Morphic Fields, Theory of Everything and the Concept of Akasha

British scientist Rupert Sheldrake has been speaking about the cutting edge of the new cell biology since 1981, when he published his groundbreaking book, A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Formative Causation. Sheldrake proposes that “memory” is inherent in cells, and that life exhibits “evolutionary habits,” a quality that Darwin also noted. “Cells come from other cells and inherit fields of organization” and that morphogenesis innately depends on organizing those fields, which he refers to as morphic fields.


What are morphic fields?
ChatGPT: Morphic fields, also known as morphogenetic fields, are a concept proposed by biologist Rupert Sheldrake. According to Sheldrake’s theory, morphic fields are non-material, energetic patterns that influence the development and behavior of organisms. These fields are thought to contain information that shapes the structure and behavior of living systems, including plants, animals, and even human beings.

The concept of morphic fields is rooted in the idea that there is an inherent order and organization in nature. Sheldrake suggests that this order is not solely determined by genes or the physical environment but is influenced by morphic fields. He proposes that morphic fields act as a kind of blueprint or template that guides the development and behavior of organisms.

Morphic fields are believed to have a collective nature, meaning that they are not limited to individual organisms but can extend across entire species or even broader groups. According to Sheldrake, morphic fields are shaped and influenced by the collective experience and behavior of individuals within a particular group, creating a kind of collective memory or resonance that connects members of that group.

Critics argue that the concept of morphic fields lacks empirical evidence and is not supported by mainstream scientific understanding. Sheldrake’s ideas have been met with skepticism and controversy within the scientific community. However, he maintains that further research is needed to explore and validate his hypothesis.

What is morphic resonance?
ChatGPT: Morphic resonance is a key concept in Rupert Sheldrake’s theory of morphic fields. According to Sheldrake, morphic resonance is the process by which similar patterns of activity or behavior become increasingly probable or easier to manifest over time, both within and across species.

The idea behind morphic resonance is that once a particular pattern or behavior occurs within a morphic field, it becomes more likely for that pattern to occur again in the future. This is because the morphic field contains a collective memory or resonance of previous occurrences, which influences subsequent similar events.

Sheldrake suggests that this resonance occurs through a process of “n resonance” (pronounced “morphic resonance”). When a new form or behavior emerges, it is initially shaped by genetic and environmental factors. However, as more individuals within a species or group exhibit the same form or behavior, the morphic field associated with that group becomes increasingly resonant with the pattern. This resonance, in turn, makes it easier for other individuals within the group to adopt or replicate that form or behavior in the future.

Morphic resonance is proposed to explain various phenomena, such as how animals learn new behaviors without direct instruction, the acquisition of collective habits within social groups, and the rapid spread of innovations or knowledge across populations.

Can this theory be utilized by AI especially for AGI that would help democratize the effect of individual AIs?
ChatGPT: Rupert Sheldrake’s theory of morphic resonance, as it stands, is not directly applicable to artificial intelligence (AI) or specifically to the development of artificial general intelligence (AGI). Sheldrake’s theory is primarily focused on the development and behavior of living organisms, and its application to AI is speculative at best.

AI and AGI are fields that rely on computational algorithms, machine learning, and data processing, rather than the concept of morphic fields or resonance. The development and democratization of AI and AGI are driven by advancements in computer science, neural networks, and algorithms, as well as data availability and computational power.

However, it’s worth noting that there are ongoing discussions and efforts within the AI community regarding ethical considerations, transparency, and the responsible deployment of AI technologies. These discussions aim to ensure that the impact and benefits of AI are distributed equitably, and that individual AIs do not reinforce biases or lead to undue concentrations of power.

Democratizing the effects of individual AIs involves promoting fairness, accessibility, and inclusivity in AI development and deployment. This can be achieved through policies, regulations, and practices that ensure diverse representation, accountability, and open access to AI technologies and data.

While Sheldrake’s theories are not directly applicable to AI, there is ongoing research and discourse within the AI community to address societal challenges and ethical considerations associated with the development and deployment of AI, including efforts to democratize its effects.

