• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

Bioelectric vs. Morphogenetic Fields

A Comparison of Michal Levin and Rupert Sheldrake

Frank Visser / ChatGPT-4o

Michael Levin	Rupert Sheldrake

Me to ChatGPT:

• Please introduce the field of bioelectricity and its relevance in layman's terms.
• Please describe Michael Levin's relevance for biological and evolutionary science.
• Please describe some iconic examples from Levin's research programme.
  
  
• In some cases bioelectric changes manipulated in experiments turn out to be passed on to the next generation. How would that work?
• How are these bioelectric phenomena a new case of epigenetics?
• In what sense is DNA less important than is commonly thought because of these new scientific findings? In what sense is DNA still indispensible?
  
  
• How does Michael Levin's work on the bioelectric network differ from Rupert Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields?
• How does Sheldrake's concept of morphogenesis through resonance differ from the conventional scientific understanding of that complex process?
• Sheldrake has often argued that, since every cell contains a complete genome, morphological changes can't be caused by it and has to come from "somewhere else", i.e. his morphogenetic fields. What doesn't hold up scientifically in this line of reasoning?
• If electrical fields govern (parts of) biological processes, what governs these electrical fields? How do we avoid an infinite regess?

ChatGPT:

Please introduce the field of bioelectricity and its relevance in layman's terms.

Sure! Let's dive into the fascinating world of bioelectricity and its role in biology in a way that's easy to understand.

Introduction to Bioelectricity in Biology

Imagine your body as a bustling city. In this city, every cell is like a little building, and all the buildings need to talk to each other to keep the city running smoothly. Traditionally, scientists thought the main way cells communicated was through chemical signals, like sending letters or emails. But it turns out there's another crucial way cells talk: through electricity!

What is Bioelectricity?

Bioelectricity refers to the natural electrical signals that cells use to communicate. Just like how your nerves send electrical impulses to move your muscles or how your heart beats, bioelectric signals help control many important processes in your body.

Why is Bioelectricity Important?

Bioelectricity is like the unseen conductor of an orchestra, ensuring everything plays in harmony. Here are some amazing things bioelectricity does:

Guides Growth and Healing:

When you're developing as a baby or healing a wound, bioelectric signals help cells know where to go and what to become. Think of it like a GPS for your cells, guiding them to the right spots.

Controls Regeneration:

Some animals, like salamanders and planarian flatworms, can regrow lost body parts. Scientists like Michael Levin have shown that bioelectric signals are key to this process. By tweaking these signals, researchers can even encourage cells to start regrowing parts in animals that normally can't, like making a frog grow an extra limb!

Maintains Health:

Bioelectric signals help keep cells healthy and functioning properly. Disruptions in these signals can lead to problems, like cancer. Levin's research has shown that by fixing these electrical signals, we might be able to stop cancer cells from growing.

Real-Life Examples from Michael Levin's Research

Regenerating Lost Parts:

Levin's team has worked with flatworms that can regrow their heads. By changing the bioelectric signals in these worms, they can make them grow heads or tails in the wrong places, showing how powerful these signals are in guiding growth.

Growing Eyes in Weird Places:

In experiments with tadpoles, Levin's lab was able to make eyes grow in parts of the body where they normally wouldn't, like on the back. This was done by altering the bioelectric signals in those areas, demonstrating how these signals tell cells what to become.

Stopping Tumors:

Levin's research has also looked at cancer. They found that normalizing the electrical signals in cells can sometimes prevent tumors from forming, suggesting new ways to fight cancer by correcting these bioelectric imbalances.

Why This Matters to You

Understanding and harnessing bioelectricity could revolutionize medicine. Imagine being able to:

Heal Injuries Faster: By tweaking bioelectric signals, we could speed up wound healing or even regrow lost limbs.

Treat Diseases: Correcting bioelectric imbalances might help prevent or treat conditions like cancer.

