The concept of morphic fields—and the related idea of morphic resonance—stands as one of the most provocative hypotheses in contemporary science. These ideas suggest that nature itself has a kind of collective memory, and that everything from chemical compounds to animal behaviors to human consciousness is shaped by invisible, yet influential “fields” that carry information from the past into the present. This proposal challenges deeply ingrained assumptions about how inheritance, form, and behavior are transmitted from generation to generation.
In a mechanistic worldview, all living organisms and their traits are believed to be solely the product of genes and epigenetic mechanisms. Yet, as Rupert Sheldrake explains, genetic and epigenetic explanations often fall short of accounting for many observed phenomena. Morphic resonance offers an alternative perspective: that organisms inherit not just genetic material but also a collective memory from previous members of their own species. This blog post will delve into Sheldrake’s ideas, illustrating how morphic fields might provide a more holistic understanding of biology, behavior, and consciousness.
Why should readers pay attention to this topic? First, morphic fields open up an entirely new way of understanding heredity, going beyond genes and epigenetics. Second, they suggest that the “laws” of nature may actually be more like evolving habits—a viewpoint that could reconcile longstanding puzzles in science. Finally, Sheldrake’s perspective inspires a reevaluation of the role of consciousness in the universe, challenging the assumption that only humans have conscious experiences while everything else is inert. Whether or not one fully agrees with morphic resonance, the insights offered by this hypothesis provide fertile ground for reevaluating and expanding the boundaries of current scientific paradigms.
Main Content
The Missing Heritability Problem
Genetic Expectations vs. Reality
One of the opening points in the conversation is the acknowledgment that many traits in organisms, including humans, cannot be fully accounted for by known genetic mechanisms. This issue became glaringly apparent with the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2000. Scientists had initially expected to find around 100,000 genes, believing these would adequately explain the complexity of human beings. Surprisingly, only around 20,000 genes were identified—fewer than a simple nematode worm or even a rice plant, both of which have more genes than humans.
What was more shocking, however, was that genetic prediction for various inherited conditions—such as proneness to breast cancer, schizophrenia, and other traits—often explained only around 5–10% of the heritable variability. Yet extensive family studies and twin studies indicated much higher heritability (often 80% or more). This gap is known as the “missing heritability problem.”
Epigenetics and Its Limitations
Initially, scientists believed that epigenetic factors (chemical modifications to DNA or associated proteins) could help fill in the gap. While epigenetic inheritance—the inheritance of traits acquired by an organism during its lifetime—has indeed offered robust experimental evidence, epigenetics by itself may not close the missing heritability gap entirely. As Sheldrake points out, some portion of heritable change might be better explained by morphic resonance rather than purely molecular mechanisms like DNA methylation.
An Introduction to Morphic Fields and Morphic Resonance
The Hypothesis of Formative Causation
Rupert Sheldrake’s concept of morphic fields is rooted in his earlier work as a plant physiologist studying the role of plant hormones like auxin and how plants develop their form. Sheldrake proposed that the shapes, structures, and behaviors of living organisms are organized by invisible morphic (or morphogenetic) fields—field-like patterns that guide the development of a fetus or seed into a mature organism.
Sheldrake refers to his broader theory as formative causation, the idea that living organisms not only inherit genes from their ancestors but also inherit a collective, field-based memory. This means that each individual or organism tunes in to the past forms, habits, and behaviors of its species, making the overall development process part genetic, part field-based.
A Collective Memory in Nature
Central to morphic resonance is the claim that nature has its own memory, and that the so-called “laws of nature” are actually habits that become increasingly ingrained over time through repetition. Each member of a species, upon learning a new skill or adapting to a new environment, contributes to that collective memory, making it easier for future members of the species to learn or adapt in the same way.
Sheldrake posits that any given species functions as a repository of collective memories. For instance, if many rats learn to navigate a maze in one part of the world, it becomes easier for rats elsewhere to learn the same maze, purely by virtue of resonance across the species. This might sound extraordinary, but as Sheldrake notes, repeated experimental work has shown patterns suggestive of just such an effect.
Beyond Morphogenetic Fields
Sheldrake uses the general term “morphic fields” to encompass all field-like organizing patterns in nature, including:
- Morphogenetic fields: shaping the development of organisms (e.g., embryo formation, leaf and plant growth).
