Talk:Morphic field

Merge with Morphogenetic field

This article needs to be merged with Morphogenetic field (which means the same). Ben Finn 15:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While some people use Morphogenetic Field and Morphic Field interchangably, some do not, namely Rupert Sheldrake. Additionaly, the terms are cognates. And the distinction in the cognates reflects the distinction in their meaning. A Morphic Field is a Form Field. A Morphogenetic Field is a Form-Generating Field. The Morphic Field is pretty general. It includes the field that sustains the electron as existing as an electron. The Morphogenetic Field guides eggs turning into chicks. The Morphogentic Field is the Field that governs the Generation of Form. Ostensibly, the Morphogenetic Field would not sustain the electron as existing as an electron. Conversely, the Morphic Field would be general enough to guides eggs turning into chicks. The Morphogenetic Field can/should/would/could be thought of as a special kind of Morphic Field.

Regarding the idea of merging this entry with morphogenetic fields, I am definitely against it, since morphic fields are a broader term, and essentially different (not synonimous at all) from the morphogenetic fields, being the subset of morphic fields and concerning only organic forms, while morphic fields relate to both organic and abstract (brain-generated/used) forms. Ndru01 (talk · contribs) 00:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

If you change the text of the article, please explain why... Ndru01 18:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The morphic field/hyperplane of a form contains the actual data relevant for that form.

"Morphic field/hyperplane"? The above constitutes original research. You are making stuff up and putting it in the article. You can't do that. — goethean ॐ 16:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It is similar to the scientifically accepted unified field theory, the substratum of the physical world.

Who says it's similar — you? Unless you have a quotation from a book by Rupert Sheldrake saying so, you can't put it in the article. — goethean ॐ 16:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That sentence about substratum isn't mine. That was one of the few sentences before I added my text, and I left that sentence too (since I respect other people unlike many others here). I also don't feel that sentence is very clear and necessary, so you can remove it if you like. And ok that one use of '/hyperplane' (under dual expression field/hyperplane) I'll remove. I agree the term shouldn't be used freely in the article like I did. But the comment about Rakovic in brackets shouldn't be problematic. Why not add something that is fairly relevant information, in brackets.Ndru01 16:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Are there any page numbers in your text? — goethean ॐ 16:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What page numbers? For what? Ndru01 (talk · contribs) 16:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources. — goethean ॐ 16:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

ok, I included 1 citation that I think is useful. I believe there are no problems with the article now, but agree that it can be always improved some more. Ndru01 17:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Since it appears to be problems with the last 2 paragraphs, I would kindly ask whoever has problems with it to specify what exactly is found so problematic in them. Thank you. Ndru01 (talk · contribs) 21:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Morphic fields, as a storage of information related to all the forms of this physical universe (both organic and abstract), are the universal database of experience (Dr Dejan Rakovic interprets these fields actually as hyperplanes, and uses a term isomorphism instead of morphic resonance, but the basic concept is almost the same as Rupert Sheldrake's). The morphic field of a form contains the actual data relevant for that form. All organic (living) and abstract (mental, brain-related) forms have their associated morphic fields, and all these forms individually store related data into a certain collective field of a group of similar forms (all sharing certain basic data), which is a concept very similar to classes in object-oriented programming languages. These fields intersect and merge (link horizontally) in countless ways, and are (vertically) holarchically organized. All morphic fields tend to stabilize in some way, during time, after certain number of morphic resonance occured. Inorganic (lifeless) forms have no morphic fields.

Using existing and generating new abstract forms is only possible with a brain. Thoughts are elemental abstract forms (objects, entities). More complex abstract forms are - skills, sciences, languages etc., and abstract forms, althought non-dimensional (shapeless), are energetically real (not 'imaginary'), as material forms are real (telekinesis, moving material objects/forms with thoughts, is a direct proof of that). One's past, a complex abstract form, is a group of abstract/energetic forms (representing thoughts) that are (energetically) similar in some way since they are all generated and/or processed by the same brain, with their collective morphic field known as the Akashic Record, one's default (and 'private') mental morphic field consisting of all the experiences and memories of one mind through its physical lifetime. (Akashic Records, term used in Vedas, are also a subset of this universal database of all the experience of the organic world, the all-connected and perfectly organized morphic fields database).

The problem is that you are simply making things up and putting them in the article. You cannot do that. Akashic records? On what page of what book does Sheldrake discuss Akashic records?

Thoughts are elemental abstract forms

Where does Sheldrake say that?

One's past, a complex abstract form, is a group of abstract/energetic forms (representing thoughts) that are (energetically) similar in some way since they are all generated and/or processed by the same brain, with their collective morphic field known as an Akashic Record, one's default (and 'private') mental morphic field consisting of all the experiences and memories of one mind through its physical lifetime.

This doesn't even make any sense, and has nothing to do with Sheldrake's theory. If you cannot distinguish between Sheldrake's ideas and those of others — including yourself — you should not be contributing to Wikipedia. Everything that you add to this or any article has to be cited. — goethean ॐ 21:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I certainly didn't 'make up' anything. Everything I said is either from Sheldrake's written material, or his interviews and lectures. And the morphic field issue is larger than Sheldrake himself, this topic isn't only exclusively about Sheldrake's word on morphic fields, but the subject of morphic fields itself. On Amazon someone says that Sheldrake didn't mention the Akashic records which is simply untrue. If indeed in none of the books are mentioned, he certainly did mention them several times related to morphic fields (exactly like I presented, as morphic fields of one's past, and I'm sure the descriptive word 'private' was also mentioned in some occasion) either in some interview on lecture, he mentioned them for sure, at least in answering a question about them, since they are related to morphic fields. Just typing in on Google 'Sheldrake Akashic' one can see for himself that it gives 636 hits and 'morphic akashic' 465 hits, so it is obvious that these 2 are in strong relation. And Sheldrake did say that thoughts are the simplest mental forms (or abstract, he did use that word that I'm also certain, not just the word 'mental, and I used the term 'elemental', which might not be the most fortunate), that thought are the basic ones for the more complex abstract/mental forms like skills and languages, explaining learning process in some occasion. That aslo I didn't just make up. But again I cannot be sure where exactly, in some of his texts, or interviews or lectures. It isn't in the "Presence of the Past" (which is from 1988), where there is a word of mental fields of 'habitual activities', behavioural patterns etc., but 'thoughts' as abstract forms probably came later when he moved more towards the field of telepathy where he is now. But if any of the text seems so unbelievable to you or others, why don't you email Sheldrake and verify if any of the written is true or not. Probably there are other relevant things to be added on morphic fields, but my text is certainly not irelevant, and not some 'nonsense'. Ndru01 (talk · contribs)

Page number. Give me a page number where Sheldrake talks about Akashic Records. Otherwise, your text is going to be removed. See WP:Verifiability. — goethean ॐ 14:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, Akashic Records and morphic fields don't concern Sheldrake only. But anyway, Sheldrake DID mention them certainly, related to morphic fields, as being subset of abstract (mental) forms' fields. If you need proof why not verify with Sheldrake himself did he ever said that publicly or not. Not everything can be verified with some page number. Information is presented in many different forms, and source for that particular information was Sheldrake himself too.