Advance Regenerative Medicine: This research could lead to breakthroughs in growing new tissues or organs for transplants.

Conclusion

Bioelectricity is an exciting and relatively new frontier in biology. It's like discovering a hidden language that cells use to communicate and organize themselves. Researchers like Michael Levin are at the forefront of this field, uncovering how we can use these electrical signals to improve health, treat diseases, and even unlock new regenerative abilities. The future of medicine might just be electrifying!

Please describe Michael Levin's relevance for biological and evolutionary science.

Michael Levin's work on bioelectric signaling and its role in development, regeneration, and evolution has significant implications for biological and evolutionary science. Here's a detailed look at his contributions and their relevance:

Contributions to Biological Science

Bioelectric Signaling in Development and Regeneration:

Cell Communication: Levin's research has shown that bioelectric signals are crucial for communication between cells during development and regeneration. These signals help coordinate cell behaviors such as proliferation, differentiation, and migration.

Pattern Formation: His work demonstrates that bioelectric gradients and fields guide the formation of complex biological structures. This includes the development of organs and limbs, as well as the regeneration of tissues in organisms like amphibians and planarians.

Regenerative Medicine: By manipulating bioelectric signals, Levin has been able to induce regenerative processes in organisms that typically do not exhibit such capabilities, suggesting potential applications in regenerative medicine and tissue engineering.

Bioelectricity as a Regulatory Layer:

Gene Expression: Levin's studies reveal that bioelectric signals can influence gene expression and epigenetic states, adding a new layer of regulation beyond genetic and traditional epigenetic mechanisms.

Cell Fate Determination: His research suggests that bioelectric cues can alter the fate of cells, influencing their developmental pathways and roles within tissues.

Technological and Methodological Advances:

Techniques and Tools: Levin's lab has developed innovative tools and techniques for measuring and manipulating bioelectric signals, such as voltage-sensitive dyes, genetic modifications, and computational models. These advancements have provided new ways to study and control biological processes.

Relevance to Evolutionary Science

Evolution of Bioelectric Signaling:

Adaptive Mechanisms: Levin's work suggests that bioelectric signaling may have played a crucial role in the evolution of complex multicellular organisms. The ability to use electrical signals for rapid and coordinated responses could have provided significant adaptive advantages.

Evolutionary Innovation: By showing how bioelectric signals can control pattern formation and regeneration, Levin's research highlights a potential mechanism for evolutionary innovation. Changes in bioelectric properties could lead to novel traits and improved regenerative abilities.

Epigenetic Inheritance:

Transgenerational Effects: Some of Levin's experiments indicate that bioelectric changes can be inherited by subsequent generations, pointing to a potential mechanism of epigenetic inheritance. This could influence evolutionary processes by allowing adaptive traits to be passed on without changes to the underlying DNA sequence.

Integration with Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo):

Evo-Devo Perspective: Levin's findings align with and expand the field of evolutionary developmental biology, which examines how developmental processes evolve and contribute to morphological diversity. Bioelectricity provides a new dimension to understanding how developmental mechanisms can drive evolutionary change.

Broader Implications

Holistic Understanding of Biology:

Systems Biology: Levin's work promotes a more integrative approach to biology, emphasizing the importance of electrical, chemical, and mechanical signals in regulating biological systems. This holistic view can lead to a deeper understanding of how complex traits and behaviors emerge.

Biomedical Applications:

Disease and Regeneration: Insights from Levin's research have potential applications in treating diseases and injuries. By targeting bioelectric pathways, it may be possible to develop new therapies for conditions that involve disrupted tissue organization and function, such as cancer, birth defects, and degenerative diseases.

Synthetic Biology:

Bioengineering: The ability to manipulate bioelectric signals opens up possibilities in synthetic biology, where designing and constructing new biological systems with desired properties is a key goal. Levin's work could contribute to creating synthetic tissues and organs with enhanced regenerative capabilities.