Policies and regulations could have their own biases – I call it the flavor of the day. Just like how birds flock, bees swarm and fish spool – can there be a non-data basis for behavior so that it is not affected by opinions?
ChatGPT: Certainly, biases can exist in policies and regulations, and the implementation of AI systems can be influenced by subjective opinions or societal factors. Striving for objectivity and minimizing bias is an important consideration in the development of AI systems.

One approach to reducing bias in AI systems is to focus on using diverse and representative datasets during the training process. By incorporating data from a wide range of sources and perspectives, it becomes possible to mitigate the influence of particular biases or skewed viewpoints.

Additionally, transparency and explainability in AI algorithms can help identify and address potential biases. By making AI systems more interpretable, it becomes easier to understand how decisions are being made and whether certain biases are present. This can lead to adjustments and improvements in the algorithms to ensure fairness and reduce bias.

In terms of a non-data basis for behavior, it is possible to design AI systems with predefined rules or principles that guide their decision-making. These rules can be based on ethical frameworks, legal requirements, or specific guidelines established by experts in the field. However, it is important to note that defining these rules can still involve subjective judgments and societal values, which can introduce their own biases.

Ultimately, achieving a truly unbiased and non-opinionated AI system is a complex challenge. It requires ongoing research, interdisciplinary collaboration, and a comprehensive understanding of the societal, ethical, and philosophical aspects involved. While it may not be possible to completely eliminate biases, continuous efforts can be made to minimize them and ensure that AI systems are developed and deployed in a fair and responsible manner.

What if the probability of do vs don’t is 52 vs 48. Then the aspect of fairness would not have a proper basis. At such positions I think not relying on data but having a morphogenic perspective would help. What is your opinion?
ChatGPT: In situations where the probabilities of different choices are close, such as 52% vs. 48%, determining what constitutes a fair basis can indeed be challenging. In such cases, relying solely on data may not provide a clear-cut answer, and alternative perspectives or approaches can be valuable in decision-making.

A morphogenic perspective, as you suggest, could potentially offer an alternative framework for considering fairness in decision-making processes. By considering the collective memory and resonance of a group, such a perspective may aim to incorporate a broader understanding of the consequences and impacts of different choices.

However, it’s important to note that the concept of morphic fields and morphic resonance, as proposed by Rupert Sheldrake, remains controversial and has not gained widespread acceptance in mainstream science. The scientific community generally relies on empirical evidence, rigorous testing, and established statistical methods for decision-making and addressing questions of fairness.

In practical terms, decision-making in situations with close probabilities often involves a combination of factors, including ethical considerations, legal frameworks, stakeholder input, and expert judgment. Various ethical frameworks, such as utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics, can offer alternative perspectives on fairness and guide decision-making processes.

It is also important to engage in transparent and inclusive discussions when making decisions that impact individuals or society at large. Considering multiple viewpoints, conducting impact assessments, and seeking input from diverse stakeholders can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of fairness and help address potential biases or unintended consequences.

While alternative perspectives, including morphogenic perspectives, can broaden our thinking and contribute to decision-making processes, it is crucial to balance them with rigorous analysis, evidence-based approaches, and ethical considerations to ensure fairness and accountability.

Are there other theories similar to morphic fields?
ChatGPT: While Rupert Sheldrake’s theory of morphic fields is unique to his work, there are other concepts and theories in related fields that explore similar ideas or phenomena. Here are a few examples:
  1. Collective Consciousness: This concept, popularized by Carl Jung, suggests that there is a shared, collective aspect to human consciousness. It posits that individuals can tap into a reservoir of shared knowledge, symbols, and archetypes beyond their personal experiences.
  2. Noosphere: Coined by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the noosphere refers to the sphere of human thought and collective intelligence. It proposes that human consciousness and the interconnectedness of minds create a global network of knowledge and information.
  3. Quantum Entanglement: In quantum physics, entanglement refers to the phenomenon where particles become correlated and share information instantaneously, regardless of distance. Some speculate that this could suggest a type of non-local connection or information exchange between entities.
  4. Akashic Records: This concept originates from Theosophy and suggests the existence of an ethereal library or universal database that contains all information and experiences of every living being throughout time. It is seen as a repository of collective knowledge and history.

