It is currently Sun Feb 25, 2018 12:39 am



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: MORPHIC FIELDS/ MORPHIC RESONANCE
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:43 pm 
Offline
Underworld Minion
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:34 pm
Posts: 9324
'Why do many phenomena defy the explanations of conventional biology and physics? For instance, when laboratory rats in one place have learned how to navigate a new maze, why do rats elsewhere in the world seem to learn it more easily? Rupert Sheldrake describes this process as morphic resonance: the past forms and behaviors of organisms, he argues, influence organisms in the present through direct connections across time and space. Calling into question many of our fundamental concepts about life and consciousness, Sheldrake reinterprets the regularities of nature as being more like habits than immutable laws.'

Also 'entangled' with 'entanglement'......and lots more, I find this very interesting and something more along the lines towards which I lean.....

Heres a start:

http://www.northern-ghost-investigation ... ields.html

Lots more other information about this on Sheldrakes website, check out the articles and papers etc.

_________________
Why is it I smell shit everytime you speak.....


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MORPHIC FIELDS/ MORPHIC RESONANCE
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:29 am 
Offline
Underworld Minion
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:34 pm
Posts: 9324
Ok, I'll kick start with some ideas and questions.............

One of the reasons I was drawn to this is because I feel that telepathy is 'normal' not 'paranormal' too.

Does this provide us with the answer, or 'proof' of this?

If so what are the implications of this?

_________________
Why is it I smell shit everytime you speak.....


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MORPHIC FIELDS/ MORPHIC RESONANCE
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:22 pm 
Offline
The Ferryman
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:31 pm
Posts: 10887
Location: Stockton-on-Tees
Well I'm not sure that it provides us with 'proof', but I do think that it a very interesting area of study. That stuff with the Rats is very compelling.

If we take this to another level, does this mean that if enough people mastered brain surgery then future generations not directly linked genetically to the brain surgeons would have a natural aptitude for it?

The human race should therefore be getting 'smarter'. Would you agree with this?

Also can morphic resonance cross species barriers? After all there are plenty of people out there who 'claim' to be able to read the minds of animals.

_________________
Northern Ghost Investigations -
Messing around with things we don't understand since 2005


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MORPHIC FIELDS/ MORPHIC RESONANCE
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:22 pm 
Offline
Underworld Minion
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:34 pm
Posts: 9324
Yeah, I agree Mark!
I'm not sure its 'proof' for telepathy in itself, however it could certainly help 'explain' in, to me as I understand it so far anyway!

Not sure about the 'brain surgery', I shall do more reading and see what I think, however from as I understand this now I'll say a tentative 'yes'

Ah, 'smartness!'. I was listening to a short radio 4 interview with him yesterday online and IQ's were mentioned, I'll post the link as its easier for people to listen to than for me to go into, but I think the whole idea of this suggest 'yes'.....although what constitutes 'smartness' might be a whole new topic.......this is only 10 mins or so, and there is an 'open minded sceptic' also on. Its interesting, especially as the presenter likens it to coin tossing, and Rupert goes on to explain the difference etc (which obviously he does far better than me, hence why I'll post the link!)
I would agree that the things we 'learn' are passed down and around.....I began to think about this not long after I stoped drinking, I began to see certain patterns and to me I believe that there is more than 'genetics' and social/environmental factors which cause destructive cycles/patterns in people just from my own observations, so to come across something 'scientific' which offers an explanation for this got my attention, even though I came across it from another 'source' etc.

I would personally say that morphic fields do cross the species barrier.....not sure Rupert would, what do you and others think after reading this.
He's done a lot of animal studies, one especially with dogs knowing when there owners are coming home before they even leave the workplace. Apparently there was some issue with this from Randi, who apparently dissed this then later admitted he'd not looked at the case etc.....

_________________
Why is it I smell shit everytime you speak.....


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MORPHIC FIELDS/ MORPHIC RESONANCE
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:36 pm 
Offline
The Ferryman
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:31 pm
Posts: 10887
Location: Stockton-on-Tees
Randi often does that. Years ago he argued the toss about acupuncture with someone who was a bit of an expert in the field. He was then asked where he had got his argument from and Randi admitted that he hadn't really done much reading, but had been to China! Class.

I supposed if there is such a think as Morphic Resonance then it can have negative effects on a species as well. If a species learns that survival is more likely the more violent they become, then the species would then become more violent.

I wonder how the amount of living organisms in a species would effect a Morphic Field. There are millions of ants yet only a few giant pandas. Would the millions of ants be creating a stronger morphic field that the fewer pandas? Maybe it's dependent on brain/body size.