Read WP:Verifiability, which is an official policy of Wikipedia, again. You still don't get it. By the way, are you supposed to be using the talk page while you are blocked? — goethean ॐ 17:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sheldrake DOES mention the Akashic Records in "Presence of the Past" as well (which I didn't notice at first), on page 307 (end of chapter 17)... Ndru01 (talk · contribs) 05:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

pseudoscience

[1]

So anything that Skeptical Inquirer magazine — a distinctly POV source —deems to be pseudoscience is going to be labelled as such in Wikipedia? I guess all religion, spiritual belief, in fact anything other than eliminativist materialism is pseudoscience now. — goethean ॐ 15:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we label pseudoscience as such. "A morphic field [...] consists of patterns that govern the development of forms, structures and arrangements. ". This is an empty phrase and can describe anything and nothing. Show me an experiment (hypothetical is ok, nonsensical is not) that can detect or refute the presence of a "morphic field". Having an extra source like the Skeptical Inquirer' is fine, but not necessary. --Stephan Schulz 16:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If experimental evidence is a requirement for something to be called science, then string theory and its offspring, eg M-theory, are pseudoscience also. Einstein's theory, when first published, would also have been pseudoscience, since it was some years before experimental evidence was adduced for its claims. The only empirical difference I can discern between string theory and morphic resonance is that the former currently has the support of the scientific establishment, while the latter does not. That which the scientific establishment does not support, it labels "pseudoscience". Peter. 2006-08-21. —The preceding not quite unsigned comment was added by 139.92.218.75 (talk • contribs) .

I don't know enough about string theory (as far as I can tell, that is a misnomer, as there are various competing ones). But Einstein's theories (which one?) all came with suggestions about possible experiments. Not all of them could be carried out at the time (for technical limitations), but indeed, the whole of special relativity was designed with Gedankenexperimente at the very core. Morphic field theory fails in this respect.--Stephan Schulz 13:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we label pseudoscience as such.

You may think so, but what are actually doing is labelling as pseudoscience what you disagree with or what you personally dislike. "Pseudoscience" is not a well-defined phrase; it's an insult, like "cult". Just as no-one believes that their own group is a cult, no-one believes that their own beliefs are pseudoscience. It basically means "those other guys". Sheldrake's theory is ceratinly not an empty phrase; he's written about a thousand pages on the subject. It's possible that this article reflects his work poorly; I don't think that I wrote it. It is certainly in need of improvement. Citing Wikipedia doesn't prove your case any more than citing Skeptical Inquirer does. — goethean ॐ 16:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, volume alone is not an argument. See e.g. Aetheronometry (yes, that link is red...now!). But the morphic field stuff has all the signs of a pseudoscience. It's publications are primarily in non-recognized journals or monographs not undergoing peer-review. The claims are vague and unverifiable. BTW, while the source given points to the SE, it actually refers to the book "L'Imposture Scientifique en Dix Lecons". --Stephan Schulz 16:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternative science is NOT 'pseudo'. Pseudo means false, and in this case it is more truth than the official/conventional science. The word 'pseudoscience' is thus completely inapropriate and should be removed. In animal world the existence of morphic fields is even without any doubts accepted as a reality, there are many documented cases of their influence through time on certain species. There are also proofs that information is stored collectively and influencing the humans (eg. the mental field of the skill of riding a bycicle - every new generation of kids learns by average somewhat faster and more easily to ride the bycicle than some previous).Ndru01

If the fields or results are alternative, then I agree. But if the assumptions and methods are different, then it is not science. I repeat my challenge: Design an experiment (hypothetical, if you want, but plausible), that detects or refutes the presence of a "morphic field". If you cannot, it is not science.--Stephan Schulz 18:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sheldrake does do experiments on his theories, and he does use the scientific method. Here is a list of his papers on morphic resonance. — goethean ॐ 20:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at that list and the papers? I especially like this one by Steven Rose. If any outcome of your experiment (even one countrary to your prediction!) is taken as support for your theory, you don't to science, you perform legerdemain. I also could not find out if any of the papers actually appeared in a peer-reviewed venue. --Stephan Schulz 21:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That case might as well been a deliberate set-up (skillfully hidden) that Sheldrake was too naive to fall for. It is known that he has many enemies, for his work is not so welcome by many since it can somewhat shake the grounds of official science and the views it maintains. Ndru01

Are you trying for a tick mark in every box? From the pseudoscience article list of indicators:

• assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of science to suppress their results;

--Stephan Schulz 07:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, this discussion more-or-less started with analizing my text (most of the text in the article is mine, plus it included 2 paragraphs more, but they got removed by force) so it isn't so unusual then to say a word or two on discussions, even if it isn't about the text itself. It was me who said that for the set-up, not Sheldrake himself. I don't believe he claimed that publicly, although it most probably was the case, in real reality. It CAN happen indeed, especially when something is so dangerous for the whole capitalistic system (based on greed and selfishness), like that theory is. The existence of morphic fields points out that our nature and evolution itself is all about sharing and collective effort, and not about 'survival of the fittest', wild competition, greed and selfishness. It is not hard to imagine how the world's centers of power would do anything to suppress someone like Sheldrake. Look back in history what happened with Tesla (today almost forgotten, and in his last years fairly ridiculed, and he enabled everything that we consider modern today). Wilhelm Reich - killed by CIA (after significant progress in orgonomy, ie. when he became too dangerous). Eugene Mallove, killed (only a naive can believe that it wasn't a conspiracy murder), after significant progress in cold fusion... What happens with ZPE (scalar EM) - suppressed by all means. And Sheldrake is one of the true revolutionaries, like Tesla, Reich or Mallove... Ndru01

I rest my case. --Stephan Schulz 11:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Link to Bohm

I see the link to Bohm is also removed again (it was at the bottom of the article). Sheldrake explains similarities of his theory of Formative Causation with Bohm's theory of Implicate Order, and some agreed views of the 2 scientists on pages 305-306 of "Presence of the Past". The reason why I put the link to Bohm (with TAS in brackets after his name) is the 'Thought as a System' on his wikipedia entry (since that is what we are concerned the most from that article, regarding morphic fields), plus the important paralel between thought being a (mental/abstract) form (Sheldrake), and thought being a system (Bohm). And since we know that every form is a - system (with some sub-forms as its elements/sub-systems), I'm sure the reasons for displaying the link to Bohm (TAS) are understandable. Ndru01 (talk · contribs) 03:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Totally disputed

I added this tag due to numerous problems with the content. The topic is presented as if it were uncontroversial, when in fact it's considered pseudoscientific. There is absolutely no neutrality to the article, and it's full of weird, uncited statements, such as "It is similar to the scientifically accepted unified field theory, the substratum of the physical world." There are also general quality problems, incuding poor organization and language. And this is just in a stub! If it grew without a clean-up, it would only get worse. Al 17:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's terrible. The article on its father Rupert Sheldrake (a potential redirect target for this article) is probably just as bad, since the intro manages to redefine science and weasels its way out of criticism by saying that he is merely "shunned" by "some" in the scientific establishment. — Dunc|☺ 17:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ouch. No, it's not shunned, it's simply not considered scientific in the first place. It's pseudoscience. I suppose I should go look. Al 18:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It is already tagged with 'pseudoscience'. So whatever that meant to be, that tag is more than enough to point that the subject is somewhat of a 'controversial' nature (and to many 'disputable' for various reasons). If something is badly worded (or 'incorrect english'), the person that can word it better is welcome to do so. But from relevancy aspect, the information in this 'stub' is simply not 'disputable'. The text was already shortened and reviewed recently and agreed on. 209.135.115.132 (talk · contribs) 19:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC) (the Bell Canada GT anon; see also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ndru01 and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ndru01 (2nd))

Agreed on? Not by me. There are still major problems, even though it's a stub. Let's resolve them! Al 19:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove the flag

Discuss in talk page. My edit line was munged. ---CH 19:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

First point:

This sentence is problematic:

The theory is similar to the scientifically accepted unified field theory.