- Behavioral fields: guiding instinctual and learned behaviors in animals (and possibly humans).
- Mental fields: involved in perception, thought, and consciousness.
- Social fields: coordinating behavior in groups, from flocks of birds to sports teams.
Under this broader umbrella, morphic resonance is the mechanism by which these fields carry a memory through time, influencing present systems based on similar patterns established in the past.
Evidence and Examples of Morphic Resonance
Rats in a Water Maze
A frequently cited example involves rats learning to escape from a water maze. Researchers at Harvard found that rats could be trained to learn the maze, and subsequent generations learned it faster and faster. Surprisingly, rats of the same breed tested in labs in Edinburgh and Melbourne—with no ancestral link to the Harvard rats—also learned the maze more rapidly than the original cohorts. The phenomenon suggested that once a sufficient number of rats learn something, others can tap into that collective memory, acquiring the skill more quickly.
Chemical Crystallization
In chemistry, crystallization offers another possible test. When chemists synthesize a brand-new compound, it is often extremely difficult to form crystals at first. Over time, and in labs around the world, crystals of that same compound form more easily, even under apparently identical conditions. Conventional explanations typically invoke invisible dust particles or improved technique. Sheldrake argues that this improvement may also reflect morphic resonance: repeated crystallization events reinforce a field memory that subsequent experiments “tap into,” making the formation of crystals simpler and more likely.
Word Puzzles and Crossword Phenomena
In human behavior, one might observe similar effects with puzzles:
- Wordle: A daily word game published by The New York Times, which millions of people solve every day. Sheldrake hypothesizes that morphic resonance might make the puzzle easier later in the day, once many other people have already completed it.
- Crossword puzzles: Anecdotal and experimental evidence suggests people find certain crossword puzzles easier to complete if many others have already solved them. This phenomenon likewise matches the predictions of morphic resonance: repeated solutions strengthen the collective memory, thus lowering the learning curve for new participants.
The Brain as a Tuning System
Brain ≠ Warehouse of Memory
One of the most radical assertions in Sheldrake’s hypothesis is that memories are not stored inside the brain. In orthodox neuroscience, it is taken for granted that memories must reside in some form of material traces—arrangements of synapses or protein syntheses in neural tissues. However, despite over a century of searching, no definitive “engram” (physical memory trace) has been found. Sheldrake posits that the brain is more akin to a television receiver than a videotape recorder. It “tunes in” to memories via morphic resonance, which exist as virtual patterns or fields rather than as local neuronal engrams.
Extended Mind and Telepathy
If the brain functions more like a receiver, then the mind can extend beyond the head. This leads to phenomena that standard materialist perspectives might reject out of hand. For instance, many people report the feeling of “being stared at” from behind and then turning around, only to catch someone’s gaze. Sheldrake has conducted tens of thousands of experiments testing whether this sense of being looked at is more than coincidence. The results, while controversial, suggest there may be a measurable effect.
Similarly, telephone telepathy—where someone thinks of a friend just before that friend calls—is common enough that most of us have experienced it. These phenomena, while taboo in mainstream academia, fit smoothly into Sheldrake’s model of extended minds that interact in real time via morphic fields.
Are the Laws of Nature Really Fixed?
The Evolving-Habits Model
Conventional science is anchored in the assumption that the laws of nature are fixed—that they were “set” at the moment of the Big Bang and have remained unchanging ever since. Sheldrake critiques this assumption as an unexamined, 17th-century relic that science has absorbed from its historical roots in a theological concept of laws ordained by a divine legislator.
In contrast, Sheldrake proposes that the so-called laws are better seen as habits. As each species, structure, or phenomenon repeats a certain behavior, that behavior becomes ingrained in the universal memory. Older, well-established patterns, such as the formation of hydrogen atoms, are so deeply habituated that they appear to be “laws.” But new or newly synthesized forms (e.g., novel molecules, novel quantum systems) are still in the process of “learning,” and thus any laws that govern them are more flexible or less fixed. Over eons, these patterns become deeply embedded.
