Telepathic dogs and process philosophers

Of all alternative thinkers, Rupert Sheldrake seems to be the most controversial and hated, probably because he once was an actual trained scientist before he “fell” and became a vociferous critic of materialism and reductionism, instead favoring a more spiritual perspective, while still trying to conduct scientific research on paranormal phenomena. Sheldrake is a process philosopher or process theologian (compare Alfred North Whitehead and David Ray Griffin), but is mostly known for his idea of “morphic resonance”, which could be interpreted as a kind of spiritual memory within matter, or even a kind of spiritual Lamarckianism. Sheldrake was propelled into the public limelight in 1981 with the book “A New Science of Life”, dubbed “a book for burning” by a particularly incensed critic. The interview linked above was made last year. I have already linked to it once before, but without much comment. Here is a summary of some of Sheldrake´s points.

To Sheldrake, materialism has never been proven but is simply a series of assumptions which are never questioned or even seriously investigated. One such assumption is that the mind is inside the brain, or identical with some brain activity. To Sheldrake, this is philosophically absurd, since it cannot explain how the mind can grasp objects outside the brain. How can we observe a tree, for instance? The mind must be “extended” to do this, but that implies that the mind must be non-material in order to reach outside of itself and somehow envelope the tree. It also implies the possibility of telepathy and other “supernatural” abilities.

Sheldrake argues against the existence of “laws of nature”. This is really a theistic idea, where God is seen as the great law-maker. Rather, the “laws” are habits. They haven´t existed in an unchanging form since the Big Bang. Rather, natural laws evolve, just like everything else. They are “habits” rather than laws, expressing a cosmic memory. This is a form of morphic resonance. One example of changing natural laws is the crystallization rate of newly discovered compounds. The more laboratories attempt to crystallize them, the faster the process becomes – even in laboratories at the other end of the world where no similar experiment has been conducted before! Scientists have natural explanations for this (perhaps tiny fragments of the new compounds find their way into the beards of peripatetic scientists, thereby contaminating the samples), but Sheldrake believes that we are dealing with a genuine “action at a distance” only explicable by morphic resonance. He proposes some empirical experiments to demonstrate the phenomenon. If true, newly formed compounds should have increased melting points as they become more stable, while compounds in nature should always be super-stable.

Biological inheritance isn´t entirely material. How do we go from genes (proteins) to, say, a cuckoo? Scientists simply assume that protein interactions give rise to bodily form or complex behavior, but nobody can explain how this is possible. Once again, the alternative is that a kind of collective memory is in operation. On a more philosophical plane, Sheldrake doesn´t believe that evolution has a single overarching purpose. After all, most living creatures have nothing in particular to do with humans – the many species of beetles, for instance (perhaps a veiled reference to the atheist joke “God loves beetles”). Perhaps the purpose of evolution is diversity and creativity as such? A telos implies consciousness. Sheldrake believes that a pantheist or perhaps panentheist consciousness that constantly evolves underlies the entire cosmos. He and the interviewer then proceed to discuss Thomas Nagel´s book “Mind and Cosmos”, which created a scandal when published, since the self-professed atheist Nagel nevertheless came close to a pantheist position and criticized Darwinism.

Sheldrake has carried out highly controversial experiments with dogs, suggesting that telepathy might be real, in this case telepathic contact between humans and animals (dog-owners and dogs). He also discusses twin studies, and believes that the similarities between identical twins later in life is too great to be readily explained by purely genetic factors. Telepathy or morphic resonance are more likely explanations. A seemingly more crazy idea proposed by Sheldrake is that stars, including the sun, are actually conscious. Of course, if pantheism (or panpsychism) is true, this does seem to follow logically. One form of panpsychism holds that self-organizing systems are conscious. This includes atoms and molecules, but also stars, galaxies and so on. Rocks and machines, on the other hand, are not conscious. In human brains, consciousness is expressed through electric impulses. The sun has incredibly complex patterns of electromagnetism, so why isn´t it conscious? “Integrated information theory” implies that integrated information *is* consciousness, therefore even cosmological phenomena could be conscious. The interview also discusses spiritual practices and psychedelic drugs. Sheldrake has a positive view of the latter. He interprets “spiritual practice” very broadly: sports and relating to animals are forms of such practice.

One thing that struck me when listening to the interview is that Sheldrake often argues in a “populist” or “common sense” manner, something anathema to scientists. “Everyone knows” that telepathy is real, only educated people deny it. That the sun is conscious is accepted in most pagan cultures and by most children. Most traditional cultures viewed the universe as one great organism, which to Sheldrake suggests that perhaps it *is* an organism of sorts. Sheldrake seems to be a “realist” (philosophically speaking) when approaching our immediate sense impressions of the surrounding world. Instead of explaining away the fact that most humans spontaneously think of the world in animistic or organismic terms, he tries to take these immediate impressions seriously. Why do we have them at all? Perhaps they actually express something real? In an unexpected move, Sheldrake interprets the Big Bang in organismic terms and says that gravity might be the anima mundi. The mechanical worldview is anthropocentric since only humans make machines. However, in other lectures available on YouTube, Sheldrake seems to suggest that the Big Bang theory might be entirely wrong…

And yes, I´m really tired right now, which may explain the slightly disjointed character of this post. Anyhow, please listen to the entire interview with Rupert Sheldrake yourselves!