Sheldrake's recent morphic resonance talk (2013)

A Quantum Explanation of Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance

Morphogenesis -- the growth of form from a single cell embryo -- is a problem of biological order of unprecedented precision timing of correlated events of both spatial and temporal nature. One doesn't see anything like this in dealing with inanimate matter. Naturally, beginning with Erwin Schrodinger, an impressive group of scientists have suggested that the currently known laws of physics may not be enough to explain Morphogenesis. Many biologists have propounded the idea of a morphogenetic field -- a condition of space that retains the memory of the form that the embryo evolves towards under the guidance of the fields. But these earlier works hold on to the concept of local fields and also to the materialist belief in "upward causation" -- the supremacy of matter as the cause of everything.

But morphogenesis has overtones of teleology (the idea that some final purpose is driving the system) to many. And the biologist Rupert Sheldrake has injected new principles in the old idea of morphogenetic fields to incorporate teleology, non-locality, and downward causation. His morphogenetic fields are purposive and non-local. They are not material. They are capable of downward causation in matter through a new principle called "morphic resonance ". According to Sheldrake, as soon as a new form comes about, it sets up its own field which is continually reinforced with its ongoing replication, thus explaining the memory exhibited in morphogenesis. However, there is the question of the source of the morphogenetic fields that resonate with matter -- an implicit dualism.

The purpose of this essay is to show that although dualistic in its original form, Sheldrake's ideas can be given sound footing on the basis of Quantum principles applied in the conceptualization of the living cell within the context of a new science -- science within consciousness, a science based on the primacy of consciousness.

I will first engage in a brief review and critique of Sheldrake's theory. Next , I will take up the necessity of a new formulation of biology within the primacy of consciousness and indicate how Sheldrake's theory is a precursor and a special case of this new theory. The dualist objections against this new theory (as well as against Sheldrake's) are next resolved. A quantum explanation of morphic resonance is then given. The question of experimental verification is briefly discussed.
 
Speculations Toward a Precise Model of Morphic Fields

Gentle Reader Beware: This post presents some fairly out-there ideas about the nature of memory and the relationship between the mind and the universe! If you're a hard-core psi skeptic or a die-hard materialist you may as well move on and save yourself some annoyance ;-) …

On the other hand, if you're intrigued by new potential ways of connecting known science with the "paranormal", and open to wacky new ways of conceptualizing the universe, please read on !! …

More stuff on immaterialist transhumanists here.
 
Interesting, just shows that people are crossing the same track, but coming from different directions and what I'd say is a perspective that is probably going to make it hard for them to make progress.

What challenges do you see Ben facing?
 
What challenges do you see Ben facing?

it's difficult to put into words. But I can see he's not in the right place to move forward. It's more 'let's use QM to explain phenomena", but without having an actual idea to explain most phenomena (not just the psi stuff), one can't rule out/rule in how QM might be incorporated, so your left with just hoping something generally might stick - in a sort of random way.

The strange phenomena in our everyday experience is 'everything', it can't be hidden, and more open minded exposure to them just narrows down the issues - it is the GoT searching for the 'big fish' . I admit, I've been incredibly lucky to have my particular experiences, which allowed me to rule out masses of ideas at a stroke, so I could concentrate on just the ideas that fitted my own experience.

It's rather like a would-be inventor searching for something to invent, but because they haven't concentrated on gathering the practical experience from their industry, they don't have enough experience to stumble across valuable new product ideas. They might be a skilled craftsman, but they are still waiting to be hit by a bolt of inspiration (their first good invention).
 
Last edited:
I more or less agree with Max. I get suspicious when someone comes up with a modified version of QM that will supposedly explain consciousness, ψ, and everything!

The problem is that every mathematical formalism is in a sense mechanistic. QM describes a mechanism that includes a random component. A new set of equations can't really go much further, for example it can't put in anything that relates to mind, without reducing mind to something mechanistic as well!
The morphic pilot wave is actually described by the same equation as
a regular de Broglie - Bohm pilot wave (the standard Schrodinger equation
in the simplest case, or variations to account for eld theory or curved
spacetime) , but the universe in which it moves is biased so that a pattern
in one (spacetime) spot is improbably likely to pop up in another spot.
Thus, Sheldrake's intuitive notion of a "morphic eld" is retained, but the
"eld" is the computable, far-from-quantum-equilibrium de Broglie - Bohm
universe conguration.

