A Critical Overview: Sheldrake's Theory of Morphogenetic Fields
And The Hypothesis of Causative Formation - Part One

The mechanistic theory of life holds that all properties of living organisms can be completely accounted for in terms of physical and chemical laws. On the other hand, vitalist approaches propose one must posit the existence of some non-mechanical causal principle (or set of such principles), in addition to the mechanical principles of physics and chemistry, in order to explicate the various facets of the phenomenon of life. Finally, there are holistic or organismic theories of life which attempt to explain the phenomenon of life as a function of emergent properties.

Emergent properties are believed to manifest themselves at certain levels of hierarchical complexity. Their appearance cannot be anticipated on the basis of the principles which are operative on lower levels of complexity.

In effect, emergent properties are said to manifest themselves when certain kinds of hierarchical complexity reach a sort of critical mass and begin to generate phenomena as an expression of the way the whole system interacts together. Consequently, emergent properties are considered to be by-products of the complexity of a given system taken as a whole, rather than the result of some sub-system of mechanistic principles.

Morphogenetic fields and the hypothesis of formative causation

Rupert Sheldrake considers the idea of morphogenetic fields to be an example of the organismic approach to theories of life. In general terms, morphogenetic fields are believed to be the agencies which are the source of various kinds of structure, form, shape and organization that are manifested in living systems.

According to Sheldrake, morphogenetic fields transmit their structuring influences across both space and time such that there is a cumulative structuring effect from one point in time to another, as well as from one point in space to another. However, these influences are only passed on to, or affect, systems which are "similar" in some sense.

The hypothesis of formative causation plays an important role in Sheldrake's model. Essentially, this hypothesis says that the degree of repetition which is associated with a given morphogenetic field will affect the intensity of the influence of that field on similar fields with which it comes into contact.

On the basis of the hypothesis of formative causation, Sheldrake says one could expect or predict that something of the following sort will occur. When a given species of animal learns a new form of behavior, then, subsequent members of that species will exhibit, if raised under conditions which are similar to the original group, a tendency to learn such a behavioral form more quickly than when the new behavioral form was first introduced into that species. Furthermore, within certain limits and up to a certain point, the learning curve will accelerate with each successive generation of the species that is taught the behavioral form at issue.

In addition, Sheldrake maintains that the acceleration of the learning curve will be affected by the quantities of species members which are involved in the original, and subsequent, learning experiences. In other words, if one uses only a few members in the original, and subsequent, learning trials, then, the influence of the morphogenetic field which is set in motion will be relatively weak compared to the strength of the morphogenetic field that will be generated if one had used thousands of members in the original, and subsequent, learning trials.

There are a number of questions which arise in relation to the foregoing. For example, if what Sheldrake says is true, then, why don't the subsequent generations of adherents of a given religion learn their religious tradition more quickly, more deeply and more completely than do the early adherents of that tradition? After all, it is almost universally acknowledged that the early adherents of a religious tradition are often the best exemplars of that tradition- best in the sense of having most completely and most deeply mastered the various aspects of the tradition. One might even argue the earlier adherents also pick up the tradition more quickly than subsequent generations of adherents because they have direct access to the individual who is the prophet or avatar or saint who introduced the tradition.

In order for Sheldrake to put forth a tenable position, he is going to have to be able to offer a plausible way of resolving the foregoing problem. For instance, one way of addressing the aforementioned difficulty might be to suppose there are other morphogenetic fields in existence which are antagonistic to the spiritual morphogenetic fields being generated through a prophet and his followers. As a result, the influence of the spiritual morphogenetic field may be dampered, modulated or curtailed by the existence of other kinds of morphogenetic fields which are antagonistic to the first kind of field.

However, if one were to adopt the foregoing position, one would be faced with a further question. Given the presence of antagonistic morphogenetic fields, how does one account for the emergence of a morphogenetic field which runs counter to the already existing fields? One might suppose that the inertial character of the already existing, antagonistic systems would be too much to overcome for the fledgling morphogenetic field.

One also would like to know whether or not the rate or intensity with which a given morphogenetic field is generated will be affected by the truth value, if any, being manifested through that field. In other words, is the character of transmission of a morphogenetic field at all affected by the structural character of the content of what is being transmitted through that field?