Am I making any sense here?

_________________
Northern Ghost Investigations -
Messing around with things we don't understand since 2005


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MORPHIC FIELDS/ MORPHIC RESONANCE
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:07 pm 
Offline
Underworld Minion
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:34 pm
Posts: 9324
I know, its funny hehehehehe!!!hes a bugger for it seemingly yet people still deny that he does this even when he admits to it hehehehe, which is another topic in itself, how people will insist someone is doing something even when the exact methodolgy used is shown to them, they will still insist that the person doing it is actually doing something else which they are not aware of. But I'll get shot cos thats off topic!

Yeah, you are making sense here Mark, its interesting.
Dont know if you've read this but it might answer some of your questions etc. its taken from a bigger article, the full things at the link on the bottom:

WHAT ARE MORPHIC FIELDS?
The question of biological development, of morphogenesis, is actually quite open and is the subject of much debate within biology itself. An alternative to the mechanist/reductionist approach, which has been around since the 1920s, is the idea of morphogenetic (form-shaping) fields. In this model, growing organisms are shaped by fields which are both within and around them, fields which contain, as it were, the form of the organism. This is closer to the Aristotelian tradition than to any of the other traditional approaches. As an oak tree develops, the acorn is associated with an oak tree field, an invisible organizing structure which organizes the oak tree's development; it is like an oak tree mold, within which the developing organism grows.

One fact which led to the development of this theory is the remarkable ability organisms have to repair damage. If you cut an oak tree into little pieces, each little piece, properly treated, can grow into a new tree. So from a tiny fragment, you can get a whole. Machines do not do that; they do not have this power of remaining whole if you remove parts of them. Chop a computer up into small pieces and all you get is a broken computer. It does not regenerate into lots of little computers. But if you chop a flatworm into small pieces, each piece can grow into a new flatworm. Another analogy is a magnet. If you chop a magnet into small pieces, you do have lots of small magnets, each with a complete magnetic field. This is a wholistic property that fields have that mechanical systems do not have unless they are associated with fields. Still another example is the hologram, any part of which contains the whole. A hologram is based on interference patterns within the electromagnetic field. Fields thus have a wholistic property which was very attractive to the biologists who developed this concept of morphogenetic fields.

Each species has its own fields, and within each organism there are fields within fields. Within each of us is the field of the whole body; fields for arms and legs and fields for kidneys and livers; within are fields for the different tissues inside these organs, and then fields for the cells, and fields for the sub-cellular structures, and fields for the molecules, and so on. There is a whole series of fields within fields. The essence of the hypothesis I am proposing is that these fields, which are already accepted quite widely within biology, have a kind of in-built memory derived from previous forms of a similar kind. The liver field is shaped by the forms of previous livers and the oak tree field by the forms and organization of previous oak trees. Through the fields, by a process called morphic resonance, the influence of like upon like, there is a connection among similar fields. That means that the field's structure has a cumulative memory, based on what has happened to the species in the past. This idea applies not only to living organisms but also to protein molecules, crystals, even to atoms. In the realm of crystals, for example, the theory would say that the form a crystal takes depends on its characteristic morphic field. Morphic field is a broader term which includes the fields of both form and behavior; hereafter, I shall use the word morphic field rather than morphogenetic.

MIGRANT BEARDED CHEMISTS
If you make a new compound and crystallize it, there won't be a morphic field for it the first time. Therefore, it may be very difficult to crystallize; you have to wait for a morphic field to emerge. The second time, however, even if you do this somewhere else in the world, there will be an influence from the first crystallization, and it should crystallize a bit more easily. The third time there will be an influence from the first and second, and so on. There will be a cumulative influence from previous crystals, so it should get easier and easier to crystallize the more often you crystallize it. And, in fact, this is exactly what does happen. Synthetic chemists find that new compounds are generally very difficult to crystallize. As time goes on, they generally get easier to crystallize all over the world. The conventional explanation is that this occurs because fragments of previous crystals are carried from laboratory to laboratory on beards of migrant chemists. When there have not been any migrant chemists, it is assumed that the fragments wafted through the atmosphere as microscopic dust particles.

Perhaps migrant chemists do carry fragments on their beards and perhaps dust particles do get blown around in the atmosphere. Nevertheless, if one measures the rate of crystallization under rigorously controlled conditions in sealed vessels in different parts of the world, one should still observe an accelerated rate of crystallization. This experiment has not yet been done. But a related experiment involving chemical reaction rates of new synthetic processes is at present being considered by a major chemical company in Britain because, if these things happen, they have quite important implications for the chemical industry.