This seems to represent a really hollowed out idea of what a Morphic Field is supposed to be! At least my understanding of Sheldrake's concept is that the field should have some sort of mental property of its own - some ability to think and decide. Think for a moment about Sheldrake's example of a newt embryo that has the lens of one eye removed surgically. Aparently, the lens regrows but by an entirely novel mechanism - not the way the original lens was formed. It is as though the MF knows what a newt should look like at that point in its development, and repairs it using a special one-off procedure.

David
 
The problem is that every mathematical formalism is in a sense mechanistic. QM describes a mechanism that includes a random component. A new set of equations can't really go much further, for example it can't put in anything that relates to mind, without reducing mind to something mechanistic as well!

David

David,

My opinion is that Sheldrake, while a small dog in popular science today, has his jaw clamped down on the big bone in the yard.

I am open to correction, however the idea the maths are mechanistic is due only to subjective feelings about how we practice it. The solid ontological term in my worldview of IR (informational realism) is probability. Randomness is a subjective expression about open possibilities (real-world probabilities) in certain environments. Math handles a probabilistic environment with equal skill in terms of meaningful relations of quantities; as does math handle a construction's site leverage of mechanistic processes.
 
David,

My opinion is that Sheldrake, while a small dog in popular science today, has his jaw clamped down on the big bone in the yard.
I am not certain what that means - but maybe it means that you think Sheldrake is reasonably close to the truth.
I am open to correction, however the idea the maths are mechanistic is due only to subjective feelings about how we practice it. The solid ontological term in my worldview of IR (informational realism) is probability. Randomness is a subjective expression about open possibilities (real-world probabilities) in certain environments. Math handles a probabilistic environment with equal skill in terms of meaningful relations of quantities; as does math handle a construction's site leverage of mechanistic processes.

Well lets explore that a little further. Let's just start with the standard time dependant Shroedinger equation:

(getting the equation in here is just too much trouble - unless there is an easy way - but you know the one I mean!)

The wave function simply evolves in a perfectly deterministic way - start with the same wave function over and over again, and it will evolve in the same way. At that stage there are no probabilities, but then you make an observation, and the resultant wavefunction is supposed to be one of a set of possible eigenfunctions (randomly picked according to state of the wavefunction at the time of the collapse).

The observer can influence the system by choosing what to observe and how often the observations occur.

Now I guess I like to think about the problem in this way, because I am sure of how it all works. Other equivalent formalisms can make the problem more abstract! Abstract formalisms can allow for more hand waiving!

The point to me, is that yes, the observer can control physical matter within reason (and Stapp now seems happy with the possibility that consciousness might act more directly by simply biassing the probabilities without the need for the Quantum Zeno effect). However explaining that control does not explain consciousness itself.

I have had a similar discussion with Neil, which unfortunately got rather heated.

My feeling is that QM can only provide some sort of interface with a mental realm, but that it is impossible to derive the mental realm from it. In particular, mind is not just information or information processing, at the very least it has to involve qualia.

We also have to think about the NDE evidence that suggests that the mind can exist without a functioning body, and presumably without wavefunctions to collapse!

Put rather crudely, the most detailed book on dental caries, doesn't feel pain - consciousness simply cannot be equated to information!

David
 
I am not certain what that means - but maybe it means that you think Sheldrake is reasonably close to the truth.


Well lets explore that a little further. Let's just start with the standard time dependant Shroedinger equation:

(getting the equation in here is just too much trouble - unless there is an easy way - but you know the one I mean!)

The wave function simply evolves in a perfectly deterministic way - start with the same wave function over and over again, and it will evolve in the same way. At that stage there are no probabilities, but then you make an observation, and the resultant wavefunction is supposed to be one of a set of possible eigenfunctions (randomly picked according to state of the wavefunction at the time of the collapse).