First of all, there are no scientifically accepted unified field theories. Second, it is not similar in any meaningful way. Frankly, this looks like a desperate grab for legitimacy by riding the coattails of real science. Al 19:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Alienus:

1. "There are no scientifically accepted unified field theories". The very first field theory which has become well known, Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, completed the unification of electricity and magnetism begun by Michael Faraday. I am just saying :-/
2. "This looks like a desperate grab for legitimacy by riding the coattails of real science." Exactly, that's the point I and others am trying to make. That's why we need to fix this article.

---CH 20:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Follow the link to unified field theory. It doesn't refer to the unification of some fields, but rather to the unification of all.

Ok, let me make a slash at fixing this. Al 20:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Let me know what you think. Al 21:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There's been some attempt to soften the tone of the lead paragraph by suggesting that it's not psuedoscience, or that it's only currently and temporarily considered pseudoscience. So far, none of this has been at all supported by reliable sources (or even unreliable sources), and quite frankly, appears to be some combination of original research, wishful thinking and personal bias.

If you think this is a good idea, please make your case here. Do not edit war. Al 20:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Er: Alienus, just to clarify: whom are you addressing when you refer to "some attempt to soften the tone of the lead paragraph by suggesting that it's not psuedoscience"? When you say "do not edit war"? ---CH 21:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, when you wrote "There's been some attempt to soften the tone of the lead paragraph by suggesting that it's not psuedoscience" were you referring to the recent edit by 209.135.115.121 (talk · contribs)? (If so, I just reverted this edit; see section below.)

Yes, that's correct. I apologize for not using their name, but they don't have a name, and I'm not much good at memorizing essentially random strings of digits. Al 22:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You wrote "Follow the link to unified field theory. It doesn't refer to the unification of some fields, but rather to the unification of all." That seems an odd thing to say, particularly since the first two paragraphs of Unified field theory make it clear that "unified field theory" is commonly understood to refer to attempts to unify physical interactions, which are treated in conventional physics by classical or quantum fields. Can you clarify what you meant?

Sure. Earlier, someone made mention of theories which unified a pair of forces (such as electromagnetism unifying electricity and magenetism). I pointed out that the unified field theory (UFT) refers to an as-yet unavilable theory that unifies all four forces (including gravity, hence filling in the gap between GR and QM). Nothing about morphic fields has any bearing on this, though, so the sentence mentioning UFT was removed by me. Al 22:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In future, please try to make sure that your comments are sufficiently specific to avoid this kind of confusion. TIA!---CH 22:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for any confusion I might have unintentionally created. None was intended. Al 22:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, we basically agree, but in future be careful in referring to "the" "unified field theory" because there are zillions of 'em. See for example this review by a well-known expert, Hubert Gōnner. ---CH 05:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Further work needed

Does Sheldrake say "morphic fields are defined as the universal database for both organic (living) and abstract (mental) forms"? The term database seems an odd choice to me. Also, someone needs to add a bibliographic citations to the quoted book by Sheldrake. Are there even any published "research" papers on this stuff? The article doesn't make clear how large the implied literature is. Also, I challenge use of "theory". What characteristics make Sheldrake's ideas constitute a "theory"? ---CH 21:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course Sheldrake refers to them as a 'database' many times. That word is not 'odd' at all. Where are your (one's) memories? How can you or anyone remember or learn anything if there is no 'database' where all the info are stored. So, biology does refer to 'database' also, which is perfectly logical. Sheldrake's books 'A New Science of Life' and 'Presence of the Past' are the 2 main books on 'this stuff'. And the use of word 'theory' was not with capital T, so it isn't a problem. Even Sheldrake's biggest critics refer to his stuff (cynically or not) as 'theory'. 209.135.115.121 22:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's still problematic because a scientific theory is much more than a mere conjecture. It makes specific predictions that can, at least in principle, be tested and falsified. It is not clear that this in any ways applies to Sheldrake's ideas, which is precisely why they're considered psuedoscientific. Al 22:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As it was discussed here earlier, Sheldrake DID test through numerous experiments his theory, and the results were significantly in his favour. 209.135.115.121 23:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Version by 209.135.115.121

I have reverted the edit by 209.135.115.121 (talk · contribs). Please explain here why you think the change you want to make is justified. ---CH 22:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Because I KNOW on the subject more than any of you here. btw, I was user Ndru01. And it wasn't me who removed the sentences about Unified field theory and 'substratum'. Those sentences were not mine, but I had nothing against them (althought that word substratum was somewhat confusing)... 209.135.115.121 22:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC) (the Bell Canada GT anon, formerly Ndru01 (talk · contribs))

That's not really important. All that matters is what verifiable information you can bring. Your personal knowledge is not verifiable, even if you're Rupert himself. Please see WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. Thank you.

And, yes, I know who you are, and I'm quite ready to have you blocked again if that's what it takes. Al 22:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

And here you go edit-warring again. I am very disappointed. Al 23:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You are addressing the Bell Canada GT anon, correct? ---CH 23:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct. I would have thought that the indentation made that clear. Apologies once again if it wasn't sufficiently clear. Al 00:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It truly was not completely clear to me. Thanks for clearing this up. In future please try to say Bell Canada anon, I disagree with... or whatever just to make sure everyone knows whom you are addressing. I know this is time consuming but in the long run it saves us all effort. TIA---CH 00:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing about pseudoscience is that you also don't have any verifiable information at all that you can use that word. If something is not accepted by mainstream science it doesn't declare it as 'pseudoscience' automatically, but as 'alternative science'. The word 'pseudoscience' is used subjectively as free interpretation, without any real factual supports that it is something 'pseudo' (false). It can be eventually tagged at the bottom, but accuracy and factual-evidence-sake you have absolutely NO basis to use that word in the text (actually at the bottom as well). If you say for the subject of morphic fields 'pseudoscience', it is simply - 'Original research' as well.209.135.115.121 23:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC) (the Bell Canada GT anon, formerly Ndru01 (talk · contribs))

Just curious: Bell Canada GT anon, why aren't you using your user account? Can you explain what you mean by saying "I KNOW on the subject more than any of you here"? It seems you want to characterize this as alternative science rather than pseudoscience. Can you explain why you believe that Sheldrake's proposals constitute science? It seems to me that they are indeed pseudoscience. ---CH 23:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would Microsoft invite someone who is 'pseudoscientist' to hold lectures at Microsoft Research Centre on telepathy? Can you tell me that, why? If Microsoft thinks Sheldrake is 'pseudo', why the hell invite him and give him credibility? And btw, I don't care where you are all located, so why should you then care where I'm located? 209.135.115.121 00:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC) (the Bell Canada GT anon, formerly Ndru01 (talk · contribs))

That's pretty funny if true. Where can I verify this claim? Who precisely invited Sheldrake? How many lectures were given and where (the Redmond campus?). In any case, to repeat the obvious, Microsoft is not a scientific body and I don't see why anyone would think why an alleged lecture series at Microsoft would add scientific credibility to Sheldrake's claims. ---CH 00:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Microsoft was a scientific organization. Last I checked, they made the XBox. Al 00:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you suggest Microsoft is also something 'pseudo'!? 209.135.115.121 00:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC) (the Bell Canada GT anon, formerly Ndru01 (talk · contribs))

We are "suggesting" that Microsoft, Inc. is a software vendor, not a scientific organization.