A NEW SCIENCE OF LIFE
There are quite a number of experiments that can be done in the realm of biological form and the development of form. Correspondingly, the same principles apply to behavior, forms of behavior and patterns of behavior. Consider the hypothesis that if you train rats to learn a new trick in Santa Barbara, then rats all over the world should be able to learn to do the same trick more quickly, just because the rats in Santa Barbara have learned it. This new pattern of learning will be, as it were, in the rat collective memory-in the morphic fields of rats, to which other rats can tune in, just because they are rats and just because they are in similar circumstances, by morphic resonance. This may seem a bit improbable, but either this sort of thing happens or it doesn't.

Among the vast number of papers in the archives of experiments on rat psychology, there are a number of examples of experiments in which people have actually monitored rates of learning over time and discovered mysterious increases. In my book, A New Science of Life, I describe one such series of experiments which extended over a 50-year period. Begun at Harvard and then carried on in Scotland and Australia, the experiment demonstrated that rats increased their rate of learning more than tenfold. This was a huge effect-not some marginal statistically significant result. This improved rate of learning in identical learning situations occurred in these three separate locations and in all rats of the breed, not just in rats descended from trained parents.

There are other examples of the spontaneous spread of new habits in animals and birds which provide at least circumstantial evidence for the theory of morphic resonance. The best documented of these is the behavior of bluetits, a rather small bird with a blue head, that is common throughout Britain. Fresh milk is still delivered to the door each morning in Britain. Until about the 1950s, the caps on the milk bottles were made of cardboard. In 1921 in Southampton, a strange phenomenon was observed. When people came out in the morning to get their milk bottles, they found little shreds of cardboard all around the bottom of the bottle, and the cream from the top of the bottle had disappeared. Close observation revealed that this was being done by bluetits, who sat on top of the bottle, pulled off the cardboard with their beaks, and then drank the cream. Several tragic cases were found in which bluetits were discovered drowned head first in the milk!

This incident caused considerable interest; then the event turned up somewhere else in Britain, about 50 miles away, and then somewhere about 100 miles away. Whenever the bluetit phenomenon turned up, it started spreading locally, presumably by imitation. However, bluetits are very home-loving creatures, and they don't normally travel more than four or five miles. Therefore, the dissemination of the behavior over large distances could only be accounted for in terms of an independent discovery of the habit. The bluetit habit was mapped throughout Britain until 1947, by which time it had become more or less universal. The people who did the study came to the conclusion that it must have been "invented" independently at least 50 times. Moreover, the rate of spread of the habit accelerated as time went on. In other parts of Europe where milk bottles are delivered to doorsteps, such as Scandinavia and Holland, the habit also cropped up during the 1930s and spread in a similar manner. Here is an example of a pattern of behavior which was spread in a way which seemed to speed up with time, and which might provide an example of morphic resonance.

But there is still stronger evidence for morphic resonance. Because of the German occupation of Holland, milk delivery ceased during 1939-40. Milk deliveries did not resume until 1948. Since bluetits usually live only two to three years, there probably were no bluetits alive in 1948 who had been alive when milk was last delivered. Yet when milk deliveries resumed in 1948, the opening of milk bottles by bluetits sprang up rapidly in quite separate places in Holland and spread extremely rapidly until, within a year or two, it was once again universal. The behavior spread much more rapidly and cropped up independently much more frequently the second time round than the first time. This example demonstrates the evolutionary spread of a new habit which is probably not genetic but rather depends on a kind of collective memory due to morphic resonance.

I am suggesting that heredity depends not only on DNA, which enables organisms to build the right chemical building blocks-the proteins-but also on morphic resonance. Heredity thus has two aspects: one a genetic heredity, which accounts for the inheritance of proteins through DNA's control of protein synthesis; the second a form of heredity based on morphic fields and morphic resonance, which is nongenetic and which is inherited directly from past members of the species. This latter form of heredity deals with the organization of form and behavior.

THE ALLEGORY OF THE TELEVISION SET
The differences and connections between these two forms of heredity become easier to understand if we consider an analogy to television. Think of the pictures on the screen as the form that we are interested in. If you didn't know how the form arose, the most obvious explanation would be that there were little people inside the set whose shadows you were seeing on the screen. Children sometimes think in this manner. If you take the back off the set, however, and look inside, you find that there are no little people. Then you might get more subtle and speculate that the little people are microscopic and are actually inside the wires of the TV set. But if you look at the wires through a microscope, you can't find any little people there either.