The observer can influence the system by choosing what to observe and how often the observations occur.

Now I guess I like to think about the problem in this way, because I am sure of how it all works. Other equivalent formalisms can make the problem more abstract! Abstract formalisms can allow for more hand waiving!

The point to me, is that yes, the observer can control physical matter within reason (and Stapp now seems happy with the possibility that consciousness might act more directly by simply biassing the probabilities without the need for the Quantum Zeno effect). However explaining that control does not explain consciousness itself.

I have had a similar discussion with Neil, which unfortunately got rather heated.

My feeling is that QM can only provide some sort of interface with a mental realm, but that it is impossible to derive the mental realm from it. In particular, mind is not just information or information processing, at the very least it has to involve qualia.

We also have to think about the NDE evidence that suggests that the mind can exist without a functioning body, and presumably without wavefunctions to collapse!

Put rather crudely, the most detailed book on dental caries, doesn't feel pain - consciousness simply cannot be equated to information!

David

David, I just made a post in another thread critiquing Stapp's application of the Quantum Zeno Effect to the brain. You seem to be implying here that Stapp himself is backing away from that hypothesis. Do you have a link?
 
David, I just made a post in another thread critiquing Stapp's application of the Quantum Zeno Effect to the brain. You seem to be implying here that Stapp himself is backing away from that hypothesis. Do you have a link?
I saw it in the book "Beyond Physicalism" - his section was good, but I don't really recommend the book as a whole - it is nothing like as good as its predecessor - Irreducible Mind.

He isn't backing away from the QZ effect - merely acknowledging that a conceptually simpler alternative is that consciousness may simply biass the collapse probabilities directly.

David
 
I am not certain what that means - but maybe it means that you think Sheldrake is reasonably close to the truth.

The wave function simply evolves in a perfectly deterministic way - start with the same wave function over and over again, and it will evolve in the same way. At that stage there are no probabilities, but then you make an observation, and the resultant wavefunction is supposed to be one of a set of possible eigenfunctions (randomly picked according to state of the wavefunction at the time of the collapse).

The observer can influence the system by choosing what to observe and how often the observations occur.

David

I think that the phenomena described by Sheldrake is a darn good attempt at defining a real-world structuring of probabilities (some call this pregeometry). Further, after a quick read of the Morphic Pilot pdf linked by Sci - I think that it at least is fertile thinking on the subject.

Again, I am open to correction, as I am no mathematician. However deterministic is the math procedure for computation (epistemic), in the real-world there is never a probability-free area of the universe (ontic). As with an ecological point of view - nothing is observed without a separation into a system of detection and a place to export the data. Further, that no entity exists that is not inside the sphere of influence of unfolding reality.

So, at every moment of time there exists not only a wave function, but also a well-defined configuration of the whole universe. And unlike in classical mechanics where accelerations are given by forces, here velocities of particles are given by the wavefunction. A human brain, as a participant in and observer of the universe, is identified with some part of the configuration of the whole universe q(t) ∈ Q. - Ben Goertzel
 
Last edited:
I guess I am very attached to the concept of the Hard Problem, and with any potential explanation of consciousness, I always ask myself whether it solves the hard problem.To me at least, merely saying that the brain is part of the wavefunction doesn't cut it. I mean, a computer is also part of the overall wavefunction of the universe, but most people don't accept that a computer can be conscious.

I feel the HP needs to have an actual solution - not just be brushed aside.

Notice that the HP isn't solved by simply making a system non-deterministic.

David
 
David, what do you mean by "actual solution"?

What would the solution look like if consciousness is one of the ontological primitives, however one decides to parse that into a particular "ism"?
 
David, what do you mean by "actual solution"?

What would the solution look like if consciousness is one of the ontological primitives, however one decides to parse that into a particular "ism"?
I knew someone would ask that :)

Really I don't know. Perhaps the HP is really pointing directly at the idea that consciousness is irreducible. As you know, I think the best way to think of consciousness is probably in terms of Dualism, with the understanding that Dualism is a temporary, inexact theory that may well give way to Idealism in the end. Looked at that way, we experience qualia as a reaction to what we see in the physical plane, but there isn't any sense that physical phenomena (even wavefunctions or informational relations) generate qualia.