Shifting Constants
Physical constants, such as the gravitational constant (G) or the speed of light (c), are often presumed universal and unchanging. Yet careful historical scrutiny reveals fluctuations in their measured values over time. Mainstream physics usually attributes this to experimental error and “corrects” old data, continuing to treat the values as fixed. According to Sheldrake, these fluctuations might reflect the slow drift of evolving habits in nature, rather than mere measurement inaccuracies.
Cosmology and the Fine-Tuned Universe
A major debate in cosmology revolves around the problem of fine-tuning: Why are the constants and laws in the universe precisely suitable for life to emerge? Two mainstream explanations are:
- God or an external intelligent designer who fine-tuned the parameters.
- The multiverse hypothesis, suggesting the existence of infinitely many universes, each with different constants—ours just happens to be the “right” one for life.
Sheldrake points out that neither solution is particularly satisfying from a purely empirical standpoint. Instead, the concept of cosmic habits—gradually crystallizing from a cosmos in continual evolution—renders the assumption of a perfectly tuned beginning unnecessary.
Hierarchical Fields and an Organic, Living Universe
Nested Structures in Nature
Sheldrake underscores that morphic fields form nested hierarchies (or “holarchies”) throughout nature:
- Subatomic particles form atoms.
- Atoms form molecules.
- Molecules form crystals or cells.
- Cells form tissues and organs.
- Organs form organisms.
- Organisms form societies, ecosystems, planets, solar systems, galaxies, and so on.
At each level, a field of organization orchestrates the whole. Smaller fields nest inside larger fields, which eventually nest inside even larger cosmic fields. This hierarchical perspective sees nature as a grand mosaic of fields rather than a machine-like structure governed by external laws.
Mind at Large and Cosmic Consciousness
A further extension is the possibility that nature itself is imbued with consciousness (a viewpoint aligned with panpsychism or panentheism). If each level of organization—atom, molecule, cell, planet, star—has some interiority or mindedness, then the universe is more akin to a vast cosmic organism than an accidental machine. From this perspective:
- Planets may have their own planetary minds.
- Stars like the Sun could be conscious at their own scale.
- Galaxies and the universe as a whole may also possess mental or cognitive dimensions.
Sheldrake notes that such ideas are not entirely new; they resonate with classical and mystical philosophies that speak of an anima mundi (World Soul) or a universal Mind At Large.
Social Fields and Group Minds
Collective Emotions in Crowds and Teams
Humans are social animals, and Sheldrake’s theory suggests that social fields operate within groups—from small families to massive sports events:
- Family fields: Patterns or dynamics within a family might be repeated over generations. Systemic family constellation work often reveals hidden influences that shape relationships.
- Sports teams: The synergy or “flow” states in a team may be orchestrated by a morphic field that aligns players’ intentions and movements, much like starlings in a flock or fish in a school.
- Crowds at stadiums: Emotional contagion—such as collective excitement or tension during a football match—can be viewed as a field phenomenon, not just a byproduct of close physical proximity.
Telepathic Bonds in Social Animals
Telepathy, in Sheldrake’s view, is primarily a social phenomenon because it arises in bonded groups. For example, many pet owners report their dogs or cats appear to sense when they decide to return home, even at unusual times or from far distances, and respond accordingly. Sheldrake has tested these claims in controlled experiments—e.g., owners traveling from remote locations, returning at random times, to see if the animals consistently go to the door or window in anticipation. The data suggests some form of invisible connection at work, consistent with morphic resonance.
Science, Consciousness, and Spirituality
Scientific Method vs. Materialist Dogma
Sheldrake distinguishes between science as a method (observation, hypothesis, and experiment) and materialism as a worldview. He argues that science itself does not necessarily mandate a mechanistic-materialist worldview; that worldview is an interpretation that has calcified into dogma.
By freeing science from rigid materialism, Sheldrake believes researchers can explore phenomena like telepathy, morphic resonance, and extended consciousness without stigma. In his book The Science Delusion (or Science Set Free in the US), he lists ten dogmas that hamper scientific inquiry, including the assumption that nature is unconscious and that the laws of nature are fixed.
Scientific Studies on Spiritual Practices
Interestingly, Sheldrake sees a complementary relationship between science and spirituality. Research on meditation, prayer, and ritual practices indicates measurable physiological and psychological changes:
- Lower stress and blood pressure
- Enhanced well-being and reduced depression
- Changes in brain wave patterns observable on EEG
Sheldrake posits that such findings are an example of how empirical science can shed light on spiritual practices, rather than necessarily being in conflict with them.