You might get still more subtle and propose that the little people on the screen actually arise through "complex interactions among the parts of the set which are not yet fully understood." You might think this theory was proved if you chopped out a few transistors from the set. The people would disappear. If you put the transistors back, they would reappear. This might provide convincing evidence that they arose from within the set entirely on the basis of internal interaction.

Suppose that someone suggested that the pictures of little people come from outside the set, and the set picks up the pictures as a result of invisible vibrations to which the set is attuned. This would probably sound like a very occult and mystical explanation. You might deny that anything is coming into the set. You could even "prove it" by weighing the set switched off and switched on; it would weigh the same. Therefore, you could conclude that nothing is coming into the set.

I think that is the position of modern biology, trying to explain everything in terms of what happens inside. The more explanations for form are looked for inside, the more elusive the explanations prove to be, and the more they are ascribed to ever more subtle and complex interactions, which always elude investigation. As I am suggesting, the forms and patterns of behavior are actually being tuned into by invisible connections arising outside the organism. The development of form is a result of both the internal organization of the organism and the interaction of the morphic fields to which it is tuned.

Genetic mutations can affect this development. Again think of the TV set. If we mutate a transistor or a condenser inside the set, you may get distorted pictures or sound. But this does not prove that the pictures and sound are programmed by these components. Nor does it prove that form and behavior are programmed by genes, if we find there are alterations in form and behavior as a result of genetic mutation.

There is another kind of mutation which is particularly interesting. Imagine a mutation in the tuning circuit of your set, such that it alters the resonant frequency of the tuning circuit. Tuning your TV depends on a resonant phenomenon; the tuner resonates at the same frequency as the frequency of the signal transmitted by the different stations. Thus tuning dials are measured in hertz, which is a measure of frequency. Imagine a mutation in the tuning system such that you tune to one channel and a different channel actually appears. You might trace this back to a single condenser or a single resistor which had undergone a mutation. But it would not be valid to conclude that the new programs you are seeing, the different people, the different films and advertisements, are programmed inside the component that has changed. Nor does it prove that form and behavior are programmed in the DNA when genetic mutations lead to changes in form and behavior. The usual assumption is that if you can show something alters as a result of a mutation, then that must be programmed by, or controlled by, or determined by, the gene. I hope this TV analogy makes it clear that that is not the only conclusion. It could be that it is simply affecting the tuning system.

A NEW THEORY OF EVOLUTION
A great deal of work is being done in contemporary biological research on such "tuning" mutations (formally called homoeotic mutations). The animal most used in the investigations is Drosophila, the fruitfly. A whole range of these mutations have been found which produce various monstrosities. One kind, called antennapedia, leads to the antennae being transformed into legs. The unfortunate flies, which contain just one altered gene, produce legs instead of antennae growing out of their heads. There is another mutation which leads to the second of the three pairs of legs in the Drosophila being transformed into antennae. Normally flies have one pair of wings and, on the segment behind the wings, are small balancing organs called halteres. Still another mutation leads to the transformation of the segment normally bearing the halteres into a duplicate of the first segment, so that these flies have four wings instead of two. These are called bithorax mutants.

All of these mutations depend on single genes. I propose that somehow these single gene mutations are changing the tuning of a part of the embryonic tissue, such that it tunes into a different morphic field than it normally does, and so a different set of structures arise, just like tuning into a different channel on TV.

One can see from these analogies how both genetics and morphic resonance are involved in heredity. Of course, a new theory of heredity leads to a new theory of evolution. Present-day evolutionary theory is based on the assumption that virtually all heredity is genetic. Sociobiology and neo-Darwinism in all their various forms are based on gene selection, gene frequencies, and so forth. The theory of morphic resonance leads to a much broader view which allows one of the great heresies of biology once more to be taken seriously: namely, the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Behaviors which organisms learn, or forms which they develop, can be inherited by others even if they are not descended from the original organisms-by morphic resonance.

A NEW CONCEPT OF MEMORY
When we consider memory, this hypothesis leads to a very different approach from the traditional one. The key concept of morphic resonance is that similar things influence similar things across both space and time. The amount of influence depends on the degree of similarity. Most organisms are more similar to themselves in the past than they are to any other organism. I am more like me five minutes ago than I am like any of you; all of us are more like ourselves in the past than like anyone else. The same is true of any organism. This self-resonance with past states of the same organism in the realm of form helps to stabilize the morphogenetic fields, to stabilize the form of the organism, even though the chemical constituents in the cells are turning over and changing. Habitual patterns of behavior are also tuned into by the self-resonance process. If I start riding a bicycle, for example, the pattern of activity of my nervous system and my muscles, in response to balancing on the bicycle, immediately tunes me in by similarity to all the previous occasions on which I have ridden a bicycle. The experience of bicycle riding is given by cumulative morphic resonance to all those past occasions. It is not a verbal or intellectual memory; it is a body memory of riding a bicycle.