If the morphogenetic field is value neutral such that the correctness or incorrectness of what is transmitted is immaterial to the rate or intensity or extent of field generation, then, one will have to keep in mind there might be a lot of morphogenetic fields in existence which could prove to be antagonistic to one another since their truth values conflict with one another. Getting a 'true' morphogenetic field either started or sustained may be difficult because, in a sense, it will be swamped by so many 'false' morphogenetic fields. Such pseudo-fields give expression to structures which have, ultimately, a dissipative effect with respect to the establishing and strengthening of a given field which accurately reflects some aspect of reality. On the other hand, introducing, transmitting and sustaining structures such as rumors, myths, or false theories, may prove to be easier since there not only tend to be so many more of these sorts of positions relative to the number of true fields, but one might wish to argue there is a certain similarity among all these false ideas, myths and so on by 'virtue' of their aspect of falseness.

The answer to the question of whether or not the extent of accuracy characteristic of a given morphogenetic field will have any effect on transmission rates, intensities, range and so on will have a variety of implications for not only educational issues but cultural issues as well. Both cultural processes and educational processes are quite structurally complex.

Consequently, in each case there likely are a wide variety of morphogenetic fields which complement, compete with, supplement, overlap with, reinforce and/or conflict with one another. The stresses, strains, and tensions that are introduced by such a variety of morphogenetic fields will have to be taken into consideration in trying to come up with a coherent, consistent, and constructive, set of educational and/or cultural programmes which will be of intellectual, political, moral, economic, legal, emotional and spiritual value for the individual.

Entelechy and egigenesis

When biological development is described as epigenetlc, reference is being made to the manner in which certain biological systems increase in complexity, both with respect to organization, as well as form, over time. Mechanistic, vitalistic and organismic theories of life all acknowledge that many biological systems manifest such epigenetic properties, but these theories differ radically in the way in which they attempt to account for what makes it possible.

The term entelechy comes from a Greek word referring to an entity that carries within itself a goal toward which that entity tends. The term was introduced by Hans Driesch, an embryologist, who believed there were many facets of development, reproduction, regeneration, etc., which could not be explained satisfactorily by mechanistic theories of life.

For Driesch, entelechy represented a non-physical, vitalistic, causal factor which operated on the physical-chemical aspects of biological systems- shaping, regulating, and organizing those aspects into various sorts of organelles, tissues, organs, and bodies. Although the biochemical substances and processes which make up genes, chromosomes, metabolic pathways, and so on, constitute the material medium through which morphogenesis is given expression, the ordering principle responsible for the regulation of the morphogenetic process is, according to Driesch, entelechy.

However, the idea of entelechy was not intended by Driesch to be a metaphysical principle. He believed it was a purely natural, causal phenomenon, capable of acting on material substances. Furthermore, although Driesch did not consider entelechy to be a manifestation of any form of energy, he maintained this principle did not violate either the first or second laws of thermodynamics.

Driesch contended that not all events on the micro level of biological systems are fully determined by mechanical principles. He believed there was a certain indeterminacy in biological systems at the micro level, even though the events which took place on the macro level could be observed to obey various statistical laws.

The principle of entelechy was posited by Driesch to operate within the parameters of indeterminacy existing on the micro level. This principle would impose its ordering process on physical-chemical systems by regulating the phase relationships that determined when a given micro event would be given expression. Through a process of constraining and/or enhancing such events, entelechy organizes biological activities in accordance with its own ends-oriented ordering principle.

Sheldrake does not automatically dismiss the idea of entelechy. However, he is dissatisfied with its vitalistic orientation which requires a non-physical principle to operate on, in some inexplicable way, physical systems.

Holistic or organismic theories arose against the backdrop of the same sorts of problems which had led to various vitalistic theories of life being proposed. These problems were reproduction, regeneration, and development. However, rather than resort to some mysterious vitalistic principle, holistic theories were rooted in ideas like morphogenetic fields and the chreode. The latter term was introduced by C.H. Waddington and referred to the way in which embryological processes seemed to be canalized toward certain structural ends as a result of the manner in which the epigenetic landscape was laid out over time.