Conclusion

Michael Levin's research on bioelectric signaling has profound implications for both biological and evolutionary science. By uncovering the roles of bioelectric signals in development, regeneration, and evolution, his work adds a crucial layer of understanding to the complex regulatory networks that govern life. Levin's findings not only advance fundamental biology but also offer promising applications in medicine, bioengineering, and our understanding of evolutionary processes.

Please describe some iconic examples from Levin's research programme.

Michael Levin's research has provided several iconic examples that demonstrate the critical role of bioelectric signals in development, regeneration, and morphogenesis. Here are some key highlights:

1. Regeneration of Planaria

Experiment:

Regeneration Manipulation: Levin's lab has extensively studied the planarian flatworm, known for its remarkable regenerative abilities. By manipulating the bioelectric states of planarian cells using pharmacological agents and genetic tools, Levin and his team have shown that it is possible to control the regeneration process.

Findings:

Head-Tail Identity: They discovered that altering the bioelectric gradients in planarians can change the identity of the regenerated structures. For example, changing the voltage gradient can cause a tail to regenerate where a head should, and vice versa.

Positional Information: This work demonstrates that bioelectric signals provide crucial positional information for tissue regeneration, independent of the genetic code.

2. Xenopus Tadpole Limb Regeneration

Experiment:

Induced Regeneration: Levin's team has worked on Xenopus (frog) tadpoles to understand limb regeneration. By manipulating the bioelectric signals in tadpole cells, they were able to induce limb regeneration in species that do not naturally regenerate limbs as adults.

Findings:

Bioelectric Prepatterns: The research showed that specific bioelectric signals are necessary for initiating and guiding the regeneration process. By artificially restoring these signals, they could induce regeneration, suggesting potential applications for regenerative medicine.

3. Control of Eye Formation

Experiment:

Ectopic Eye Formation: In another groundbreaking experiment, Levin's group induced the formation of functional eyes in non-head regions of Xenopus tadpoles by manipulating bioelectric signals.

Findings:

Transdetermination: This work illustrated that bioelectric signals could override the positional cues normally restricting eye formation to the head region. It showed that cells in other parts of the body could be reprogrammed to form complex organs like eyes through bioelectric manipulation.

4. Tumor Suppression via Bioelectric Signals

Experiment:

Cancer Research: Levin's lab has explored the role of bioelectric signals in cancer. By altering the bioelectric state of cells, they investigated how these signals could influence tumor growth and development.

Findings:

Tumor Suppression: They found that normalizing the bioelectric signals in pre-cancerous cells could suppress tumor formation. This suggests that bioelectric signaling is a crucial aspect of maintaining cellular homeostasis and could be targeted for cancer therapies.

5. Bioelectric Mapping and Modulation

Experiment:

Voltage-Sensitive Dyes: Levin's team has developed techniques to map the bioelectric states of cells and tissues using voltage-sensitive dyes and other imaging technologies. They have also used ion channel-modifying drugs to modulate these bioelectric states experimentally.

Findings:

Functional Imaging: These tools allow for real-time visualization of bioelectric patterns during development and regeneration. The ability to manipulate these patterns provides direct evidence of their role in guiding morphogenesis and tissue formation.

Significance of Levin's Work

Multidimensional Control: Levin's research underscores the importance of bioelectric signals as an additional layer of control in biology, alongside genetic and biochemical factors.

Regenerative Medicine: His findings offer promising avenues for regenerative medicine, suggesting that modulating bioelectric signals could enhance tissue repair and regeneration in humans.

Cancer Treatment: The ability to influence tumor growth through bioelectric signals opens new potential strategies for cancer treatment, focusing on restoring normal bioelectric states to prevent malignancy.

Developmental Biology: Levin's work contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of developmental biology, demonstrating that bioelectric signals play a crucial role in tissue patterning and organogenesis.