This would also apply to my memory of actual events: what I did yesterday in Los Angeles or last year in England. When, I think of these particular events, I am tuning into the occasions on which these events happened. There is a direct causal connection through a tuning process. If this hypothesis is correct, it is not necessary to assume that memories are stored inside the brain.

THE MYSTERY OF MIND
All of us have been brought up on the idea that memories are stored in the brain; we use the word brain interchangeably with mind or memory. I am suggesting that the brain is more like a tuning system than a memory storage device. One of the main arguments for the localization of memory in the brain is the fact that certain kinds of brain damage can lead to loss of memory. If the brain is damaged in a car accident and someone loses memory, then the obvious assumption is that memory tissue must have been destroyed. But this is not necessarily so.

Consider the TV analogy again. If I damaged your TV set so that you were unable to receive certain channels, or if I made the TV set aphasic by destroying the part of it concerned with the production of sound so that you could still get the pictures but could not get the sound, this would not prove that the sound or the pictures were stored inside the TV set. It would merely show that I had affected the tuning system so you could not pick up the correct signal any longer. No more does memory loss due to brain damage prove that memory is stored inside the brain. In fact, most memory loss is temporary: amnesia following concussion, for example, is often temporary. This recovery of memory is very difficult to explain in terms of conventional theories: if the memories have been destroyed because the memory tissue has been destroyed, they ought not to come back again; yet they often do.

Another argument for the localization of memory inside the brain is suggested by the experiments on electrical stimulation of the brain by Wilder Penfield and others. Penfield stimulated the temporal lobes of the brains of epileptic patients and found that some of these stimuli could elicit vivid responses, which the patients interpreted as memories of things they had done in the past. Penfield assumed that he was actually stimulating memories which were stored in the cortex. Again returning to the TV analogy, if I stimulated the tuning circuit of your TV set and it jumped onto another channel, this wouldn't prove the information was stored inside the tuning circuit. It is interesting that, in his last book, The Mystery of the Mind, Penfield himself abandoned the idea that the experiments proved that memory was inside the brain. He came to the conclusion that memory was not stored inside the cortex at all.

There have been many attempts to locate memory traces within the brain, the best known of which were by Karl Lashley, the great American neurophysiologist. He trained rats to learn tricks, then chopped bits of their brains out to determine whether the rats could still do the tricks. To his amazement, he found that he could remove over fifty percent of the brain-any 50%-and there would be virtually no effect on the retention of this learning. When he removed all the brain, the rats could no longer perform the tricks, so he concluded that the brain was necessary in some way to the performance of the task-which is hardly a very surprising conclusion. What was surprising was how much of the brain he could remove without affecting the memory.

Similar results have been found by other investigators, even with invertebrates such as the octopus. This led one experimenter to speculate that memory was both everywhere and nowhere in particular. Lashley himself concluded that memories are stored in a distributed manner throughout the brain, since he could not find the memory traces which classical theory required. His student, Karl Pribram, extended this idea with the holographic theory of memory storage: memory is like a holographic image, stored as an interference pattern throughout the brain.

What Lashley and Pribram (at least in some of his writing) do not seem to have considered is the possibility that memories may not be stored inside the brain at all. The idea that they are not stored inside the brain is more consistent with the available data than either the conventional theories or the holographic theory. Many difficulties have arisen in trying to localize memory storage in the brain, in part because the brain is much more dynamic than previously thought. If the brain is to serve as a memory storehouse, then the storage system would have to remain stable; yet it is now known that nerve cells turn over much more rapidly than was previously thought. All the chemicals in synapses and nerve structures and molecules are turning over and changing all the time. With a very dynamic brain, it is difficult to see how memories are stored.