It is important to note that while these concepts share certain similarities with aspects of morphic fields, they also have their own unique characteristics, theoretical frameworks, and levels of scientific acceptance. These ideas are often debated and explored within specific fields, such as psychology, physics, and metaphysics, and their scientific grounding varies.

It’s also worth noting that these concepts are not widely embraced or supported by mainstream science, and they often exist on the fringes of scientific discourse. Scientific exploration requires empirical evidence and rigorous testing, and the acceptance of new concepts depends on the accumulation of evidence and peer-reviewed research.

Does the Hindu religion aka Sanathana Dharma have something like the morphic field for consciousness?
ChatGPT: Hinduism, also known as Sanatana Dharma, encompasses a wide range of beliefs, philosophies, and concepts related to consciousness and the nature of reality. While there is no direct equivalent to the concept of morphic fields in Hinduism, some aspects of Hindu philosophy and spirituality may touch upon similar ideas.

In Hinduism, the concept of “Brahman” is often associated with the ultimate reality or consciousness that underlies and pervades everything in the universe. Brahman is considered to be the unifying principle, the source from which all existence arises. It is described as eternal, formless, and all-encompassing.

Additionally, the concept of “Atman” refers to the individual self or soul. Hindu philosophy holds that Atman is not separate from Brahman but rather a manifestation or expression of the universal consciousness. The realization of this interconnectedness is central to spiritual practices such as yoga and meditation.

Hinduism also explores the idea of collective consciousness in various ways. The concept of “Sangha” refers to the community or collective of individuals who come together for spiritual or religious purposes. The collective consciousness of a Sangha can create an environment conducive to spiritual growth and exploration.

Furthermore, Hindu mythology and scriptures contain stories and teachings that emphasize the interplay between individual consciousness and collective consciousness. Various deities and divine manifestations are believed to represent different aspects of consciousness and serve as archetypal symbols that can influence and guide human behavior and understanding.

It is important to note that Hindu philosophy is diverse, and interpretations can vary across different schools of thought and traditions within Hinduism. The exploration of consciousness and its interconnectedness is a complex and multifaceted aspect of Hindu philosophy, and it may not neatly align with the specific concept of morphic fields proposed by Rupert Sheldrake.

Ultimately, the exploration of consciousness and its relationship to the broader aspects of reality is a fundamental aspect of Hindu philosophy and spirituality. While the specific terminology and concepts may differ, there are parallel ideas that contemplate the interconnectedness of consciousness and its collective aspects within Hindu thought.

The hard problem of consciousness asks why and how humans have qualia or phenomenal experiences. This is in contrast to the “easy problems” of explaining the physical systems that give humans and other animals the ability to discriminate, integrate information, and so forth. Such problems are called easy because all that is required for their solution is to specify the mechanisms that perform such functions. Philosopher David Chalmers argues that even if we have solved all easy problems about the brain and experience, the hard problem will still persist. Would morphic fields be a good research topic to understand consciousness and in Gerald come up with a Theory of Everything?
ChatGPT: The hard problem of consciousness, as described by philosopher David Chalmers, indeed poses a significant challenge in understanding the subjective nature of phenomenal experiences. While the concept of morphic fields proposed by Rupert Sheldrake may be an intriguing topic, it is important to note that it is not a widely accepted scientific theory and lacks empirical evidence.

Consciousness is a complex phenomenon that encompasses various aspects, including subjective experiences, self-awareness, and the integration of sensory information. While there are ongoing scientific efforts to study consciousness from multiple perspectives, such as neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy, it remains an open and active area of research.

To address the hard problem of consciousness and work towards a Theory of Everything, scientists and philosophers explore various avenues, including neural correlates of consciousness, information integration, emergence, and theories such as panpsychism or integrated information theory.

Advancing our understanding of consciousness requires rigorous scientific investigation, empirical evidence, and interdisciplinary collaboration. While alternative perspectives and theories can inspire new avenues of research, it is crucial to subject them to critical scrutiny and evaluate their compatibility with existing scientific knowledge.