Conclusion

Michael Levin's research provides iconic examples of how bioelectric signals influence development, regeneration, and disease. These studies highlight the potential of bioelectric modulation as a tool for regenerative medicine and cancer therapy, while also expanding our understanding of the fundamental processes governing morphogenesis.

In some cases bioelectric changes manipulated in experiments turn out to be passed on to the next generation. How would that work?

The observation that bioelectric changes manipulated in experiments can be passed on to the next generation suggests a form of epigenetic inheritance. This phenomenon can be explained through several potential mechanisms that link bioelectric states to heritable changes. Here's how it might work:

Mechanisms of Bioelectric Epigenetic Inheritance

Modification of Epigenetic Marks:

DNA Methylation and Histone Modification: Bioelectric signals can influence the activity of enzymes responsible for adding or removing epigenetic marks (e.g., DNA methyltransferases, histone acetyltransferases). These marks can be stably inherited through cell divisions and, in some cases, can be transmitted to offspring via the germ line.

Stable Epigenetic States: If bioelectric signals induce stable changes in the epigenetic landscape of germ cells (sperm or eggs), these changes can be passed on to the next generation, affecting gene expression patterns in the progeny.

Bioelectric Influences on Germ Cells:

Germ Cell Environment: The bioelectric environment of germ cells during development could impact their epigenetic state. For instance, altered ion flows or membrane potentials in the reproductive organs might modify the epigenetic marks on germ cells.

Intergenerational Transmission: If these bioelectric-induced epigenetic changes are not reset during the formation of gametes (as most epigenetic marks are during fertilization), they can be inherited by the next generation.

RNA-Mediated Mechanisms:

Non-Coding RNAs: Bioelectric changes could influence the production of non-coding RNAs (e.g., microRNAs, long non-coding RNAs) that play a role in regulating gene expression. These RNAs can be incorporated into germ cells and affect gene expression in the next generation.

RNA Modifications: Altered bioelectric states might also influence RNA modifications (e.g., methylation of RNA), which can be inherited and influence cellular processes in offspring.

Structural Changes in Chromatin:

Chromatin Architecture: Bioelectric signals can affect the three-dimensional structure of chromatin, making certain regions more or less accessible for transcription. These structural changes can be heritable if they are established in germ cells.

Transmission Through Cell Division:

Somatic and Germ Line Linkage: In some cases, somatic cells (non-reproductive cells) affected by bioelectric changes can influence germ cells through signaling pathways or extracellular vesicles. This crosstalk can result in the transmission of bioelectrically-induced epigenetic changes to the germ line.

Experimental Evidence and Implications

Experimental Manipulations:

Researchers have manipulated bioelectric states in model organisms like Xenopus (frogs) and Planaria (flatworms) and observed that changes in bioelectric signals can lead to stable alterations in development, such as changes in organ size or patterning. Some of these changes are inherited by subsequent generations.

Regenerative Medicine and Developmental Biology:

Understanding how bioelectric signals contribute to epigenetic inheritance has profound implications for regenerative medicine and developmental biology. It suggests new ways to influence tissue regeneration and development through bioelectric modulation.

Evolutionary Perspectives:

The ability of bioelectric changes to be inherited adds a layer of complexity to evolutionary biology. It suggests that organisms might adapt to their environments not only through genetic mutations but also through bioelectric and epigenetic mechanisms that can be rapidly modified and inherited.

Conclusion

The inheritance of bioelectric changes involves complex interactions between bioelectric states, epigenetic mechanisms, and germ cell biology. By influencing traditional epigenetic marks, non-coding RNAs, chromatin structure, and the germ cell environment, bioelectric signals can create heritable changes that are passed on to the next generation. This expands our understanding of inheritance and development, highlighting the interplay between electrical, chemical, and genetic information in biology.

How are these bioelectric phenomena a new case of epigenetics?