Bell Canada, you seem to be avoiding my repeated request that you explain your reasoning rather than edit warring. Could you please back up and address the questions I asked above? TIA ---CH 00:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

But Microsoft is wise enough to know who is pseudo and who is not. Certainly wiser than those few loud shouters that label someone 'pseudo' just for fun. The explanation for my 'reasoning' is -> common benefit of mankind. To put it that way, since you are so persistent. And what is the explanation for your reasoning? I'm really curious to know. Ndru01 209.135.115.121 01:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I was referring to my earlier questions for you on this page. See above and work your way down the page, please. TIA ---CH 01:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you repeat them if they were so important and left unanswered during the course of discussions? 209.135.115.121 01:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC) (the Bell Canada GT anon, formerly Ndru01 (talk · contribs))

Regarding the Microsoft sponsored lecture, if you type on eMule, bitTorrent or some other file-sharing 'sheldrake extended mind' you can easily find the video-file of it. It might be still possible to find the link to the stream on some server through Google (like last year), but the two I found now are for some reason not working, so the file-sharing download is the only option I can suggest.209.135.115.121 10:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC) (the Bell Canada GT anon, formerly Ndru01 (talk · contribs))

User:Ndru01, aka the Bell Canada GT anon

This user seems to be a repeat offender wrt various policies. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ndru01 (2nd). ---CH 01:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

what offender? I'm just the most reasonable and most cooperative here...209.135.115.121 01:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we are being trolled. I have reported this user for WP:3RR violation and am considering reporting him for WP:SOCK violation. Note that Ndru01 (talk · contribs) and another suspected sock, 64.187.60.98 (talk · contribs) have already been blocked on several occasions for previous violations of WP:3RR. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ndru01 and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ndru01 (2nd). ---CH 01:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest concentrating on the content of the subject and the quality of presenting. That is the only thing that matters on wikipedia. Regarding violations, administrators are the greatest ones here, exercizing their vanity over ruining the efforts of those editors who do understand the subject that they don't, plus even offending them like I was offended by some at least once. btw, you cannot call someone a 'troll' who is the most productive on the article, and basically the author of it (of all these sentences now here only two are not mine (more exactly one and a half), since the one with unified field theory and substratum is removed, not by me, and that was the third one that was not mine). Troll can only be someone who tends to ruin it like you do with your bad-intention 'pseudo' inserts and removing sentences. 209.135.115.121 06:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC) (the gtcust.grouptelecom.net anon, Bell Canada GroupTelecom, geolocated Toronto)

The anon using IP address 209.135.115.121 (talk · contribs), aka the gtcust.grouptelecom.net anon (Bell Canada GroupTelecom, geolocated Toronto) was blocked for 24 hours yesterday for its violation of WP:3RR, but it just began a new login session with another IP 209.135.108.75 (talk · contribs) (from the same domain) and is back at it again today. This anon is a confessed sockpuppet for Ndru01 (talk · contribs) (see also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ndru01 and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ndru01 (2nd)). This user has been blocked on previous occasions for disruptive editing of various articles, including this one. Situation deserves monitoring. Note that on top of everything else, I think Ndru01 is probably a troll, which suggests that we should avoid engaging it in "discussion".---CH 06:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... actually, the most recent edit by 209.135.108.75 (talk · contribs) to the article appears to be acceptable, which makes a nice change! I hope this trend continues ... ---CH 23:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no 'trend'. The article was ok for weeks, before some of you touched it with your 'pseudo' insert in the 2nd sentence (the tag pseudoscience was already at the bottom) and removed that sentence about substratum and my sentence about environemental biology. So I had to support that claim on environmental biology better (with listing the 3 names, mentioned in Sheldrake's Presence of the Past in chapter 6), and to make a reasonable compromise on 'pseudo'-alternative thing by mentioning the 'non-accepted by mainstream science' in a neutral way. And this sentence at the end with 'form tuning into its field' was my sentence, and I was just additionally correcting my own sentence (and it was kinda funny that it looked like you don't even allow me to correct myself). There were 2 more paragraphs where this 'collective-field' issue is better explained (see this discussion at the beginning, where they are pasted like they were), but couple of weeks ago Goethean removed them since he thinks it is 'too-OR' and I just gave up at the end. But I think that from those 2 parapraphs something could have been put back, not everythink can be just written off as 'too-OR'. If you read these too paragraphs (starts with "Morphic fields, as a storage of information related to all the forms..." - ends with "....all-connected and perfectly organized morphic fields database"), you can see that from them it is much better understandable that the forms don't all have their individual morphic fields, but similar forms are tuning to the same morphic field.... So, all in all, I wasn't 'trolling', I was just defending (again) my own article (which was already reviewed and shortened) and trying to improve it. Anyway, thanks for the positive comments. Ndru01209.135.108.110 07:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

template: fact

Why was the 'fact' template removed? Do some editors here not need to support their opinions with sources? — goethean ॐ 14:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Alienus removed it inserting 'pseudoscience' instead. The tag was to point out that Sheldrake isn't enough distinguished from mainstream science, but now with that sentence in the 1st paragraph it is clearly stated that he is not (presently) accepted by mainstream science. Anyway, that tag as it was, has no purpose now. 209.135.115.121 15:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC) (the gtcust.grouptelecom.net anon, Bell Canada GroupTelecom, geolocated Toronto)

Wrong place

This page belongs in the paranormal project, not under general science. Put it there, and then you won't be violating POV by calling it pseudoscience without proof that it is.

Martinphi 00:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake)

The article Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake) should be removed and made into a small subsection here. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 19:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The content currently in the page Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake) is actually mostly about morphic field work, some sections could probably be simply pasted in as new sections here. I think Sheldrake may have proposed a connection between his own ideas and the conventional notion of morphogenetic fields in biology. This could be made into a small paragraph, with the note that this linkage is controversial and would not be recognized by most biologists. Hat tip to PZ Myers Pharyngula blog for bringing this matter to my attention. [2] -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 20:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As explained by Sheldrake in his Presence of the Past book (the quote on wikipedia's Morphic Field entry) Morphogenetic Fields are subset of Morphic Fields. They are NOT synonyms. Thus there shouldn't be any merging between the two but should exist as seperate entries. We have for example seperate entries for ellipse and circle, although circles are special case (subset) of ellipses. And no one with clear mind would suggest that the wikipedia's entries for ellipse and circle be merged into one entry. So why on Earth some Sheldrake-hating people keep suggesting the merging between morphic and morphogenetic field entry! And why do we have on the other side this splitting the morphogenetic entry into 2 seperate entries like it just happened, so we have now 2 entries for the SAME thing (morphogenetic field). If wikipedia follows the logic that there should be non-Sheldrake-morphogenetic-field entry, and Sheldrake-morphogenetic-field' entry as separate, then by that same logic there is thousand times less reason and validity to merge morphic field and morphogenetic field into one entry! Ndru01 01:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The notice tags are there to let people know this discussion is taking place. They don't presume any outcome; they serve only to as a notification. I will be restoring the tags shortly; this is important so that people reading the other page are aware of discussion here at this one. Please leave them in place, so that we are not repeating a lot of discussion in two places. Until the discussion reaches a consensus, the tags should remain in place to let people know that a merger is being proposed.

I know that they are not synonyms, and that under Sheldrake's useage, Morphogenetic fields are a subset of Morphic fields. That is why I spoke of a subsection. Here are other reasons for making the merge.

• The term morphogentic field does not originate with Rupert Sheldrake. The concept of morphogentic field is already established in mainstream biology, where it is not regarded as having any association with Sheldrake's morphic fields. That alone means that morphogenetic field should be its own page, and should focus mainly on the conventional meanings of the term in biology.[3]
• The existing page on Sheldrake's conception of morphogenetic fields actually includes a lot of more general material, such as biographical details of Sheldrake, discussions of morphic resonance, and a significant number of references; most of which are for the more general notion of morphic field rather than morphogenetic fields (sensu Sheldrake) in particular.
• The existing page on morphic fields is tiny; lacking a lot of relevant information that could be given with a well constructed merge.
• Both pages are fairly small, and all the information would be well served place on one page.