Therefore, while the concept of morphic fields may be an intriguing idea in the context of consciousness, it does not currently provide a solid scientific foundation or a widely accepted framework for addressing the hard problem. Continued scientific inquiry and the integration of multiple disciplines will be necessary to make progress in our understanding of consciousness and to potentially develop a comprehensive Theory of Everything.

Just like how when we moved from the geocentric model (Plato, Ptolemaic) to the heliocentric model (Copernicus) helped simplify the orbital motions of the planets maybe there is a simple explanation for the Theory of Everything?
ChatGPT: Indeed, scientific progress often involves simplifying complex phenomena through the discovery of fundamental principles or theories. The transition from the geocentric model to the heliocentric model in astronomy, as you mentioned, is a prime example of how a simpler explanation can emerge and provide a deeper understanding of the observed phenomena.

In the pursuit of a Theory of Everything (ToE) that can unify the fundamental forces and particles of nature, scientists strive to find simple and elegant explanations that encompass a wide range of phenomena. The search for such a theory is ongoing, with prominent contenders including string theory, loop quantum gravity, and other approaches.

The aim of a ToE is to describe the fundamental laws governing the universe in a concise and mathematically consistent manner. If successful, it would provide a unifying framework that encompasses all known physical phenomena and explains the underlying principles of the universe.

While the discovery of a ToE could potentially simplify our understanding of the physical world, it is important to recognize that the nature of reality is inherently complex. The universe operates on multiple scales, from the microscopic world of quantum mechanics to the macroscopic realm of general relativity. Bridging these different scales and reconciling their descriptions presents significant challenges.

Scientific progress requires continuous exploration, experimentation, and refinement of theories. It is through this process that simple and elegant explanations can emerge, leading to a deeper understanding of the fundamental workings of the universe. However, it is crucial to remain open to new evidence and be willing to revise or update theories if they are not consistent with empirical observations.

In summary, the quest for a Theory of Everything seeks to simplify our understanding of the universe, much like the transition from the geocentric to the heliocentric model in astronomy. While a simple and unified explanation is a goal of scientific inquiry, it requires ongoing research and refinement to reach a comprehensive and well-supported theory.

What is Akasha philosophy as it pertains to Sanathana Dharma?
ChatGPT: In Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism), the concept of Akasha (also spelled as Akash) is often associated with the philosophy of space or the “fifth element.” Akasha is considered one of the five elements or Pancha Mahabhutas, along with Earth (Prithvi), Water (Ap), Fire (Tejas), and Air (Vayu).

Akasha is a Sanskrit term that can be translated as “ether,” “space,” or “sky.” It represents the subtlest and most ethereal element among the five. Unlike the physical elements, Akasha is intangible and formless. It is often described as the medium through which the other elements manifest and interact.

In the context of Sanatana Dharma, the philosophy of Akasha encompasses several aspects:

  1. All-Pervading Consciousness: Akasha is considered to be the subtle, all-pervading space that exists beyond the physical realm. It is believed to be the medium through which consciousness and energy flow. Akasha is associated with the cosmic consciousness that underlies all existence.
  2. Field of Potentiality: Akasha is seen as the field of potentiality from which everything arises. It is the space of infinite possibilities and creative potential. It is believed that all forms, beings, and experiences emerge from this primordial space.
  3. Sound and Vibrations: Akasha is closely associated with sound and vibrations. It is believed that the universe is created and sustained through the vibrations originating from the primordial sound of “Om.” The sound vibrations pervade the Akasha, giving rise to the manifest world.
  4. Akashic Records: According to some mystical traditions, Akasha is regarded as the repository of all information and experiences, known as the Akashic Records. It is believed that these records contain the collective knowledge and history of all beings and can be accessed through heightened states of consciousness or spiritual practices.
  5. Inner Space and Self-Reflection: Akasha is not just an external space but also an inner space of consciousness. It represents the expansive nature of the mind and the capacity for self-reflection, introspection, and spiritual growth.