Michael Levin's exploration of bioelectric phenomena can be seen as a new case of epigenetics because it represents another layer of regulation and control over gene expression and cellular behavior beyond the traditional genetic code. Here's how bioelectric phenomena fit into the broader context of epigenetics:

Epigenetics: An Overview

Epigenetics traditionally refers to heritable changes in gene expression that do not involve changes to the underlying DNA sequence. These changes are often mediated by chemical modifications of DNA and histone proteins, such as:

DNA Methylation: The addition of methyl groups to DNA, usually at CpG sites, which can repress gene transcription.

Histone Modification: The addition or removal of chemical groups (e.g., acetylation, methylation) on histone proteins that affect chromatin structure and gene expression.

Non-coding RNAs: RNA molecules that regulate gene expression at the transcriptional and post-transcriptional levels.

Bioelectric Phenomena as Epigenetic Regulation

Bioelectric signals add another dimension to epigenetic regulation through the following mechanisms:

Membrane Potential and Ion Flows:

Cells maintain electrical gradients across their membranes through the movement of ions (e.g., sodium, potassium, calcium).

These bioelectric signals influence cellular activities such as proliferation, migration, and differentiation by modulating the function of ion channels and transporters.

Control of Gene Expression:

Bioelectric signals can regulate gene expression directly by influencing signal transduction pathways that interact with the genome.

Changes in membrane potential can alter the activity of transcription factors and other gene-regulatory proteins, thereby impacting which genes are turned on or off.

Pattern Formation and Development:

During development, bioelectric signals provide positional information that helps organize cells into tissues and organs.

For example, gradients of electrical potential can guide the formation of structures like limbs and eyes, similar to how morphogen gradients function.

Regeneration and Healing:

Bioelectric cues are crucial for regenerative processes. In organisms capable of significant regeneration (e.g., amphibians), changes in electrical potential are essential for initiating and guiding the regrowth of lost body parts.

Manipulating bioelectric signals has been shown to promote regeneration in models where it typically does not occur, suggesting a profound control over cellular plasticity and fate.

Bioelectric Phenomena vs. Traditional Epigenetic Mechanisms

While traditional epigenetic mechanisms focus on chemical modifications and non-coding RNAs, bioelectric phenomena involve the biophysical properties of cells. However, both mechanisms share the common feature of influencing gene expression and cellular behavior in response to environmental and physiological signals.

Integration with Mainstream Epigenetics

Synergy with Chemical Modifications:

Bioelectric states can interact with traditional epigenetic modifications. For instance, changes in membrane potential might influence the activity of enzymes involved in DNA methylation or histone modification.

Complex Regulatory Networks:

Cells integrate bioelectric signals with other signaling pathways to orchestrate complex developmental processes. This integrated view highlights the multi-layered nature of epigenetic regulation.

Research and Therapeutic Potential:

Understanding bioelectric regulation opens new avenues for medical therapies, such as regenerative medicine and cancer treatment, by targeting the bioelectric properties of cells to alter their behavior. In summary, bioelectric phenomena constitute a novel form of epigenetic regulation that operates through biophysical mechanisms rather than purely biochemical ones. This expands the definition of epigenetics to include electrical signaling as a key regulatory layer, providing a more comprehensive understanding of how cellular and developmental processes are controlled.

In what sense is DNA less important than is commonly thought because of these new scientific findings? In what sense is DNA still indispensible?

The emerging scientific findings from Michael Levin and others on bioelectric signaling and epigenetic regulation have nuanced the traditional view of DNA's role in biology. Here's a breakdown of how these findings reshape our understanding of DNA's importance and indispensability:

DNA's Relative Importance: New Perspectives

Regulation Beyond the Genetic Code:

Bioelectric Signals: Research shows that bioelectric signals play a crucial role in regulating gene expression, cell behavior, and tissue patterning. This means that cellular function and organismal development are influenced by bioelectric states in addition to the genetic code.