This is not about "hating" Sheldrake at all, nor is a merge implicitly disparaging his ideas. Having the information merged in this way makes the Morphic field article better and more comprehensive. My proposal remains in place; and until we have some discussion and consensus, the notification tags should remain in place as well. Those who are interested in Sheldrake's morphic field concept should go ahead and look at the other article, and see how much use information about Sheldrake and the development and reception of his ideas over and beyond his conception of morphogenetic field would result from this proposed merge. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 04:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand why would anyone ('not hating Sheldrake') have anything against separate entry for morphic field and morphogenetic field when the two are not the same, as you said yourself. There are tons of nonsensical separate entries on wikipedia on totally trivial things, and someone ('not hating Sheldrake') for some reasons has something against such important issue as morphic field to exist as its own entry and wants to confuse it with morphogenetic field, and to confuse the morphogenetic field itself implying it is officially something different than how Sheldrake explained it. So putting that tag (and putting it back) I consider as abusing wikipedia for some personal issues against Sheldrake. Ndru01 05:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The major reason is that "morphogentic field" as a term in biology is not a subset of morphic field. The term is older than Shedrake, and the longer and better established usage makes no reference to morphic field concepts. Sheldrake is at perfect liberty to propose his own notions of an association, or a nonstandard use of the term. But these are not widely used; Sheldrake is rather non-standard in biology. Therefore the best place for his ideas on morphogenetic fields is within the context of the article about Morphic fields, where there is no ambiguity. The merge also gives a substantial improvement to the existing morphic fields article, with new biographic information and discussion of morphic resonance. It also resolves the problem that a fair bit of the current page on morphogenetic fields (sensu Sheldrake) is actually deals with general notions better located in this article. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 05:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Morphic field concept is larger than biology (where morphogenetic field is used), it extends to information science and other areas. Morphic fields are a (universal) DATABASE (of this universe). Sheldrake wasn't really very happy with the term 'field' for them, since essentially their purpose is informational. Akashic Records ('recorded' human lives, informationally) are also a subset of morphic fields. If you don't understand the subject well enough, leave it, and don't force your limited understanding of it! Ndru01 06:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This does not address the reasons for the merge. The fact is, the term "morphogenetic field" is much older than Sheldrake's usage; and Sheldrake's usage has little recognition in biology. You are quite right that Sheldrake proposes enormous scope for the morphic field concept. All the more reason for bringing into this article the additional information available at the other. A merge proposal is not forcing any perspective at all. I am not proposing any content change; just a merge which improves all articles affected. The Morphic field article at present is tiny. This merge improves it; and also puts the term "morphogentic field" (sensu Sheldrake) into its proper context. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 06:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

But why do you think it is better having one long cofusing article, where morphic and morphogenetic are squeezed together, than two seperate? It is so easy to click the link from morphogenetic to morphic, and back. Much easier than getting a proper understanding from one single confusing article with lots of less relevant information (and information with purpose to actually divert from the point). Ndru01 06:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Because I don't believe it would be confusing at all. Just the reverse, in fact. Both articles are fairly short, and morphogenetic fields would make an ideal subsection here, with additional information on morphic resonance at that article being another section again. It is also standard for a controversial subject to have a section of the criticisms that apply, and we have that at the other article. It would also be useful information here.

This article as it stands has no sectioning at all, and misses a lot of historical information of immediate relevance. With the merge, you would still have a fairly small article with a small number of sections; the ideal and least confusing way to find out about a subject. There is no intent to divert at all. By the way, it is a requirement of Wikipedia that while this proposal of a merge is listed -- and it is listed -- that the flags for this must be in place. Please leave them alone until discussion concludes. The idea is the facilitate a larger consensus on the matter. Thank you. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 06:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

How can you say that this article is 'short'? It is of nice decent length, not short at all. Why does it have to have any sections at all. The purpose is to inform, and not to make people lost in some irrelevant sections. And the morphogenetic field article itself is definitely not short. You really have some strange way of looking at things, deliberately trying to confuse and misinform instead of clarifying. And OK, I agree that some info on years introduced of term 'morphic field' would be useful here (to be more 'historical'). I'll do that now...Ndru01 07:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I still think the merge is the more sensible proposal, for reasons given. You should not keep removing the notice flags for a proposed merge. It is a requirement of wikipedia that those flags be in place when the merge proposal is listed; and I listed this proposal from the start in an effort to facilitate discussion. I tried to engage you on your talk page about repeated removal of my flags, to no avail. I think you are being premature in editing the articles; you are presuming in advance the conclusion of this merge proposal. I have tried by every means possible to encourage open discussion and some form of consensus. I do not appreciate at all the accusations about motives; they are beside the point. I do honestly think the merge is a clear best option in this case. I have requested comment from other editors with an RfC. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 07:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll leave the tag if you insist. But I'm sure that you think the merge is more sensible not for reasons given, but for your own (unknown to us but certainly anti-Sheldrake ones) reasons.Ndru01 07:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC) And of course, I don't agree with your proposal since it is not based on common logic and neutrality. Ndru01 08:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I appreciate it. I have no problems with disagreement, but having made my case and read yours, I'll wait to see if anyone else has any thoughts. If I was simply wanting to push private agendas, I would have just done the merge without requesting input from others. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 08:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Duae Quartunciae on this one. It only makes sense to describe Sheldrake's ideas — whatever their validity, applicability or acceptance among scientists — in a separate place from the restricted biological concept which shares the name. Merging Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake) into Morphic field sounds completely sensible to me, and in fact I'd consider it the path of minimum confusion and maximum clarity. Anville 15:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not merge the 2 morphogenetic field articles. It makes much more sense. Same name, same subject, and the new morphogenetic article is much shorter than this morphic field article. 'Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake)' should be a section of that article, and not of this article. Anyone that thinks logically should conclude that, and not this what you propose. Ndru01 (talk · contribs)

Whether this is a good idea or not depends on whether Rubert Sheldrake's conception of morphogenetic field is better seen as a particular case of morphogenetic fields as used in conventional developmental biology, or as a special case of his own morphic field concept. My own view is that it is the latter; morphogenetic fields sensu Sheldrake is a special case of morphic field, and so the merge with morphic fields continues to be what I think most appropriate. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 22:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said at the beginning of this section, ellipse and circle are separate Wikipedia entries and no one thinks that the merge of those two entries should be appropriate, although circles are a special case of ellipses. The same should apply in this case, since the two subjects are not the same subject but one is a subset (special case) of another. Both articles could be probably improved in some way, but that is another issue (not the issue of merging them). Ndru01 (talk · contribs)

Moved from Talk:Morphogenetic field. As an example of a similar article structure, consider lacZ. lacZ is a structural gene, and a part of a larger genetic structure called the lac operon. lacZ redirects to the article lac operon - not because the two terms are synonymous (they're not), but because having a standalone lacZ page is not necessary: everything that can be said about lacZ fits nicely into the larger lac operon entry. This merger proposal is the same - not a suggestion that the two terms are equivalent, just that the sub-topic Morphogenetic field (per Sheldrake) can be accommodated as a (large) section of the Morphic field entry. -- MarcoTolo 03:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC) moved: MarcoTolo 22:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but gene and operon are both biological concepts (plus the gene is fairly elemental). And here we have that morphogenetic field is a biological concept (and far from being elemental itself), and morphic field is something more complicated to classify, it extends to information science, to sociology, psychology and cognitive sciences, (quantum) physics and probably more. It is actually groundbraking and revolutionary concept in many ways. So your comparison of (gene-operon and morphogenetic-morphic) is just bad and useless. Ndru01 (talk · contribs)