There is also a logical problem about conventional theories of memory storage, which various philosophers have pointed out. All conventional theories assume that memories are somehow coded and located in a memory store in the brain. When they are needed they are recovered by a retrieval system. This is called the coding, storage, and retrieval model. However, for a retrieval system to retrieve anything, it has to know what it wants to retrieve; a memory retrieval system has to know what memory it is looking for. It thus must be able to recognize the memory that it is trying to retrieve. In order to recognize it, the retrieval system itself must have some kind of memory. Therefore, the retrieval system must have a sub-retrieval system to retrieve its memories from its store. This leads to an infinite regress. Several philosophers argue that this is a fatal, logical flaw in any conventional theory of memory storage. However, on the whole, memory theoreticians are not very interested in what philosophers say, so they do not bother to reply to this argument. But it does seem to me quite a powerful one.

In considering the morphic resonance theory of memory, we might ask: if we tune into our own memories, then why don't we tune into other people's as well? I think we do, and the whole basis of the approach I am suggesting is that there is a collective memory to which we are all tuned which forms a background against which our own experience develops and against which our own individual memories develop. This concept is very similar to the notion of the collective unconscious.

Jung thought of the collective unconscious as a collective memory, the collective memory of humanity. He thought that people would be more tuned into members of their own family and race and social and cultural group, but that nevertheless there would be a background resonance from all humanity: a pooled or averaged experience of basic things that all people experience (e.g., maternal behavior and various social patterns and structures of experience and thought). It would not be a memory from particular persons in the past so much as an average of the basic forms of memory structures; these are the archetypes. Jung's notion of the collective unconscious makes extremely good sense in the context of the general approach that I am putting forward. Morphic resonance theory would lead to a radical reaffirmation of Jung's concept of the collective unconscious.

It needs reaffirmation because the current mechanistic context of conventional biology, medicine, and psychology denies that there can be any such thing as the collective unconscious; the concept of a collective memory of a race or species has been excluded as even a theoretical possibility. You cannot have any inheritance of acquired characteristics according to conventional theory; you can only have an inheritance of genetic mutations. Under the premises of conventional biology, there would be no way that the experiences and myths of, for example, African tribes, would have any influence on the dreams of someone in Switzerland of non-African descent, which is the sort of thing Jung thought did happen. That is quite impossible from the conventional point of view, which is why most biologists and others within mainstream science do not take the idea of the collective unconscious seriously. It is considered a flaky, fringe idea that may have some poetic value as a kind of metaphor, but has no relevance to proper science because it is a completely untenable concept from the point of view of normal biology.

The approach I am putting forward is very similar to Jung's idea of the collective unconscious. The main difference is that Jung's idea was applied primarily to human experience and human collective memory. What I am suggesting is that a very similar principle operates throughout the entire universe, not just in human beings. If the kind of radical paradigm shift I am talking about goes on within biology-if the hypothesis of morphic resonance is even approximately correct-then Jung's idea of the collective unconscious would become a mainstream idea: Morphogenic fields and the concept of the collective unconscious would completely change the context of modern psychology.

http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Paper ... paper.html

_________________
Why is it I smell shit everytime you speak.....


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MORPHIC FIELDS/ MORPHIC RESONANCE
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:53 pm 
Offline
The Ferryman
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:28 pm
Posts: 10488
The concept of the "collective consciousness" (which is basically whats being talked about here even if its not noted specifically) has been around for years.

One of the variations that has come to be extensively quoted these days is the 100th Monkey Syndrome .. A new skill was learned by a colony of monkey on an island - and when a critical number of monkeys learned the skill the take up of the skill on the island exploded. What was strange was that another colony of monkeys - on a separate island - and without any contact between the two colonies, suddenly started to display the same skill. Supporters of the 100th Monkey Syndrome claim that through paranormal means, the skill "jumped" islands and all monkey suddenly became aware of and started using the skill.

Sceptics of the phenomenon claimed that 1 monkey swam across the sea to the other island and passed the skill on that way which is, erm, possible I suppose.

Reading through the morphic resonance article though, Sheldrake is talking very much on a cellular level and the "hows". When I read things like that (and although its not a big interest of mine I've read quite a few things about cellular level goings on) I personally can't stop the thoughts of how "intelligent" and "alive" those cells are.

A cell is itty-bitty .. yet there are millions and millions of other bits and pieces floating around in each cell all going about the business of keeping that cell and ultimately, when co-ordinating with other cells, us alive. Its quite an amazing concept when you consider it. Just how much is going on in there. Did you know for instance that each cell in our body contains over 2 meters of DNA .. 2 METERS of DNA in EACH cell in our body.

One question I often ponder is : are these individual cells actually "alive" and "intelligent" .. ok, maybe not an intelligence that we would recognise - but collectively, these cells for a sort of colony / society which are working together for (what we would consider) the greater good : us.