Epigenetics: Epigenetic mechanisms, such as DNA methylation, histone modification, and non-coding RNAs, also regulate gene expression. These factors can have lasting effects on phenotype without altering the DNA sequence.

Cellular Context and Environmental Influence:

Microenvironment: The cellular microenvironment, including bioelectric fields, mechanical forces, and chemical signals, is critical in determining how genes are expressed and how cells differentiate and organize into tissues.

Plasticity and Adaptation: Cells exhibit a high degree of plasticity, responding dynamically to changes in their environment. This adaptability suggests that DNA is one part of a larger regulatory network.

Pattern Formation and Morphogenesis:

Developmental Processes: Bioelectric signals provide positional information and coordinate the complex interactions required for tissue and organ formation. These processes cannot be fully explained by genetic information alone.

DNA's Indispensability: Core Functions

Genetic Blueprint:

Coding for Proteins: DNA contains the instructions for synthesizing proteins, which are essential for nearly all biological processes. The sequence of nucleotides in DNA determines the amino acid sequence of proteins, which in turn determines their structure and function.

Hereditary Information: DNA is the primary medium of hereditary information. It is passed from generation to generation, ensuring the continuity of genetic traits.

Genomic Stability:

Replication and Repair: DNA's ability to replicate accurately ensures that genetic information is faithfully transmitted during cell division. DNA repair mechanisms maintain genomic integrity, preventing mutations that could lead to disease.

Regulation and Evolution:

Genetic Variation: Variations in DNA sequences (mutations) are the raw material for evolution. These genetic changes can lead to new traits that may be subject to natural selection.

Gene Regulatory Networks: While bioelectric and epigenetic factors influence gene expression, the underlying regulatory networks are encoded in the DNA. This includes promoters, enhancers, and other regulatory elements that control when and where genes are active.

Balancing Perspectives

Integration of Regulatory Mechanisms:

Multilayered Regulation: DNA, bioelectric signals, and epigenetic modifications represent different layers of regulation that work together to control biological processes. Understanding this integrated network is crucial for a complete picture of cellular and organismal function.

Research and Therapeutic Implications:

Holistic Approaches: Recognizing the importance of bioelectric and epigenetic factors does not diminish the role of DNA but rather highlights the complexity of biological regulation. This integrated understanding can lead to new therapeutic approaches that target multiple regulatory layers.

Emerging Fields:

Systems Biology: The field of systems biology, which aims to understand complex interactions within biological systems, exemplifies this integrated approach. By considering genetic, epigenetic, and bioelectric factors, scientists can better understand and manipulate biological systems.

Conclusion

DNA's Relative Importance:

The traditional view of DNA as the sole determinant of biological function is being expanded to include bioelectric and epigenetic regulation. These new findings highlight the importance of cellular context, environmental influence, and non-genetic factors in development and disease.

DNA's Indispensability:

Despite these new perspectives, DNA remains indispensable as the primary genetic blueprint, the medium of hereditary information, and the foundation of gene regulatory networks. Its role in coding for proteins and maintaining genomic stability is fundamental to life. In summary, while DNA is less singularly deterministic than once thought, it remains a crucial component of the complex regulatory networks that govern life. The integration of bioelectric and epigenetic factors with genetic information provides a more comprehensive understanding of biology.

How does Michael Levin's work on the bioelectric network differ from Rupert Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields?

Michael Levin's work on the bioelectric network and Rupert Sheldrake's concept of morphogenetic fields both address how complex biological forms and patterns develop, but they differ significantly in their foundational principles, mechanisms, and scientific reception.

Michael Levin's Bioelectric Network

Foundational Principles and Mechanisms:

Bioelectric Signals: Levin's work focuses on the role of bioelectric signals in cell communication and pattern formation. Cells in a tissue communicate through electrical potentials across their membranes, creating bioelectric fields that guide development and regeneration.