Okay, but I'm still not getting why, if Sheldrake's morphogenetic field is a "subset of morphic fields", it can't Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake) be integrated into the Morphic field article with a disamb header at Morphogenetic field to Morphic field.... -- MarcoTolo 18:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to note here, as stated on morphogenetic field entry's discussion, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Morphogenetic_field#Merging_of_the_two_morphogenetic_field_articles_proposed that the user sloth_monkey also opposes this particular merge, of morphic and morphogenetic field entry. Ndru01 (talk · contribs)

Ndru01 - please use the ~~~~ signing system. The {{User}} tag you're using doesn't put a date stamp with your comments. -- MarcoTolo 18:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC for flagging the merge proposal

I will be requesting a neutral third party to consider whether or not we should leave a flag in place on this article in indicate that a merge has been proposed. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 07:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

We have since agreed to leave the flags in place, for the time being. The merge itself remains strongly disputed; and so the RfC is still open to request additional third party input on the merits or otherwise of the merge itself. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 09:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I think the merge is a good idea. Anville 15:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

based on the arguments above --and without any previous acquaintance with Sheldrake's ideas it seems clear that he is using the term morphogenetic field in a special sense, as it relates to his theory. It would avoid confusion and repetition to combine the two articles. There should still be a redirect from the original title that would aid anyone coming to WP to look for his ideas on the more specific concept. DGG (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

How can it 'seem clear' that he is using the term morphogenetic field in a 'special sense' when he is NOT. If you state something like that, you then have to explain what you consider as 'special sense', and how is that special sense non-conventional or whatever. So 'special' that it cannot be a section within its own article, but has to be a section of some article that explains something different. Pure nonsense of you both! Ndru01 05:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that Sheldrake speaks of a morphogenetic field as a subset of his morphic fields, whereas in developmental biology it is strictly physical phenomenon entirely within the developing embryo associated with gradients of proteins. A quick read of the concept in the existing article Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake) shows that his concept of the field is not merely a protein gradient within an embryo, but something external, which can also be passed from organism to organism (maze learning in rats, sense of being stared at). If the article is at all accurate in describing Sheldrake's idea, then it is certainly completely distinct from the concept used in conventional development biology that is founded in chemistry. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 05:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

So you are telling me that in your mind morphogenetic field represents a 'protein gradient'!? Speaking of maze-learning, for that is morphic field responsible, not morphogenetic, since maze-learning is not a development of an organic form, but learning (development) of a skill (and skill is a mental/abstract form). Sense of being stared at is related more to telepathy, but again since it is the area of 'mental activity', it is - morphic fields that are responsible (and not morphogenetic). So I don't understand why you mentioned these 2 at all (maze-learning and sense of staring, both related to morphic fields), when we were actually discussing how Sheldrake's view of morphogenetic fields (related to development of organic forms) differs from the 'official' view. You insist that somehow Sheldrake cannot go together with official biology, because of his different and 'special' view of morphogenetic fields (related to development of organic/living forms) themselves. You insist that his view of morphogenetic fields must go not under morphogenetic field officially, but some place else (and not just as separate entry of the same subject, but forcefully pushed under entry covering something else). Well go ahead, convince me/us that his view of morphogenetic fields does differ, if you believe so. But so far you gave us - nothing... And with this nothing you come as some valid arguments for forcing the merge of 2 different (and noncompatible) wikipedia entries. Ndru01 (talk · contribs)\

You prove the point. I got maze learning and sense of staring straight out of the article on Sheldrake's notion of morphogenetic fields. Most of that article is already mostly about morphic fields, it seems — as I have noted previously. They should be merged. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 07:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter from what (newspaper) article it is. He can talk about morphic fields as morphic fields in an interview about morphogenetic fields, if he feels to, in order to involve some areas other than biology, it still doesn't mean that he is using some term incorrectly. Find where he used any term incorrectly, if you can. And we are here on wikipedia, and we are trying to correctly classify things and not mix them up. This is not some interview or newspaper article but an encyclopedia Ndru01 (talk · contribs)

I'm not talking about newspaper articles, but the wikipedia page currently named Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake). That article includes a lot of stuff about morphic fields, by your own account. I have no problem with that. It's perfectly sensible, and indeed necessary to get a good idea of what Sheldrake means by morphogenetic field — a special case of morphic field. I've said nothing about using terms incorrectly. The merge will add new and relevant information to the morphic field article; it will place the morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake) information within the proper context (as shown by the inclusion in the article right now of so much morphic field material) and it avoids confusion with a quite distinct and unrelated notion used in developmental biology of a morphogenetic field as a physical region within an embryo with the potency to develop into a particular morphological structure, like an organ. The morphic field article should certainly still continue to speak of morphogenetic field, since that's a term Sheldrake uses. We already have good disambiguation in place for the different ways the term is used. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 08:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

But you see, you're wrong! Sheldrake doesn't use the term morphogenetic instead of morphic. He 'invented' the term 'morphic' especially to NOT use the term where it shouldn't be used. And I don't agree with the merge that you propose, because if anything should be merged then the two morphogenetic should be. But for sake of easy understanding, the best would however be to have like it is now, and not merge any of these 3 existing now. Ndru01 08:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that a part of Ndru01's complaint is based on a misapprehension. No-one is proposing that the terms "morphogenetic" and "morphic" be used interchangeably in the merged article. From the start, the merge proposal has been for a subsection, in which Sheldrake's notion of morphogenetic field is introduced as a special case, or subset, or morphic field. This is precisely how Ndru01 has been describing it all along as well. Nothing in this merge is intended to alter content, or terminology; you need have no concern on that score. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 11:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a biologist, I have to say that Sheldrakes "Morphogenetic field" is completely differed from the "morphogenetic field" found in developmental biology. To merge those two would be downright ridiculous. However, the Sheldrake morphogenetic field is pretty much similar to his equally silly morphic fields ideas, so having two articles for them seems unwise. In my opinion a merge would be the best move. Jefffire 09:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If you object the merge of the two articles on morphogenetic fields (essentialy the same subject, whether someone thinks that the one is from a 'sillier' perspective than the other or not), then you must object the merge of the morphic and morphogenetic fields articles as well, since this merge is less logical than that merge (of morphogenetic and morphogenetic). Ndru01 (talk · contribs)

In reading the comments above, I don't think anyone is suggesting that one of the Morphogenetic articles is "sillier" than the other, rather that they are different beasts and should be presented separately. Since - in Sheldrake's models - morphogenetic fields are a subset of morphic fields, a merge of Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake) and Morphic field seems appropriate given the article sizes. -- MarcoTolo 23:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The comment on Sheldrake's theories being 'silly' was posted just above mine (2 above yours), by Jeffire. Ndru01 (talk · contribs)

I am responding to the RFC. This is a surprising controversy. The only similarity between the two concepts is the greek root at the beginning of the words. The articles clearly describe each as completely different types of phenomena, with different kinds of evidence and different methods of investigation. None of the people doing research in morphogenetic fields would recognized Rupert's morphic fields as the same thing. Rupert's concept of morphic fields envisions a much broader concept of relatively unknown mechanism without very well-developed methods of investigation and experimentation. There is no (or maybe almost no) overlap between investigators of morphogenetic fields and investigators of morphic fields. It is not necessary to even have an opinion as to the validity or usefulness of Rupert's concepts to simply recognize these are two entirely different intellectual concepts with only the most superficial similarity. It would be a disservice to those interested in both topics to merge them and would confuse readers. I see no benefit to anyone. Why is this not obvious to all? alteripse 19:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You are mixing two different proposals, I think. Noone has ever proposed adding the page on morphogenetic fields as used in conventional developmental biology into this page. That would make no sense at all. What is being proposed for merge is a different page, specifically on Sheldrake's conception of morphogenetic field. From your comments, I suspect you will actually agree strongly with what is proposed. Do please read two two articles and comment again.