Toward a New Paradigm
What would a new scientific paradigm look like?
- Organic Universe: Nature is seen as a dynamic, developing organism, not a lifeless machine.
- Habits Instead of Laws: Natural regularities evolve over time and gain stability through repetition.
- Extended Consciousness: Consciousness is not confined to human brains alone; it is woven into the fabric of the cosmos, expressed at various scales.
- Collective Memory: Phenomena such as telepathy, inherited behavior, and the sense of being stared at become subjects of legitimate empirical research.
Advice for Students and Young Scientists
Navigating Institutional Resistance
One of the most practical concerns is how students or early-career researchers can engage with these ideas without jeopardizing their academic prospects. Sheldrake notes that official institutions—universities, funding bodies, academic journals—tend to uphold the existing paradigm. Truly radical research often struggles to gain acceptance or funding because peer-review committees and granting agencies are staffed by scientists deeply invested in the status quo.
Therefore, Sheldrake advises young scientists to:
- Master Conventional Methods: Understand and become adept at mainstream science—experimental design, data analysis, peer-review publication—because these are the foundational tools needed to test new hypotheses rigorously.
- Find Niche Areas: Some research fields are more open to innovative thinking (e.g., consciousness studies, psychedelic research, integrative medicine, or animal communication).
- Seek Alternative Funding: Official funding agencies may be slow to support unconventional research. Foundations, private donors, or philanthropic organizations with an interest in exploring new paradigms might be more receptive.
- Network and Collaborate: Identify mentors and peers who are sympathetic to expanding science’s frontiers. Online platforms, conferences, and specialized journals can help build a supportive community.
Embracing Online Resources and Communities
Where official university courses rarely cover such topics, online platforms (like YouTube channels, alternative education forums, or organizations like the Essentia Foundation) can fill the gap. They offer lectures, podcasts, interviews, and discussions on everything from panpsychism and near-death experiences to advanced studies in parapsychology and meditation research. While these won’t provide conventional degrees or official credentials, they are invaluable for intellectual growth and networking.
Analysis and Elaboration
Below are key thematic strands drawn from Sheldrake’s ideas, with additional context and references to expand the conversation further.
A. Mechanism vs. Organism in the History of Science
- Descartes’s Machine Metaphor: The 17th-century philosopher René Descartes compared the universe to a mechanical clock, reducing all physical phenomena to matter in motion. This perspective, though successful in explaining certain phenomena, downplayed or dismissed any notion of innate purpose, agency, or consciousness in nature.
- Organic Philosophy: Thinkers like Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Alfred North Whitehead, and Hans Driesch have championed a more organic view. Whitehead in particular argued that “nature is alive” at every level—a perspective that resonates with Sheldrake’s morphic field hypothesis.
B. Revisiting the Concept of Fields
- Faraday and Maxwell: The discovery of electromagnetic fields in the 19th century revolutionized physics. Fields were initially suspicious constructs, but eventually recognized as fundamental components of reality.
- Morphic Fields: By analogy, morphic fields could undergo a similar trajectory if enough empirical evidence accumulates. Just as we cannot measure an electromagnetic field directly but only by its effects on charges and currents, morphic fields might only be inferred by consistent patterns of collective “memory-like” behavior.
C. Consciousness Research at the Frontiers
- Near-Death Experiences: Investigations into NDEs highlight how consciousness sometimes appears to function independently of the body. If the mind extends beyond the brain, NDEs might be less mysterious.
- Psychedelic Research: A renaissance in psychedelic research is underway, exploring how substances like psilocybin and LSD alter consciousness. Researchers measure brain activities but also note many subjective reports of connectedness or oneness, concepts that might be understood as temporary glimpses of larger morphic or mental fields.
D. Criticisms and Counterarguments
- Materialist Critique: Skeptics argue that no known physical force or field would allow for the kind of instantaneous, nonlocal effect described by morphic resonance. They also challenge experiments on telepathy or the sense of being stared at, often attributing results to statistical flukes, poor controls, or confirmation bias.