Mechanistic Approach: Levin's approach is grounded in biophysics and cellular biology. He explores how ion channels, pumps, and electrical synapses contribute to the bioelectric state of cells, which in turn influences gene expression and cellular behavior.

Experimental Evidence: Levin's research is supported by extensive experimental data. His lab uses techniques such as voltage-sensitive dyes, genetic manipulation, and computational modeling to study how bioelectric signals control processes like regeneration, embryogenesis, and tumor formation.

Scientific Reception:

Integration with Mainstream Science: Levin's work is generally well-received within the scientific community as it builds on established principles of electrophysiology and cellular biology. His findings are published in peer-reviewed journals and are subject to rigorous experimental validation.

Rupert Sheldrake's Morphogenetic Fields

Foundational Principles and Mechanisms:

Morphogenetic Fields: Sheldrake proposes that biological forms and behaviors are shaped by morphogenetic fields, which are non-material fields that carry information and influence the development of organisms.

Theory of Morphic Resonance: Sheldrake's theory suggests that these fields are influenced by past forms and patterns, proposing a sort of collective memory that guides development. Morphic resonance posits that similar forms resonate with and reinforce each other across space and time.

Lack of Mechanistic Detail: Unlike Levin's bioelectric signals, morphogenetic fields are not tied to specific physical mechanisms. The theory remains largely qualitative and lacks detailed biological or physical explanations.

Scientific Reception:

Skepticism and Controversy: Sheldrake's ideas are highly controversial and not widely accepted within the scientific community. Critics argue that morphogenetic fields lack empirical support and mechanistic explanation, placing the theory outside the bounds of conventional science. Interdisciplinary Interest: Despite skepticism, Sheldrake's ideas have garnered interest in fields such as parapsychology and alternative medicine, where traditional scientific paradigms are often challenged.

Key Differences

Mechanistic Basis:

Levin's bioelectric network is grounded in well-established biophysical mechanisms involving ion channels and electrical gradients.

Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields propose a novel and unquantified form of influence that lacks a clear physical basis.

Empirical Support:

Levin's theories are supported by experimental evidence and reproducible results.

Sheldrake's theories are largely speculative and have not been empirically validated in the same rigorous manner.

Scientific Acceptance:

Levin's work is integrated into mainstream developmental biology and regenerative medicine.

Sheldrake's work is largely marginalized and considered pseudoscientific by many in the scientific community.

Approach to Biological Form:

Levin focuses on how bioelectric signals within organisms influence development at a cellular level.

Sheldrake suggests an overarching influence from past forms through morphogenetic fields, which affects development in a holistic manner.

In summary, while both Levin and Sheldrake aim to explain the complex processes behind biological development and pattern formation, Levin's bioelectric network is rooted in experimentally validated biophysical processes, whereas Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields propose a more speculative and less empirically grounded framework.

How does Sheldrake's concept of morphogenesis through resonance differ from the conventional scientific understanding of that complex process?

Rupert Sheldrake's concept of morphogenesis through resonance, which he calls "morphic resonance," differs significantly from the conventional scientific understanding of morphogenesis. Here's a detailed comparison:

Sheldrake's Concept of Morphic Resonance

Foundational Principles:

Morphic Fields: Sheldrake proposes the existence of morphic fields, which are non-material, organizing fields that shape the development of organisms and guide the formation of biological structures.

Morphic Resonance: According to Sheldrake, morphic resonance is a process through which patterns and structures are influenced by the "memory" of similar patterns and structures from the past. This means that once a particular form or behavior has occurred, it influences subsequent occurrences of similar forms or behaviors in a non-local manner.

Key Features:

Collective Memory: Sheldrake suggests that all natural systems inherit a collective memory from previous similar systems. This is not stored in genetic material but rather in the morphic fields.

Non-Locality: Morphic fields and resonance operate beyond conventional spatial and temporal constraints, implying that they are not bound by the same laws as physical fields.