BTW, Penrose himself claims that mechanisms can't be conscious, and as I remember he extends that to the whole of physics - because it is governed by equations and pure randomness - a stochastic mechanism.

I suppose I'd rather see the HP left unsolved, that kludge it over in some way.

Despite what Neil thinks, I think Dualism would be a very useful temporary scientific theory. For example, it would legitimise claims that consciousnesses can interact directly - ESP etc, and that they can exist without material support, which would legitimise reincarnation, contact with the dead, deathbed visions, etc.

I kept on trying to get over the fact that many scientific theories are not utterly logically sound - even QM and GR are inconsistent -

A really big problem right now, is that science hasn't got any way to even categorise these events - even though anyone who has shown any interest knows that they almost certainly exist.

David
 
Last edited:
I knew someone would ask that :)

Really I don't know. Perhaps the HP is really pointing directly at the idea that consciousness is irreducible. As you know, I think the best way to think of consciousness is probably in terms of Dualism, with the understanding that Dualism is a temporary, inexact theory that may well give way to Idealism in the end. Looked at that way, we experience qualia as a reaction to what we see in the physical plane, but there isn't any sense that physical phenomena (even wavefunctions or informational relations) generate qualia.

BTW, Penrose himself claims that mechanisms can't be conscious, and as I remember he extends that to the whole of physics - because it is governed by equations and pure randomness - a stochastic mechanism.

I suppose I'd rather see the HP left unsolved, that kludge it over in some way.

David

Well as someone who does think consciousness is one of the ontological primitives, I think our task is to show consciousness as necessary at minimum to humans, though I suspect any reasonable solution would have to extend to all macro-level living beings at least.

Still working my way through Gregg Rosenberg's A Place for Consciousness, where he asserts consciousness is the carrier of causality or something very much like consciousness would have to exist.

If such a claim can, with the aid of some scientists, lead to some empirical testing I think this will one of the the strongest cases for the solution to be irreducible consciousness.
 
Still working my way through Gregg Rosenberg's A Place for Consciousness, where he asserts consciousness is the carrier of causality or something very much like consciousness would have to exist..

I'd be interested to hear the gist of that argument, when you extract it. It has the vague sound of being true, doesn't it?

David
 
First, this article is a really fun read for any philosophy of science geek. Second - please compare these comments from Basil Hiley with Sheldrake's conceptions.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...lity-an-interview-with-physicist-basil-hiley/

Whether particles actually follow trajectories or not, I don’t know. But the formulae, you just apply them, and there it is.

GM: Did that start to get David interested?

BH: That got David interested in it again. We dropped the more speculative stuff, the more esoteric stuff about pre-space. It’s always in the background. But then we worked more closely on this. David was very excited by it. When we showed him the trajectories, he was: “Oh wow. We can get out that out of that?”

From my position, and also David’s position, this was just a sort of an average behavior of this deeper underlying process....

So it brings the information of the environmental conditions, the boundary conditions, and feeds it to this local entity–so this local entity knows that it’s part of the whole.

How this does it, I don’t know. But what David and I suggested was that the quantum potential is actually an information potential, and we introduced the idea of active information. I was very worried about using the word “information” because everybody would immediately go to Shannon information. Shannon information is not information; it’s just information capacity. There’s no meaning there, and the whole point was to get meaning into this and that this was information for the particle.

Meaning = interaction with real-world probabilities -- in my humble opinion.
 
Here's a recent talk by Sheldrake (October 2013) that sums up pretty well the latest updates on his proposed model of "morphic resonance". I look forward to hearing about the results about some of the ongoing experiments that may provide further evidence to this hypothesis.

For the last 200 years, we have been taught that nature is a mere machine, without consciousness, purpose or meaning. This view has led to a devastating destruction of life on earth. Today’s emerging science is turning this understanding on its head, revealing life as inherently intelligent, purposive and meaningfully communicative. According to this new science, there really is mind in nature. - from the link webpage

This simply sounds like the natural science I have studied all my life.
 
Back
Top