Nice find! Bio-inspired engineering of virtual agents and robots. Rene´sounds like a kindred spirit of David Irvine.
Except I’ve heard that developmental biologists tacitly talk of morphogenetic fields because morphogenetic chemistry was found to be wholly inadequate, tensegrity etc. This idea that DNA is a blue print or map has been ditched. Its part of what lead us to epigenetics. There is always this patent motivated idea that the bumps on an atom will lead to a sequence and the sequence will lead to the form and the form will lead to function and it will all lead back to a space time localized legally binding cash register.
I enjoyed Rupert Sheldrake’s explanation of Morphic Resonance. There is evidence that information is somehow communicated across space and time from one genetically similar being to many. If you have the time I highly recommend listening to this, https://youtu.be/pU0Ei0L5r6c. Extremely entertaining and thought provoking.
Comprehensive answers to complex questions about the big picture will be answered by those who can intelligently observe the progress of multiple disciplines.
Really? Do you have a link to this evidence?
From the Rupert Sheldrake Wikipedia:
Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community as a real phenomenon and Sheldrake’s proposals relating to it have been characterized as pseudoscience. Critics cite a lack of evidence for morphic resonance and an inconsistency of the idea with data from genetics and embryology, and also express concern that popular attention from Sheldrake’s books and public appearances undermines the public’s understanding of science.[a]
"Sheldrake’s morphic resonance posits that “memory is inherent in nature”
and that “natural systems, such as termite colonies, or pigeons, or
orchid plants, or insulin molecules, inherit a collective memory from
all previous things of their kind”. Sheldrake proposes that it is also responsible for “telepathy-type interconnections between organisms”. " – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake
I guess it could be something to the idea of morphic fields. Quantum entanglement allows for “telepathy-type interconnections”. For example the mother is then a morphic field template for the growing fetus, and the blueprint for the human body is then the mother’s morphic field and not something encoded in the genome or in the epigenome. The DNA is only a blueprint for proteins basically, not for the whole organism; like blueprints for the building blocks for a house. The bricks, planks etc can’t assemble themselves into a house. Just speculating a bit.
Its Sheldrakes critics that aren’t credible at this point. I think even Gould acknowledged Sheldrake and if he were still alive would be even more favorable. I think in the future history will quite kind to Sheldrake and vicious to his critics. @alkafir might like to meet Sheldrake, I think he’s local or at least open to discussion online. I think background wise they might have a good bit in common.
If you watch the video Sheldrake cites several studies that support his claims. The beauty of science is that it evolves with new discoveries, so if Sheldrakes hypothesis is faulty, science may eventually show us why. Until then I think it is fair to say that the general publics opinion on science has never been well founded on facts. It is also no surprise that most scientists are not interested in theories that do not support their world view. Just because a theory isn’t popular among the scientists of the day doesn’t mean it is not worth considering.