education is already = being=20 explored on a small scale.

Robert: It is striking to me that both these current=20 experiments, and the work with the rats in mazes that provided one = of the=20 strongest experimental supports in your book, all deal with mind = and=20 memory. I wonder if there has been any work outside of that = area?

Rupert: There have been some experiments done recently = in=20 Britain at the Open University which have revealed some very = interesting=20 and puzzling effects with fruit flies. I think they provide very = good=20 evidence for this hypothesis, although they weren't done to test = it. In=20 these fruit fly experiments, they were looking at the effects of = ether. If=20 the eggs were exposed to ether three hours after they're laid, = then some=20 of the flies developed abnormally, with 4 wings instead of 2. And = as they=20 went on exposing subsequent generations of flies to ether, the = abnormal=20 proportion increased more and more. Then if they took flies from = the basic=20 stock which had never been exposed to ether, neither they nor = their=20 ancestors, and exposed them to ether, they got a much bigger = response of=20 deformed flies than they did at the start of the whole series of=20 experiments. In other words, the treatment of the other = flies with=20 ether seem to be leading to a bigger response in subsequent (but = non-=20 descendant) flies treated in the same way.

There are some other experiments in progress that are giving = rather=20 interesting results, but I've been asked by the people doing them = not to=20 talk about them publicly until they have had a chance to publish = their own=20 results. I might, however, mention the Tarrytown prize of $10,000 = for the=20 best experiment to prove or disprove the hypothesis. The closing = date for=20 this, the end of 1985, has just past, but the results will not be=20 announced until some time in April. Of the entries I have seen so = far,=20 there are 3 or 4 serious contenders.

Robert: Have there been any interesting attempts at=20 disproof?

Rupert: Well, my book and this theory have been attacked = quite a=20 lot, but none of the attacks have actually struck at the heart of = the=20 argument. No one has actually claimed that what I'm saying is = impossible=20 or that it's illogical or that it couldn't occur on any kind of = basis. The=20 attacks have mostly been along the line that this theory is = completely=20 unnecessary because regular biology, given time, will solve all = the=20 problems along conventional lines, that I'm either being too = impatient or=20 misleading the public. But so far there has been nothing of = scientific=20 substance.

The only experiment which at least claims to disprove the = hypothesis is=20 one done by Francisco Varela, the neurophysiologist. He assumed = that this=20 hypothesis applied to computers, and he did an experiment where a = computer=20 did an iterated operation many times over and over again. He = measured the=20 time taken for this operation to see whether it speeded up. And it = didn't.=20 He regards this as a refutation of the hypothesis, but I don't = because I=20 never claimed that the hypothesis applied to computers in the = first place.=20 I think of it as applying to self-organizing systems like cells,=20 molecules, and crystals, but not to artificial machines.

Robert: There's no opportunity for the computer to = change its=20 speed of operation.

Rupert: No. He didn't take that point into account. He = thought=20 that there might be an increase in the rate with which the silicon = chip=20 responded.

Robert: Good grief, if that's the most serious = challenge=20 you've gotten, you're certainly in very good shape.

Where does this lead us? We cannot yet say that Sheldrake's = ideas=20 about morphogenetic fields have been proven to the satisfaction of = his=20 fellow scientists, but it looks to me as if they are on their way = to that=20 kind of general acceptance. Especially in Western Europe, where = the theory=20 is well-known and has been widely discussed, an increasing number = of=20 scientists are taking it seriously. If further experiments = continue to=20 produce significant results, it will soon be the critics who will = need to=20 prove their case.

The most difficult part for most to accept is the fundamental = idea that=20 information, created by and retrievable by physical systems, can = be=20 transmitted and stored in a non-physical form. This is a direct=20 contradiction of the materialist vision that has served as the = basis for=20 most of the sciences, and many (but by no means all) scientists = are=20 reluctant to let go of that vision. Yet the experimental support = for=20 materialism has been crumbling for some time - from the = "instantaneous=20 communications" implied by Bell's Theorem in quantum physics to = the solid=20 experimental demonstrations that now exist for such psychic = abilities as=20 telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, and psychokinesis (see, for = example, Charles Tart in the December 1985 Special Report for = Members=20 from the Institute of Noetic Sciences, 475 Gate Five Rd, Suite = 300,=20 Sausalito, CA 94965). Thus the morphogenetic field research is = more like=20 the last straw than the first wave in the assault on traditional=20 materialism.