—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I plead too much time this afternoon and should not wander into controversies I didnt see the beginning of. alteripse 23:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I would like to get more input. I will probably be making a count of responses sometime soon. Would you prefer to be uncounted, or to be listed as in favour or opposed to the merge of the pages on Sheldrake's ideas? —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't see any convincing reasons above to keep Dr Sheldrake's brainchildren separated from birth. I think readers interested in one would be interested in both and would not mind having them discussed in a single place. Count me as a merge vote. alteripse 02:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge, per Alteripse. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge process

• Votes for the merge: Duae Quartunciae, Anville, MarcoTolo, DGG, Jefffire, alteripse, Martinphi
• Votes against the merge: Ndru01. Also sloth monkey in a comment at talk page of morphogenetic field.

That is a clear preference for the merge, so I am going ahead with it. I will be doing it as carefully as I can, so that people can see the process in a number of distinct edits. I believe the result will benefit this article, and retain the recognition of morphogenetic fields as an important subgroup within morphic fields. The process will go as follows.

1. All links to "Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake)" will be removed from this article here.
2. All the content originally at "Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake)" will be made into a new section here, with no change in content.
3. The page "Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake)" will be made to redirect here.
4. The content will be rearranged a little to follow the structure of a single article.
5. A polished edit will be applied so that the final article has a good level of quality.
6. The final result will remain open to more editing and correction as any other editor deems useful.

Thanks all. Stand by for merge... —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

"This hypothesis is not accepted by most scientists, who consider it pseudoscientific"

Two people have described morphic resonance as pseudoscience, that's hardly "most scientists". There are no reasons given for either description, which is hardly scientific, let alone conclusive, though it is perhaps notable that Nature magazine editor John Maddox wrote about Sheldrake in an article titled "A book for burning?" which hardly sounds NPOV and scientific! --12.159.65.84 11:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As a rule, scientists generally do not comment on topics which they consider non-scientific, thus the fact that two notable, negative commentaries exist suggests that claiming "some" rather than "most" is perhaps begging the question. -- MarcoTolo 17:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this problem has a very simple solution. The entire sentence should simply be omitted.

This sentence was originally part of the lead paragraph in the old article (now merged) "Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake)". (Merged page, before redirect, at 11:30, 26 July 2007). In the same way, the current "Morphic field" article we are discussing has a lead paragraph, concluding with the simple and accurate sentence: The theory of morphic fields is not accepted by mainstream science..

I don't think advocates for mainstream science, like myself, need to be all that concerned to sprinkle disclaimers all through the rest of the article article. I think I should have deleted the sentence on merging. I'm deleting it now, and letting the paragraph simply describe Sheldrake's morphogenetic field notion. I'll transfer references into the section on "Critical reception". Does this sound good to everyone? —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 19:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Amit Goswami

A recent edit has added links to Amit Goswami's book; which is fair enough. What is not fair enough is to use this as a basis for removing the fact that Sheldrake's ideas are not accepted by mainstream science. This is because Goswami's particular notions on mysticism and quantum physics are not accepted within the scientific community either. And it is also misleading to speak of this as "new research" giving support to Sheldrake's notions. Goswami is not not about new research, but idiosyncratic interpretations of research that does not actually give anything particularly new in the way of support for Sheldrake at all. I've adjusted a bit. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If there is a direct statement of non acceptance of Sheldrake's theories by the "mainstream" science establishment, this must be sourced, otherwise it should be treated as any scientific theory with supporters and opposers (NPOV), naming both and sourcing both. The article presented too many essay -like opinions which were removed as per WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. Sheldrake's theories are not considered pseudoscience by the scientific establishment as a whole, but a proposed concept under debate in scientific circles, laymen opinions and pseudoscientists opposing or supporting these theories are abundant but this must not have an effect in the NPOV of the subject.Jenny^Len☤ 06:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The general perception of Sheldrake's nonsense as risible pseudoscience is already sourced in the article. What is even more damning, however, is the lack of any work or development at all based on his ideas. There is isolated guarded approval from a handful of individuals, which means almost nothing. There is effectively nothing at all in the scientific literature. Goswami's book is a work of private scholarship, but it is not based on any new experimental work nor is it peer reviewed literature. It's Goswami's own rather odd ideas, which are eagerly lapped up by a naive audience unfamiliar with the physics. In the world of science, the impact is, again, negligible.

The proper application of neutrality here, is NOT to just list a couple of approvals and a couple of disapprovals. Morphic fields is an idea at an extreme fringe, with effectively no impact on modern biology. Neutrality needs to recognize as a matter of simple fact that this is fringe science; not just an idea that some people like and others do not. The recognition of this as pseudoscience is already sourced in the article. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The content of the first line of your message "risible pseudoscience" indicates your position, this must however not influence your editions Jenny^Len☤ 08:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly true, Jenny; and I would definitely not put my unsupported opinion into the article in such terms. However, I do think it is fair enough to let you know where I stand. I somewhat despair of wikipedia, frankly. However... I pop in from time to time. By the way... Sheldrake's position at Trinity is not an "endowed chair". The term "chair" is for an academic position like professor or reader. He's the "Perrott-Warrick Scholar"; a research fellow supported by a fund intended to provide for "psychichal research". This article is becoming a bit of a credulous mess. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 08:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand your views. I also know what a chair is, I am a mainstream scientist myself, I was merely citing the source's words.

Credulity or judgement must be left to the reader, we must try to publish both sides and sources trying to avoid tints or personal opinion. But I understand your views and mainly your feeling of wanting to openly or discreetly show what you believe is true but don't be allowed in a given environment, that is the curse of the scientist and the well educated knowledgeable person, isn't it ? We must endure it I guess if we want to keep editing Jenny^Len☤ 09:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you merely repeated what is said in support of Sheldrake, you are (IMO) more than usually likely to pick up misinformation and exaggerations. Let's not call it a chair if that is not what it actually is.

I have a sneaking admiration for folks like Sheldrake who march to the beat of their own drum. He, at least, is not under any illusions about the standing of his work in mainstream science. I'm less impressed with inflation of his standing in the world of science. Whether you like his ideas or not; the simple fact is that his work is NOT accepted by mainstream science. You edited that of the lead paragraph. Why? You replaced by "received criticism by some members of the mainstream scientific establishment". That's just misleading. You also call it a "new" theory. Sheldrake's ideas are more than thirty years old now; and have achieved pretty much nothing since then. The previous statement: "not accepted by mainstream science", was accurate and perfectly OK with neutral representation of Sheldrake's impact. He knows this himself as well. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 09:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I corrected chair to position for avoiding missleading. As about "mainstream science" you must know that doesn't exist such a thing as a block or even a group. Scientific research is a battlefield where funds and acceptance play large roles and not everyone is siding when keeping silence. Sheldrake was criticzed and ignored by some, the unspoken are not approving or disapproving, just silent Jenny^Len☤ 09:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Shrug. In my view, when a dramatic revolutionary idea attracts widespread total lack of interest; that IS rejection. I'm aware that "mainstream science" is a very fuzzy notion. I see it as a ferment of competing ideas. Sheldrake is pretty much sidelined in all of that. Genuinely interesting maverick ideas, even if ultimately falsified and discarded, do better than morphic fields has managed. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 09:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

