Saturday, August 17, 2013

On Morphic Resonance

If you’re a Man Of Science, or an acolyte of our Men Of Science, you’ll believe that your memories are stored inside your brain. So if someone tells you your memories are stored outside your brain, you’ll laugh. However, no Man Of Science so far has figured out exactly where in the brain, memories are stored. But this doesn’t stop these Men Of Science insisting that memories are stored in the brain.

Desperate to prove this, our Men Of Science have given animals in laboratories puzzles to solve, and the animals learned to solve them. Then, most areas of the animals’ brains were removed. You'd think the animals would no longer have remembered how to solve these puzzles. But they did still remember. Where, then, were stored the animals’ memories of how to solve the puzzles? Outside somewhere?

Tests have shown that when animals, like mice and guinea pigs, solve puzzles they are given, other mice and guinea pigs thousands of miles away, and that are also given these puzzles, solve them significantly faster than expected. It’s as if the knowledge of the first-mentioned mice and guinea pigs on how to solve the puzzles, is also available for the latter mice and guinea pigs to tap into, enabling them quickly to solve the puzzles.

If memories are stored inside the brain, the transmission of knowledge as described above would be impossible. But, if memories are stored outside the brain, like somewhere in the ether, then the transmission of knowledge as described above makes sense.

If animals can tap into the collective memories of other animals, even though far away, it’s logical to think that humans can tap into the collective memories of other humans. The fact that average scores on IQ tests have risen 30% over the last 70 years, and continue to rise, suggests that when you do an IQ test today, your mind, in its search for answers to the puzzles in the IQ tests, taps into the collective outside-stored memories of those who did IQ tests before. Hence you only appear 30% cleverer than was your grandfather.

Rupert Shelldrake, in his recent book, “Science Set Free”, uses the term “morphic resonance” to describe the process of tapping into collective outside-stored memories. Since we, and all matter, are pulsating globs of energy, and since our minds seem to be morphic fields of energy that stretch beyond our physical selves, “morphic resonance” is a better fit to illustrate the mechanics of how our minds tap into other minds.

You will, I feel sure, have heard of people suddenly being able to speak Greek or Chinese, despite their never having learned Greek or Chinese, let alone their having never having been to Greece or China. And there are people who remember events they think happened in a previous life. These sorts of stories suggest reincarnation. But they also suggest these people tapped into other peoples’ memories through morphic resonance. Given that the notion of reincarnation has a plethora of logical inconsistencies that reincarnationists willfully ignore, morphic resonance better explains these reincarnation-like experiences.

Assuming all our memories are stored out there in the ether somewhere - sort of like in “cloud computing” - what does this say about how things will be after we go to our Eternal Reward? It surely suggests that we, in the form of our memories of all our earthly experiences, will continue in some way.

The late Krishnamurti used to say that consciousness is its content. As to what he meant by “content” one must assume he meant “memories”. So that when you were born, you didn’t have any consciousness because you hadn’t yet done anything, and so didn’t have any memories to be conscious of. But as you went through life and did stuff, and your memories of the stuff you did multiplied, your consciousness consequently grew, and it continues to grow the longer you are alive and the more stuff you do. It's this consciousness, then, consisting of all its memories, that may constitute the "you" when you go to your Eternal Reward.  

Because the memories that constitute your consciousness, include your memories of your departed Loved Ones, and because the memories of your departed Loved Ones - that constitute their consciousnesses - would have included their memories of you, it’s likely that when you go to your Eternal Reward, your stored memories of your departed Loved Ones will morphically resonate with their stored memories of you.

By this means you’ll experience meeting them again on the Other Side. They'll look to you the way you remembered them best; and you'll look to them the way they remembered you best.

7 comments:

  1. I don't believe that memories are stored outside the brain. I just don't.

    You did not cite where these studies came from. I am interested in their origination since part of what I am writing for my thesis has to do with memory...

    Can you let me know where these studies about "collective memories of animals" came from?

    ReplyDelete
  2. ".....I don't believe that memories are stored outside the brain. I just don't......"

    Said like a true acolyte of our Men Of Science!!

    I drew on Rupert Shelldrake's book, "Science Set Free".

    I expect to talk more about all this in future postings.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Fascinating though the experiments with rats may be, they nevertheless belong to the realms of conventional science.

    Morphic resonance is a speculation, and it is important not to give it the status of hypothesis. Nor is it as revolutionary as it might appear. There are many instances in nature where our observations appear to be influenced from a distance or locally without apparent physical connection. Radio communication is one, the formation of crystals another. Eventually, such observations yield to rigorous scientific explanation - or description, as I would prefer to say. Morphic resonance has the potential to be explained in this way and in the meantime we must maintain rigid scepticism to avoid clouding our judgment. We owe as much to the self discipline and purity of radical and revolutionary analysis exhibited by the great scientists of history, who have done so much to expand knowledge and improve the human condition, especially since the enlightenment. It boils down to the integrity required in all investigation if it is to mean anything.