Anyway, dunno if I'm going off topic here or wittering on about things ..

But, there is another article you posted Claire that kinda links into this :

Does DNA have telepathic properties

_________________
Northern Ghost Investigations
Latest blatant plug for some stuff that I'm in the middle of!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MORPHIC FIELDS/ MORPHIC RESONANCE
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:59 pm 
Offline
Underworld Minion
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:34 pm
Posts: 9324
It is Jay, (the collective conciousness)Sheldrake does mention it (Jungs), especially in the radio link and other stuff, I'd steered clear of saying it outrightly to see if anyone made the (obvious to me!) link to this.

Whilst its possible the 1st monkey did swim to the island and pass on the 'skill' it seems highly unlikely....however neither do I believe it is 'paranormal'....again its that 'duality' of its 'para' or its 'normal'.....until people fully understand 'normal' they can stick their safe little cosy boxes their arses. Many many things happen that 'science/we' have no understanding of regarding how we ourselves function anyway.....and basic structural 'anatomy' is now being viewed differentlly as more is being understood about it.

Jay, these are all things I often wonder myself....and are we just 'cells' of a 'bigger picture', just exactly how 'deep' does it go once you start getting smaller it just gets bigger and bigger hehehe!I didnt know there was 2 metres of DNA in each cell,mad!
Are cells 'concious', 'alive' and 'intelligent'?Thats something I often think about too and I say 'yes', although how 'recognisable' that would be to our 'definition' of that I'm not too sure about.....

This isnt wittering or going off topic, to me these Morphic fields/morphic resonance is giving a seemingly very real possible 'natural' explanation for this type of thing, hence why I've posted the topic here, because it seems not many people are familiar with it and I want to discuss it with people as it possibly has many interesting aspects for the 'paranormal' world in general.......

Yeah,the DNA article is linked......thats why when I spotted it elsewhere I homed in on it!

There are compelling arguments/evidence for the fact that 'fascia'/connective tissue records and stores 'trauma', but thats getting way of topic for this.

_________________
Why is it I smell shit everytime you speak.....


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MORPHIC FIELDS/ MORPHIC RESONANCE
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:30 pm 
Offline
A Ratty-Tap-Tap
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:35 pm
Posts: 2927
Location: chester-le-street
claire i read patients reports shorter than that,hehehehehe :wink:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MORPHIC FIELDS/ MORPHIC RESONANCE
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:10 am 
Offline
Underworld Minion
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:34 pm
Posts: 9324
Its copied and poasted, I didnt write it Pam!

Heres more linked to Jungs collective conciousness theory Jay:

http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Paper ... 2_abs.html

_________________
Why is it I smell shit everytime you speak.....


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MORPHIC FIELDS/ MORPHIC RESONANCE
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:55 pm 
Offline
The Ferryman
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:28 pm
Posts: 10488
Have just started and stopped (saved to draft) a big reply to this as I'm not sure I'm going off topic a bit .. I half am and half not, I think!! I'll review it a couple of times before finishing what I'm posting or re-doing!

_________________
Northern Ghost Investigations
Latest blatant plug for some stuff that I'm in the middle of!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MORPHIC FIELDS/ MORPHIC RESONANCE
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:49 pm 
Offline
Underworld Minion
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:34 pm
Posts: 9324
Get it posted Jay!

The 'off topic' bit is to make sure that the usual forum chatter is kept from these topics, but if your replying to things about the topic and it drifts a bit but is still related as its topic inspired then thats what this is all about!

Haway wanna read it!!!!!!!

_________________
Why is it I smell shit everytime you speak.....


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MORPHIC FIELDS/ MORPHIC RESONANCE
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:19 pm 
Offline
The Ferryman
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:28 pm
Posts: 10488
The main thing with it is I think what I'm saying is drifting into areas which is way off-topic of what I'm trying to say and I'm losing how it relates to a) Morphic Resonance and b) What I'd set out to say in the first place!!!

.. I'm confusing myself with it! :?

I'll finish it later!

_________________
Northern Ghost Investigations
Latest blatant plug for some stuff that I'm in the middle of!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MORPHIC FIELDS/ MORPHIC RESONANCE
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:29 pm 
Offline
Underworld Minion
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:34 pm
Posts: 9324
Welcome to my world hehehehehe!!!
You bin hanging about with me too long, you've caught my shit from my morphic field.......fnar fnar....
I'll shut up now before I bar myself from my own topic!

Look forward to reading it Jay and replying!

