The Theory of Formative Causation - A book review
Rupert Sheldrake - A New Science of Life (3rd ed., London 2009)
The shape of living organisms is predetermined by the genes. During development, form is subject to change due to the expression of genes and environmental factors. Shapes acquired in response to external factors are not inherited to the next generation, changes due to mutations of the DNA can potentially be passed on. This statement is the current mainstream opinion in biology. However, not even Charles Darwin would have signed the part of non-heritability of acquired features. Even if this is was current 'Darwinists' like to think: This idea cannot solely be attributed to Lamarck's evolutionary theory. The limitations of molecular biology Modern biology is essentially Neo-Darwinian and the past 50 years have been based on the assumption that by knowing the parts the whole can be understood. In consequence, biological thinking is largely dependent on insights from molecular biology and projects such as the Human Genome Project. But even the decoding of the human genome has so far failed to even indicate answers to fundamental questions: Why do living systems acquire the form that characterises them? Not only living systems: Why do proteins fold the way they do even if there are numerous other patterns which would be equally stable from an energetic point of view? Knowing the parts does not provide answers as to why or how the whole assembles. The theory of formative causation Rupert Sheldrake has first proposed his theory of formative causation in the 1980's. According to this theory shapes are influenced by previous shapes of similar molecules or organisms. This information is conveyed by so-called morphogenetic fields. The more often certain shapes occur the more stable those fields become and the more reliably they influence the shape of following generations. Most people struggle to imagine the nature of morphogenetic fields. They are ubiquitous non-energetic fields which act over both space and time. This is indeed hard to comprehend but not unheard of: From a quantum-mechanic point of view it is feasible, allegedly. If one chooses to go with Sheldrake's argument, a whole range of phenomena becomes explicable. Development, Regeneration and Reproduction offer numerous examples where structures grow according to pre-established morphogenetic fields (and where the simple switching on and off of genes may provide the material but not the plan of the structure). Embryos develop into the same shape even if in the four-cell stage half of the cells are removed; In some species limbs are able to regenerate when cut off. When an organism or structure comes in contact with a certain trigger (a so-called morphogenetic germ), a particular morphogentic field comes into action through morphic resonance with fields that have existed previously. Here it is important to note that these fields are merely probabilistic in nature, i.e. they determine the probability with which a certain shape will develop. This allows for variation within a species, but also leads to the increased repetition of previously successful characteristics. Formative causation is thus not an alternative theory to Darwin's theory of evolution, it is complementary. More than shapes Sheldrake's theory applies to more than just shapes. He argues that behaviour and even memory is influenced through morphogentic fields. This is where the book gets really exciting: How can we be rational human beings (the philosophical discussion aside), who make informed decisions, if our behaviour is determined by the past behaviour of our ancestors? Here, Sheldrake argues, lower organisms dispose of less freedom than higher organisms, who can chose between a range of pre-fixed behaviours. The highest animal, the human, is in many respects free since the fields of many of his actions are highly variable. To understand this, the concept of chreodes becomes important. A chreode is a pathway of development or action determined by morphic resonance. The following metaphor helps: The shape of a valley determines the path which a ball rolling down the valley may take. The valley can be either very wide and variable, or it is steep and deep, leaving only a very constrained pathway for the ball to take. Similarly, some behaviours are barely defined by morphic resonance, others follow rigid chreodes. Appetitive bahaviour (finding food in the widest sense possible: playing, working, flirting) is more variable the higher evolved a species is. Consumatory behaviour (swallowing etc.) is usually more firmly established. This book really led me to think further: Formative causation ties in with tendencies away from reductionism in science and philosophy. It enables you to understand complex phenomena through non-linear interaction of its parts. Or at least it leads you to understand that complex events can only be understood as an entity (or never completely). Further trains of (my) thought Assuming that formative causation is in fact the mechanism of action, then the human race does still continue to evolve. Not simply because disadvantageous genes are no longer selected against, at least not necessarily; But also because our life-style changes out shapes drastically. If all these crooked office-worker in the City step into morphic resonance with their descendants - we will have 13-year olds with office postures, soon. Or take disease: Most pathologies develop according to more or less strictly confined patterns. Modern medicine provides symptomatic relief, but what is the morphogenetic germ that sparks of this process? And at which stage can the chreode of the disease process still be influenced? What does it take to provide the germ of health? If organisms have the potential for regeneration, how can we make use of that potential? Conclusion Sheldrake manages to convincingly lay out his theory, making use of hundreds of examples and relating or proposing even more experiments to test the hypothesis. Of course, no contradictory evidence is provided. However, Sheldrake never claims to present an absolute truth but, is always explicit about simply providing a hypothesis. And that he does conclusively - at least for the layman. |