    Other examples of action at a distance are the force of gravity, the "butterfly" hypothesis in meteorology and quantum entanglement. All are safely within the bounds of traditional scientific method. Less so are Jung's synchronicity and collective unconscious, but these, too, may eventually yield to full scientific scrutiny and be adopted generally within the body of scientific knowledge or rejected.

    Thus memory may or not be firmly located within neurons. Awareness of its presence is quite another thing and cannot, by its very nature, be the subject of scientific enquiry - only its effects are susceptible to it. The same applies to the exercise of will.

    Constant review of damaging conservatism in all walks is necessary if we are to embrace human progress. But it is deeply unfair and destructive to cast a slur upon scientific method as such, especially when that very method is employed to formulate the attacks. There are better targets for those who wish to shake up the establishment and question its self-interest.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ”......Fascinating though the experiments with rats may be, they nevertheless belong to the realms of conventional science…….”

    I’ll assume you are referring to rats taught tricks in one part of the world, and that rats taught the same tricks in another far-off part of the world learn the tricks much faster than expected.

    While these tests do belong in the realms of conventional science, I wonder what the conventional explanation for the results is? Do you know?

    ”..…....Morphic resonance is a speculation, and it is important not to give it the status of hypothesis…….”

    While it is a speculation, why shouldn’t it be elevated to a hypothesis? The notion of morphic resonance between consciousnesses that lie outside the body is, after all, a better fit for explaining why the above rats learn so fast, and this notion is a better fit for explaining the fact of telepathy between two people.

    Remember, the assertion that memories (or consciousness) lie inside the brain is merely a belief.

    Radio communication is, as you say, another example of contact over long distances via invisible means. But these invisible means (electronic waves) are between man-made gadgets, and so fall safely within the belief system of Official Science. Telepathy, on the other hands, falls outside Official Science’s belief system, and so is treated as a taboo.

    ".......it is deeply unfair and destructive to cast a slur upon scientific method……."

    I agree. But, when Official Science’s High Priests stray from the scientific method, which they knowingly do often, to cast slurs on their actions seems appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "...I wonder what the conventional explanation for the results is? Do you know?..."

    I know of no conventional explanation for the observations, but I am not a scientist. There are many observations without conventional explanation. Take, for example, the measure of total mass in the universe. The excess over expectation has given rise to speculations about dark matter.

    "...While it is a speculation, why shouldn’t it be elevated to a hypothesis?..."

    In order for a hypothesis to rank as a scientific hypothesis, it has to be testable. A clear description of morphic resonance is a start. The framer of the hypothesis (or someone else) should then propose a specific experiment, the result of which is not known. Is any such test proposed? If so, I gladly concede the point and shall wait for and celebrate with you a positive result.

    "... when Official Science’s High Priests stray from the scientific method, which they knowingly do often, to cast slurs on their actions seems appropriate..."

    I take it that you refer to those who decided to remove the TED lectures.

    Their grounds were twofold - 1 the risk of damage to the health of impressionable young people lured into experimentation with drugs by experienced adults who should know better; 2 undue weight placed upon unverified explanations.

    I quote from Wikipedia's article on Novum Organum:

    "... Bacon wrote (In the Novum Organum) that, 'Our only hope, then is in genuine Induction... There is the same degree of licentiousness and error in forming Axioms, as in abstracting Notions: and that in the first principles, which depend in common induction. Still more is this the case in Axioms and inferior propositions derived from Syllogisms.'... "

    You will recall Francis Bacon's Novum Organum is an examination of the limitations of Aristotelian logic and the proposing of an alternative that was the start of the scientific revolution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Wikipedia article is Baconian Method, not as stated but a link there. There is also a link, in the correct reference, to Roger Bacon, someone else I would read for this discussion, if I had the intellectual strength.

      Delete
  6. ".....In order for a hypothesis to rank as a scientific hypothesis, it has to be testable....."

    May I assume this also should apply to the two big theories that our Men Of Science assert is fact: that the universe came into being because of the Big Bang, and that we all evolved from the primeval slime?

    Perhaps, though, these two assertions have, in fact, been scientifically proven in a laboratatory? Could you enlighten me on this?

    When I talked of science's High Priests straying from the scientific method, I wasn't thinking of TED, but rather of some of the assertions made by Richard Dawkins and others of his ilk.

    But, yes, I would include the TED science board as an example of scientists acting unscientifically, in this case by trying to censor views they don't like.

    Which Bacon was it who wrote the plays that everyone thinks Shakespeare wrote? Those who still insist that neither of the Bacons wrote Shakespeare's plays, overlook the very obvious clue of the name of Hamlet.

    Ham, bacon. They go together don't they? (Francis? Roger?) Bacon appear to have fooled a lot of people over the last few hundred years.

    As for Novum Organum, no, it appears not quite my cup of tea.

    ReplyDelete