- Need for Replication: For morphic resonance to be widely accepted, more extensive replicable experiments in independent labs are required. Sheldrake acknowledges that mainstream researchers often dismiss or avoid such research, contributing to a self-reinforcing taboo.
E. A Philosophical and Theological Pivot
- Panpsychism and Panentheism: Some philosophers—like Bernardo Kastrup (analytical idealism), Galileo Commission writers, or David Chalmers—suggest that consciousness is more fundamental than matter. This resonates with Sheldrake’s notion that the cosmos has an intrinsic consciousness that evolves through repeated habits.
- God or the Divine Mind: The idea of a universal mind or cosmic consciousness intersects with theological questions. In pantheism, God is synonymous with the universe. In panentheism, God transcends the physical cosmos yet is immanent within it. Sheldrake’s perspective does not rigidly define how the divine might function, but it does invite a spiritual dimension to scientific inquiry.
Conclusion
1. Key Takeaways
- Nature’s Memory: Sheldrake’s core proposition is that nature has a built-in memory that shapes forms, behaviors, and even fundamental constants through repetition.
- Beyond Genes: Morphic fields could account for the missing heritability that genes and epigenetics alone have yet to explain, thereby expanding our understanding of inheritance.
- Extended Mind: The mind may not be limited to the physical brain; phenomena like telepathy, the sense of being stared at, and telephone telepathy become comprehensible via morphic resonance.
- Evolving “Laws”: Traditional science rests on the assumption of fixed laws, but Sheldrake proposes that these laws may be better described as evolving habits solidified over billions of years.
- Science and Spirituality: The scientific method (empiricism, experiment, hypothesis-testing) can productively engage with questions often deemed spiritual, including prayer, meditation, and collective rituals.
2. A Call to Open-Minded Inquiry
Sheldrake’s work, while controversial, underscores the importance of openness and curiosity. Historical precedents show that many once-radical ideas (like the existence of electromagnetic fields) eventually became cornerstones of mainstream science. Whether morphic resonance takes a similar trajectory depends on robust, replicable experimental evidence—and on a shift away from dogmatic assumptions that restrict the types of questions scientists are permitted to ask.
For readers and researchers alike, the lessons are clear:
- Remain curious and critical, open to the possibility that biology, physics, and consciousness may be far more interconnected than we imagine.
- Encourage a broader, more inclusive paradigm in science that invites exploration of phenomena currently labeled “anomalous.”
- Recognize that the mind-body problem may not be solved by classical neuroscience alone; fields, resonance, and the interplay of consciousness with matter deserve systematic investigation.
3. Next Steps for the Inquisitive Reader
- Read Sheldrake’s Books: A New Science of Life, The Presence of the Past, Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home, The Science Delusion/Science Set Free, and Ways to Go Beyond and Why They Work provide detailed explorations of his theories and experimental data.
- Engage with Consciousness Research: Platforms like the Essentia Foundation, the Galileo Commission, and the Society for Scientific Exploration host discussions, papers, and talks on boundary-pushing scientific research.
- Conduct Personal Observations: Simple experiments, like noticing whether you can tell if someone is looking at you, or logging “telephone telepathy” events, offer a direct, albeit informal, encounter with phenomena that might be explained by morphic resonance.
- Support Open Science: If you are in a position to fund or facilitate research, seek out scientists exploring new frontiers in biology, consciousness studies, and non-materialist paradigms.
Final Thought
The discussion on morphic fields and resonance invites an important reflection: what if reality is not the rigid, mechanical system we’ve assumed it to be but rather a living tapestry of habits, fields, and evolving forms of consciousness? Such a shift opens new doors in understanding who we are, how life evolves, and how collective phenomena—like a single new trick learned by rats or the unveiling of a daily Wordle puzzle—can ripple across species, cultures, and even the cosmos. While the morphic field hypothesis has its critics, it undeniably stimulates a richer dialogue that may one day expand the scope of scientific inquiry to include dimensions of life and mind long relegated to the fringes.
In a world where new discoveries continually challenge the limits of our knowledge, Sheldrake’s perspective carries an underlying message: keep asking questions, keep testing assumptions, and remain willing to transform our most cherished beliefs about nature, consciousness, and the very structure of the universe.