_________________
Why is it I smell shit everytime you speak.....


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MORPHIC FIELDS/ MORPHIC RESONANCE
PostPosted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 10:54 pm 
Offline
The Ferryman
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:28 pm
Posts: 10488
Hmmm .. I dunno .. I've kind of got lost in what I was typing .. Not only in respect of the topic, but also in what I'd originally set out to say and I don't know anymore where its leading!! :?

I'll post what I'd started .. and see if you "get" where I'm going .. If you see where I'm going, I'll continue - thats if you let me know WHERE I'm going and tell me!! :mrgreen:

---------------------------

The thing with psychology - any psychology - the "mainstream" or the outside edges like the Collective Consciousness .. is that there is no and can be no evidence, like science demands, for anything that is claimed.

All that is happens is comparing anything that is observed against a set of "norms" that have been observed through the testing of subjects .. but, truthfully, those "norms" ONLY apply to the subjects that have been tested.

A guy who claims to "hear voices" is considered insane because the "norm" majority doesn't hear voices. He therefore must be mad. If 51% of the people suddenly claimed to hear voices then that would become the "norm" and anyone not hearing them would suddenly be classed as insane! And of course, there is no admissable evidence for anyone claiming to hear voices nor against anyone who society deems to be "insane" - only their comparison vs the "norm". Psychology breaks all the rules of science!!

Am probably going off topic here (actually, half way through typing this .. I'm not!) - but, take Hallucinations .. If 3 people are stood looking at a scene and 1 claims to see a 6ft tall pink bunny and the others don't .. society (the "other 2") will claim he must be hallucinating because they don't see anything. However, if a 2nd person suddenly says "actually, no! I see a 6ft tall bunny too!" .. the "norm" in that 3 way society, regardless of evidence, becomes that there is a 6ft pink bunny standing there and the person who can't see it " .. is Observationally Challenged" to give it its Political Correct name!

Now we're still be in the realms of hallucination .. (no physical evidence of the 6ft pink bunny) .. so whats happenning?

An hallucination is a perception without stimulus. Ie, we see or hear something without anything "out there" providing the stimulus .. ie, there is NO 6ft pink bunny out there, yet we see one regardless .. so we say its not really there and just "in our heads".

But, what we perceive, is just "in our heads" anyway. The table we see only exists as a result of the decoding of the signals our brains receive. We can only touch the table due to the decoding of the signals provided from the receptors in our fingers.

When this happens "as it should" according to psychology and neuro-science, then we see and feel a table, and don't see / feel / smell / hear / taste a 6ft tall pink bunny rabbit.

But when our brains decode the information we receive "incorrectly" or "differently" - then we perceive something else. Its how the stage hypnotist works by changing the decoding procedure to convince a subject he's eating an apple when in fact, he's eating a potatoe.

But for an hallucination to exist, there needs to be zero stimulus - above, I've mentioned the decoding being wrong, interupted etc (which are more accurately classed as illusions)

So what about those instances where 2 people do see a 6ft tall pink bunny rabbit without any stimulus? Group Hallucination? How does that work?

_________________
Northern Ghost Investigations
Latest blatant plug for some stuff that I'm in the middle of!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MORPHIC FIELDS/ MORPHIC RESONANCE
PostPosted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:39 pm 
Offline
A Ratty-Tap-Tap
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:35 pm
Posts: 2927
Location: chester-le-street
well i must admit ,, dont see 6ft pink bunnies :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MORPHIC FIELDS/ MORPHIC RESONANCE
PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:24 pm 
Offline
Underworld Minion
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:34 pm
Posts: 9324
just spotted your post Jay, will reply to it later!
Mark,what happened to your reading up of this anyway??????

_________________
Why is it I smell shit everytime you speak.....


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MORPHIC FIELDS/ MORPHIC RESONANCE
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:28 am 
Offline
The Ferryman
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:31 pm
Posts: 10887
Location: Stockton-on-Tees
errrrr, it got sidetracked, but I WILL do it. Get off my case, at least I post :wink:

_________________
Northern Ghost Investigations -
Messing around with things we don't understand since 2005


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: MORPHIC FIELDS/ MORPHIC RESONANCE
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:20 am 
Offline
Underworld Minion
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:34 pm
Posts: 9324
I know!Be a lonely echoey place in here without you Phibes...........all to be heard would be Jays post apocalyptic wind...........hehehehehehehehehe I'm saying nowt either, up to people to wonder bout that one hehehehehehehe!!!!

_________________
Why is it I smell shit everytime you speak.....


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Theme designed by stylerbb.net © 2008
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
All times are UTC [ DST ]