The New Story, as we have been describing it, would certainly = have no=20 trouble embracing the idea of morphogenetic fields, or of the=20 interconnectedness between minds that it entails. The Story's = overall=20 usefulness and validity does not now depend on this theory, and we = could=20 adopt a wait- and-see attitude. But I'm going to stick my neck out = and=20 predict that the central ideas in Sheldrake's theory will soon be = as=20 important in the full New Story as the ideas developed by = 20th-century=20 physics, astronomy, geology, biology, ecology, etc. If this = happens, these=20 ideas will provide us with a framework within which the New Story = can=20 handle questions about the separation of our minds, about our = personal=20 identity, and about consciousness.

As I've described above, using morphogenetic fields as the = carrier of=20 memory implies no absolute separation between minds. Further, it = suggest=20 that our identity is dual, like an electron that is both particle = and=20 wave. We have aspects that are unique and totally individual, yet = at the=20 same time much of our thought and behavior is shaped by, = participates in,=20 and helps to create transpersonal morphogenetic fields. Our = ordinary=20 learning within our culture shapes us in a similar way, but these = ideas=20 move that sharing to a more intimate level.

We are thus both individuals and expressions of/creators of a = group=20 mind - like the Jungian collective unconscious, but more = extensive, and in=20 some aspects more changeable. Because our brains contain levels=20 (mammalian, reptilian, etc.) that connect us to other species, = that group=20 mind includes all life. We may even find, as we explore the = possibilities=20 of consciousness associated with what we now think of as = non-living=20 matter, that we are linked in consciousness to all creation. We = would thus=20 be linked to the stars not only through the chemicals in our = bodies, but=20 through our minds as well.

Accepting the idea of morphogenetic fields also opens the door = to the=20 scientific investigation of the idea that consciousness and mental = processes can function without physical support. This would allow = the=20 existence of non-physical beings (gods, angels, life after death, = etc.) -=20 a subject of prime interest to most religious and spiritual=20 traditions.

Some of these traditions claim to have a level of knowledge = about the=20 non-physical realm that makes the experiments that Sheldrake = describes=20 look like "Ben Franklin flying a kite in a thunder storm to study=20 electricity" compared to "the knowledge behind a modern = microcomputer."=20 This knowledge could be very helpful in the research process (and, = indeed,=20 Sheldrake is well aware of these traditions). What these = traditions have=20 not done, however, has been to find a way to universalize or = publicly=20 validate this claimed knowledge. This is the great strength of the = plodding and conservative process of science.

Thus one of the reasons why the morphogenetic field research is = so=20 important is that it is starting to provide a common language, a = meeting=20 ground, that may permit mystics and scientists to cooperate in = exploring=20 these realms. The New Story does not have to adopt any particular=20 traditional belief system, but it can acknowledge that these = traditions=20 may hold verifiable knowledge. The results of this will probably = be full=20 of surprises, disappoint most partisans, and increase religious = interest=20 at the same time that it deflates scriptural authoritarianism. Out = of it=20 all may even come a fresh synthesis that will finally end the = three-way=20 war between science, religion, and mystical spirituality.

And so, wherever we look - at the cosmos, at life on Earth, = or into=20 our own consciousness - the New Story greets us with its two = central=20 visions of evolution and interconnection. Enliven these with the = power of=20 attraction/generosity/love, and you have the dynamics of life as = the New=20 Story understands it. From these basic understandings come all our = more=20 familiar visions - such as the nurturing of life on earth, the = elimination=20 of abusive hierarchies, or the central role of love as the basis = for=20 social relationships.

As a vision and a hope, the New Story is not new. What has = become new=20 about it is that its central principles now stand on a solid basis = of fact=20 acknowledged in every country in the world. It is no longer just a = few=20 voices crying in the wilderness. Our institutions and their values = stand=20 embarrassed in the discovery that they are contradicted by these = facts.=20 Everywhere in the world, these institutions turn and churn under = this=20 stress, and so, in our own way, do we. As a world, we face an = immense=20 choice. Will we choose to move ahead on the basis of the knowledge = we have=20 uncovered, or will we attempt to suppress that knowledge in order = to=20 maintain our old worldview and its institutions?

How about it? Are you up for an adventure?

Rupert Sheldrake's book, A New Science Of Life, = is about=20 to be re-issued by J.P. Tarcher in a new addition that will = include=20 details on recent experiments.

Please support this web = site=20 ... and thanks if you already are!

All contents = copyright=20 (c)1986, 1997 by Context Institute

Please send comments = to webmaster

Last=20 Updated 29 June 2000.

Home | Search | = Index of = Issues | Table of = Contents=20