Dr Rupert Sheldrake and morphic fields
Last year, I wrote to Rupert Sheldrake, a fascinating man who developed the theory of morphogenetic fields and is the author of books such as 'Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home' and 'Seven Experiments That Could Change the World', both of which I recommend. I wanted to make him aware of the intriguing research that Luc Montagnier has been carrying out with water and DNA. He very kindly replied and agreed it was very interesting and threw up a lot of questions but he couldn't see on first glance how it could connect to his theory of morphogenetic fields. Here's my reply:
Dear Dr Sheldrake,
Thanks for your response to my letter pointing out the recent work of Luc Montagnier. I certainly agree that his work is intriguing and it’s not clear how it might be related to your theory of morphogenetic fields. I did though think about the subject yesterday evening (in the bath, to be specific) and put together an interesting possible theory.
Here it is:
1. In the 1950’s, eminent physicist and mathematician John Von Neumann concluded that the Mind is responsible for the collapse of the quantum wave function because it is the only thing outside the system. ‘Measurement’ can’t be the thing that collapses the system since that just extends the system. Only Mind can be the cause because that is the only thing that is truly outside the system. The theory became known as the Neumann/Wigner hypothesis and hasn’t yet been refuted. It simply remains unpopular. As its logic is impeccable and sound, I think we can conclude:
Conclusion 1: Mind exists and affects the quantum world.
2. In the 1980‘s Professor Robert Jahn of Princeton University and P.E.A.R. carries out a long series of experiments that establish that someone can affect a small-scale, inherently random event purely through conscious will.
Conclusion 2: Mind can affect quantum and small-scale random reality.
3. Scientists show that the hydrogen bonds in water, whose strength and length heavily influence water’s behaviour and structure, are quantum in nature.
Conclusion 3: If conclusion 1&2 are correct, knowing that water’s bonding is quantum in nature, we can surmise that Mind can affect the structure of water.
4. In the 1970‘s, Fritz Albert Popp explores the role of electromagnetic signalling in biological systems and established evidence that DNA coordinates cell function through EM signalling.
5. In 2009, Nobel prize winner Luc Montagnier shows in a series of experiments that nano-scale structures are formed in water. These structures can not only emit EM radiation, which itself can create more nano-scale structures, but that the EM radiation is a fundamental aspect of biological infection.
If we put these points and conclusions together, they seem to imply that:
Apart from its molecular content, four key elements make up a biological organism; DNA, Water, electromagnetic (EM) radiation and the Mind.
In other words, DNA functions and communicates through the transmission of electromagnetic or EM radiation. This enables multicellular organisms to grow and work together as one unit, even if the organism is billions of cells in size and needs specialized, location specific organs. The blocking or altering of this EM radiation in the organism can give rise to cancerous cells, since cancerous cells are effectively normal cells ‘behaving badly’. If this is true, then we can logically infer that monitoring an organism’s EM radiation could, theoretically, establish its state of health and the presence of any infectious agents.
Water is crucial to EM transmission by DNA. It is not just a passive medium but an active agent, forming nano-scale structures that can work with the DNA, can store its EM radiation and can re-transmit it.
The fourth element is the most esoteric but probably the most important of all; Mind. Mind is able to affect the structure of water, among other things. Because of water’s unique properties, Mind has the potential to heavily influence the health of the body it inhabits.
With these ideas in mind, we can look at Montagnier’s 2011 work afresh. As reported in the New Scientist, 12th Jan 2011, he seemed to show that DNA activated water in one flask can send EM signals to another flask containing water and DNA ‘constructor’ enzymes. The constructor enzymes could then construct DNA as if from ‘nothing’. In a materialistic approach to biology, this is a ridiculous idea but, if we view biology as a DNA-Water-EM-Mind system, it doesn’t seem that strange at all. All that’s happened is that the physical DNA is missing from the second flask. Everything else is there. As a result, it’s perfectly possible for the physical DNA to be reconstructed.
The big question of this letter is, how would all this link to your morphic fields idea, Dr Sheldrake? Here goes...
The ability for an organism to grow, heal itself and function successfully, even though it may be a billion cells in size, can be explained by DNA communicating and coordinating through EM radiation signalling. In many ways, the DNA-EM signalling theory is a practical, orthodox science based theory that neatly solves the problems thrown up by a purely chemical approach to biological functioning. It would also explain why cancers occur and how to stop them, as indicated only last week in the following new article: ‘EM fields shrink tumours’
Focussing solely on the DNA-EM signalling idea would be ignoring probably the most important element of the Mind-DNA-EM-Water model of biology; Mind itself. There is ample evidence, including work pioneered by yourself, Dr Sheldrake, that the minds of living things are connected in some fundamental way, a way that isn’t constrained by the physical world around us. If that is the case, then our minds are connected, giving us the knowledge of how to be. We can then influence the DNA-EM-Water structure of our bodies to adhere to this knowledge or deviate from it. There would therefore be two types of connection, a Mind-Mind interaction network and Minds altering the DNA-EM-Water functioning of their own physical bodies.This would seem to be closely related to your own morphogenetic fields theory.
At least, it’s a possibility... ;)