A concise description

I think that the text "Sheldrake's theories have received criticism by some members of the scientific establishment, have been ignored by others and have been taken as a possible new line of research by borderline researchers. The overall impact of these theories in mainstream science can be considered as a general rejection." summons up the whole impact. Jenny^Len☤ 09:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What are "borderline researchers?" Sounds like "borderline schizophrenic." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinphi (talk • contribs) 22:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Borderline defines a limit imposed, therefore borderline researchers are within the scientific community those researchers who dare to research in the borderline of what may be seen as unorthodox research. Those researchers make a balncing act between staying out from the label pseudoscientists but somehow daring to try to repeat or to go further into controversial theories. It is a common label used among the scientific community Jenny^Len☤ 14:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no such thing as "borderline reseachers" and there is no such label used in the scientific community.Capeo (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the "totally disputed" tag. The introductory paragraph, and indeed the article, give the impression that Sheldrake's research is taken seriously by a significant section of the mainstream scientific community. The paragraph, and the article, also understate the criticism of Sheldrake - "have received criticism" would be more accurately written as "dismissed as pseudoscience". LeContexte (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that sentiment. As you'll see in my edit a few days ago even Sheldrake admitted that most biologists did not agree with the reality of his theories. He was aware of the subjectivity of his ideas, even if his disciples aren't. Someone needs to tackle the POV issue here in all seriousness.Trilobitealive (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've also flagged the Evidence section as being entirely unsourced. At bare minimum it needs to be wikiverifiable if it is to remain.Trilobitealive (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

I won't attempt to say anything about the biological aspects but I do have a doctorate in chemistry and can speak to the chemical "example".

I have over the years made many brand new compounds. It's not hard to do. Many compounds form crystals but crystal formation can be very idiosyncratic. That is, some new (and old) compunds form beautiful crystals quickly and easily while others require some coaxing. This is inherent in the material not the number of times it is made. If crystal formation becomes easier in subsequent syntheses it is because I have learned how to do it better. In my opinion this example is just not true.

Nmrtian (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that when person A first synthesizes a new compound, then it suddenly becomes easy for unrelated persons B and C to do it. Which if true would need some explaining. Ben Finn (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for jumping from the concrete to the abstract. My issue isn't about whether his conjecture is true or not but whether the article writers can rewrite the section in such a way so as source their assertions. The section is now written so as to make a good number of jumps which may be his actual theories and may instead be an unpublished synthesis of information. (see WP:SYN) (Such unpublished information synthesis in wikipedia seems to not follow laws of chemistry but rather laws of psychology and communication theory.)Trilobitealive (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflict with Conventional Science

The concept or assertions of a Morphic field conflicts with conventional science in the fact that it is not falsifiable. Further more it makes not predictions that contradict any conventional theories. In this way the idea resembles the untestable idea of "Intelligent design". There is no evidense that anyone in the main stream scientific community is working on Morphic fields or that a grant has ever been provided to study them. I plan to split the "Critical reception" into a scientific reception and popular reception to further highlight this distinction. Please direct any concerns over these edits here.--OMCV (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

'The only published responses by the scientific community to Sheldrake's theory of "morphic fields" have been critical.' - I've cut this as it's unsourced and untrue. Ben Finn (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

OR tag

The "research background" section lacks references. Jayen466 00:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake article

There is a significant overlap between the content of this article and the Rupert Sheldrake article. I'm not sure how it's best resolved, but hope someone will do it. Ben Finn (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Critique

143.48.24.13 (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC) This section was tagged indicating that there are ideas not attributable to the original sources and contains unpublished synthesis. If such a tag is placed, specific reasons for doing so should be made clear. It is not obvious to me why the tag was added in this instance. The section makes the following points:

A. Sheldrake has made the claim of non-local memory formation. It says as much on his own website, in articles he has written, and in articles others have written about him. Some of these are cited in this section.

B. The section provides references and links to articles describing the position of neuroscience on the topic of memory formation in the brain. Specifically, that the brain is the mind and that memories are created by and stored in the brain alone. This is an uncontroversial statement.

C. The section under dispute points out the self-evident fact that B contradicts A.

Calling the simple logic above an "unpublished synthesis" is not valid for the following reasons: Firstly, the section merely states that one thing contradicts another thing. Given that this is self evident and that references are provided it is not reasonable to ask for this one-step logic sequence to have been previously published. Secondly, it arguably has been published by Steven Rose (a reference included in the section: http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/morphic/Rose_response.html). Thirdly, the information summarised by points A and B and described in the section is contained in the original sources and referenced wikipedia articles. The information has not been distorted. There has not been selective use of information with the intent to deceive. The information tallies with the preceding material describing Sheldrake's reception by the scientific community.

With the exception of Rose's view at the end, none of the scientific sources make any mention of Sheldrake or morphic fields. Thus they are not 'critiquing' Sheldrake/morphic fields, it is you who is constructing/'synthesising' your own critique on the basis of their statements. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not relevant whether the sources are explicitly critiquing Sheldrake or not. As I have said before, it is obvious that the material in the linked articles states an alternative view. If you have a theory that all swans are white then I can challenge it but showing you a photo of a black swan. I don't need to be explicitly testing your theory in order to make this demonstration valid. In the same way, Sheldrake says memory is non local to the brain. There already exists a truckload of really interesting results that clearly suggest otherwise. Just because these studies haven't been exploring morphic resonance does not make them irrelevant. More importantly, this contradiction is an objective fact. There is nothing subjective or weasel-worded about what I wrote. I will begin by replacing the parts of the section which you agree are valid and re-phrase in a way which I hope doesn't upset you.

Please read WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

143.48.24.13 (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)I understand that you can't reach a conclusion: It would be wrong of me to say that neuroscientists believe X and therefore this means that Sheldrake is wrong on point Y. This would be particularly unfair if neuroscientists were unaware of Y (which they are not, as it happens). If that is what I said or what you thought I said then I apologize. Surely, however, it is acceptable to state that neuroscientists believe X and this is different from/in contradiction to Sheldrake's view, Y. I am not deriving a conclusion I am stating a fact. It is obviously important that the portrayal of X is representative, otherwise the statement is bogus. I had included multiple references and described the position of neuroscientists in different ways (dualism, hippocampal recordings, LTP, brain damage) to avoid this. Taken together, this evidence makes it clear that neuroscientists explain memory in purely physical terms. If the portrayal of X is balanced then can someone explain to me why stating the existence of a contradiction is not acceptable or misleading.

Notable

This article seems to be about one person's idea, pet theory, whatever. Is that really important enough for its own article. Why not merge to his own article? He is notable for this idea, the idea is notable for being his. Two articles do not seem to be needed. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The possibility of merging was recently discussed at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake#Morphic field article. I'm in favour of the idea. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I read that and don't understand why the merge wasn't done. Most editors seem to dislike him, or anyway disagree/disrespect. Why have two articles about something you dislike? Northwestgnome (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Laziness? Low attention spans/other distractions? The fact that the thread evolved into merger, rather than started with that aim? Take your pick. If you want to be WP:BOLD & merge, or be less bold and make a formal merger proposal, I think you've got more than sufficient cover. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've formally suggested the merge. Northwestgnome (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I preformed the basic merger. Any help that could be offered in fixing cleaning up the merger would be appreciated. I really don't know how or if this will be challenged. I suspect there are about five editors familiar with policy who will surely support this course of action.--OMCV (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)