The philosophy of Akasha emphasizes the interconnectedness of all things and the underlying unity of consciousness. It highlights the subtle dimensions beyond the physical realm and invites individuals to explore the depths of their own consciousness to realize their divine nature.

It’s important to note that the understanding and interpretations of Akasha may vary among different philosophical schools and traditions within Sanatana Dharma.

NI+IN UCHIL Founder, CEO & Technical Evangelist


2 responses to “Morphic Fields, Theory of Everything and the Concept of Akasha”

  1. Hi Nitin:  Interesting! The concept of “Ganas” can be added to this discussion. The akashic records and vibrational patterns contain species specific information. This covers all past, present and future species and living beings of the biosphere on this earth ( and elsewhere?). The regulator or master of these information systems is “Ganapati” or Isha of Ganas, namely Ganesha, the Universal Intelligence!! Shree Vinekar, MD

    Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

  2. Are celestial beings in the akashic records or information stored or that available for formation or “morphosis” leading to the origin of what we see in the manifest world? I was trying to get the chatgpt to get some information on this. I personally think the scholastic translations have missed the boat and, as intended or not, slipped into a theological interpretation and magical thinking. The Vedas are presumed to be the reservoir of knowledge about cosmogony and deeper understanding of nature and its laws (Ritaum or Rita?). So then, even references to divine entities also needs to interpreted as referring to natural phenomena. I have not seen any further interpretations depicting Ganesh as the master, ruler, or controller of other deities in Rigveda. Chatgpt is correct that Ganesh is not extensively elaborated in the Rigveda (in my experience or limited knowledge).

    I know for sure I have read the expression “Gananam Ganapati” somewhere in the Rigveda itself and hope I will be able to find the precise reference. Even so, the term Ganapati is then, if interpreted scholastically, controlling ganas of Rudra and Agni, with anthropomorphic description of them as Kings and their group of servants would be equivalent to Indra of Vedas who is described as the King of Devas. In the common Indian folk knowledge Ganesh is not described as controlling Devas or deities. I think the knowledge is there in the Vedas but the scholastic interpretations steer away from the real knowledge therein. Indians are accused of waiting until modern science finds something and then they say we had it in our scriptures thousands of years ago. Indian minds have that habit according to many Western scholars. That is a separate argument. Bypassing that, we can still try to reconcile the concept of “morphic fields” and “morphic resonance” with some of the well accepted and well-known ancient Indian concepts. In this vein, I need to propose that we look at the concepts of “gana”s “akasha” and the concept of “resonance” with the vibratory nature of “Om” and other mantras. Although this writer has not specifically dealt with the topic of “gana” in his writings he mentioned this to the audience during the inauguration of the Hindu temple in Oklahoma City (late 1980s) describing Ganesh as the master and controller of all the knowledge pertaining to all the species. He stands fo the vibratory Universal Intelligence, all pervasive throughout the Universe. It occupies Akasha (see the article “Demystufying Shri Ganesha” on .

    It (Om) is also the Absolute, and therefore, can be viewed as Summation of infinite (entire) energy, mass, information, consciousness in a timeless substratum of the Universe although at its origin it was only vibrations (Sound) which is described as the “Adi Beeja” meaning the “Primordial Seed” of the Universe. This is all so clear that there should be no doubt that the Sanatana Dharma, or eternal philosophy as it is called, viewed the Brahman as a repository of all knowledge or Jnana necessary for the manifestation of the Universe(s) and at the beginning of the manifest Universe the knowledge originated in the form of vibrations. The terms “morphic resonance” connotes information in the form of vibrations or patterns of vibrations. It is also obvious that “morphic fields” have their existence in some medium and that can be surmised to be Akasha. Hence morphic fields can be conceived as Akashic records. In writing these paragraphs I have made a sincere effort to reconcile Rupert Sheldrake’s concepts with the Ancient Indian concepts. The Western scholars are accused by some as borrowing concepts from other cultures and “digesting” them and introducing as original or totally different from those known in the ancient philosophy. In saying this I do not disparage the the importance of the contribution of
    Rupert Sheldrake.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: