Last May (2004), I was a speaker at the Awakening to Spirit Conference in Montreal. I have already written about this in a previous issue of Atlantis Rising, in connection with my meeting Stephan Schwartz, an expert in remote viewing and psychic archeology. This time, I will talk about my encounter with Rupert Sheldrake. It is one of the things I most like about attending conferences—the chance to hear and speak with researchers whose works I have read and appreciated, but whom I have never met personally.
Rupert Sheldrake is well-known as the originator of the concept of morphogenetic fields, which he says provide a key to the understanding of biological form. These ideas were put forward in his book A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance. In his lecture on May 17, Rupert laid out his ideas.
In his talk, Rupert explained how the generation of the complete form of an organism from a fertilized egg is still unexplained by modern science. The fertilized egg splits into two cells, and those two split into four, and the process goes on millions of times. But in the course of those cell divisions, we find some cells becoming parts of specific organs and tissues, which continue to develop through the cell-division process in very complex ways, until the whole organism is complete. The problem is that each cell contains the exact-same genetic information. So how does a particular cell know to become a certain kind of cell in a certain kind of tissue in a certain organ or limb of a body that is structured in a particular way? Scientists have observed that certain genes are “turned on” at certain stages of the cell-division process. How that happens is not very well explained, but even if it were explained it would not solve the whole problem. All that a gene does is tell the cell how to string amino acids together to form particular kinds of proteins. And that in itself does not really explain how millions of cells pattern themselves into the ultimate form of the organism. In Sheldrake’s words, this genetic determinism is “grotesquely inadequate” as an explanation for the biological form of the organism.
Sheldrake appeals to the existence of morphogenetic fields to explain biological form. (The term morphogenesis is a combination of morph, which refers to form, and genesis, which refers to origin.) Morphogenetic fields would explain not only the generation of the structure of an organism, but also such extraordinary phenomena as the regeneration of limbs, or even complete halves of bodies. If you cut a flatworm in half, either lengthwise or crosswise, both halves will again develop into complete flatworms. The morphogenetic field has something in common with the idea of a subtle form-giving seed (bija), an idea derived from the ancient Sanskrit writings of India, and which I have included in my latest book, Human Devolution: A Vedic Alternative to Darwin’s Theory, as an explanation for biological form.
In his talk, Sheldrake specifically connected morphogenetic fields with Aristotle’s idea that a formal element associated with matter produces the specific form of an organism. This formal element does not exist apart from matter, and matter does not organize itself in the absence of the formal element. They exist only together. Sheldrake says that the morphogenetic field can change through time, and is thus harmonious with the Darwinian theory of human evolution. During the questions after Sheldrake’s talk, I asked if the concept of morphogenetic fields might not also be compatible with a Platonic conception of a formal element existing apart from matter. He said it could be, but that he preferred the Aristotelean metaphysics. The concept of a form-giving seed that I derive from the Vedic cosmology is more Platonic. There are actually two seeds: conscious selves (atmas, or souls) that animate the bodies of organisms, and also the form-giving seeds, which are given by a supreme intelligence and which are eternally existing, and thus are not harmonious with Darwinian evolution.
Sheldrake identifies morphic fields with mind. Mind, he said, extends beyond the brain, just like the magnetic field of a magnet extends beyond the magnet itself. This extension of the mind- field beyond the body can help explain extrasensory perception and telepathic communication. My own ideas on this topic, drawn from the ancient Sanskrit writings of India, are similar to those of Sheldrake. In addition to the gross physical body (sthula sharira), there is a subtle mental body, endowed with subtle senses. This subtle body (linga sharira) is responsible for various yogic siddhis, or perfections, such as durdarshan (seeing at a distance).
Sheldrake explained that many people have the sensation that someone behind them is staring at them. When they look behind them, they see that someone is in fact looking at them. This can be the basis for some experimental work. During a workshop that followed his talk, Sheldrake asked the participants, including me, to organize themselves into pairs. One member of the pair was the subject of the test, and the other conducted the test. The subject sat in a chair, and the experimenter sat behind the subject. The experimenter was given a sheet of paper giving instructions for twenty trials. For each trial, the instruction gave the experimenter one of two choices. Stare at the back of the neck of the subject, or stare somewhere else. For each trial, the subject had to say whether or not the the experimenter was in fact staring. The results of each trial were recorded on the paper.
There are two possibilities. One possibility is that the subjects have no paranormal ability that informs them of the actual truth. In that case, one should expect that the subjects will simply be guessing, and because there are two choices, the expectation is that they will guess correctly 50 percent of the time, over a sufficiently great number of trials. The second possibility is that the subjects do have some degree of paranormal ability that lets them actually “perceive” whether or not the experimenters are actually staring at the backs of their necks. In that case, one would expect the subjects’ scores for correct choices would be significantly higher than the chance expectation (50 percent correct). According to Sheldrake, the results of a large number of such experiments do in fact show that the subjects’ results are significantly greater than 50 percent, amounting to about 60 percent. It would thus appear that we do have eyes in the backs of our heads. In the experiment in which I participated, I scored 60 percent correct.
Sheldrake pointed out that such apparently simple experi-ments have the power to make important contributions to our understanding of reality, and challenge the current understanding, which is based on a strict materialism. Sheldrake has outlined more such experiments, which anyone can carry out, in his book Seven Experiments That Could Change the World.
Remarkably, Sheldrake has done experiments that show telepathic connections between humans and animals. For example, it seems that dogs appear to know when their masters are coming home. Sheldrake tested this by having coordinated time-coded filming of the dog at home and the master away from home. The master was given an instruction to return home, at a time different from the normal time. At the same time the master started to return home, the dog went to the window of the home to await the master’s return.
Both Sheldrake and I wound up sitting next to each other at Stephan Schwartz’s workshop on remote viewing, and we both participated in the experiment I outlined in a previous column. A “sending” team was sent out to go to a place of their choice in
Montreal and “send” imagery back to the rest of us. Both Sheldrake and I were able to identify the place to which they went, giving many correct details. We then compared notes about our respective experiences with what I have called the “knowledge filter.” Actually, I think I am a little more of a victim than Sheldrake, and I think he would agree. He was therefore surprised that I had once been invited by Royal Institution director Baroness Susan Greenfield to lecture there on Forbidden Archeology.
Sheldrake has never been invited to the Royal Institution, which, after the Royal Society, is England’s top scientific society. I told Sheldrake that after my talk, I had been hosted for dinner by Peter Atkins, a well-known Oxford atheist and husband of Baroness Greenfield, who was abroad when I came. “They’re not married anymore,” said Sheldrake. True enough, I found by checking the web. I also found out that Baroness Greenfield is having her own problems with the knowledge filter. Apparently, some members of the Royal Society threatened to resign if she were elected as a fellow, objecting, among other things, to her high public profile and engagement with the media.
The Forbidden Archeologist
Michael Cremo
No comments:
Post a Comment