No Mechanistic Basis: Sheldrake's theory does not provide a mechanistic explanation based on known physical or chemical interactions. Instead, it posits a new kind of influence that operates in addition to genetic and environmental factors.

Conventional Scientific Understanding of Morphogenesis

Foundational Principles:

Genetic Blueprint: Conventional science understands morphogenesis primarily through the information encoded in the genome. Genes contain instructions for producing proteins, which in turn regulate cellular processes and development.

Epigenetics: Beyond the genetic code, epigenetic mechanisms such as DNA methylation, histone modification, and non-coding RNAs play crucial roles in regulating gene expression during development.

Cell Signaling: Morphogenesis is driven by complex cell signaling pathways that include biochemical gradients (morphogens), mechanical forces, and bioelectric signals. Cells communicate with each other and respond to their environment, which guides their differentiation and organization into tissues and organs.

Developmental Biology: Key processes in conventional morphogenesis include cellular proliferation, differentiation, migration, and apoptosis, all of which are regulated by genetic and epigenetic factors, and cell-cell interactions.

Key Features:

Mechanistic Explanations: Conventional morphogenesis relies on detailed mechanistic explanations. For example, the role of the Hox gene family in patterning the body axis, or the influence of morphogen gradients in tissue development.

Experimental Validation: The principles of conventional morphogenesis are grounded in extensive experimental research, including molecular biology, genetics, biophysics, and developmental biology.

Local Interactions: Conventional models of morphogenesis operate through local interactions and well-understood physical laws. Signals such as chemical gradients or electrical fields influence cells directly through identifiable mechanisms.

Key Differences

Mechanistic Basis:

Sheldrake: Proposes a novel, non-mechanistic influence through morphic fields and morphic resonance, without detailing the physical or chemical processes involved.

Conventional Science: Explains morphogenesis through well-characterized genetic, epigenetic, and biochemical mechanisms.

Empirical Evidence:

Sheldrake: Lacks empirical support and rigorous experimental validation. The hypothesis is largely speculative and remains outside mainstream scientific acceptance.

Conventional Science: Supported by extensive empirical evidence from experiments in genetics, molecular biology, and developmental biology.

Nature of Influence:

Sheldrake: Suggests a non-local influence that transcends spatial and temporal boundaries, akin to a collective memory.

Conventional Science: Relies on local interactions and signaling mechanisms that operate within the physical constraints of space and time.

Scientific Reception:

Sheldrake: Considered controversial and often regarded as pseudoscientific by the mainstream scientific community due to the lack of testable predictions and empirical support.

Conventional Science: Widely accepted and continuously refined based on experimental data and theoretical advancements.

Conclusion

Sheldrake's concept of morphogenesis through morphic resonance introduces an idea of non-local, collective memory influencing biological development, which stands in stark contrast to the conventional, mechanistic understanding of morphogenesis. While Sheldrake's theories offer an intriguing alternative perspective, they lack the empirical foundation and mechanistic detail that underpin conventional scientific explanations. Conventional morphogenesis, grounded in genetics, epigenetics, and cell signaling, remains the dominant and widely accepted framework due to its robust experimental support and detailed mechanistic insights.

Sheldrake has often argued that, since every cell contains a complete genome, morphological changes can't be caused by it and has to come from "somewhere else", i.e. his morphogenetic fields. What doesn't hold up scientifically in this line of reasoning?

Rupert Sheldrake's argument that morphological changes can't be caused by the genome alone, given that every cell contains a complete genome, suggests that an external factor like his proposed morphogenetic fields must be responsible. However, this line of reasoning doesn't hold up scientifically for several reasons:

Misunderstanding of Genetic Regulation

Regulatory Networks:

Gene Expression: While every cell contains the same genome, gene expression is highly regulated and varies between different cell types. Specific genes are turned on or off depending on the cell's type, location, and stage of development, driven by a complex network of regulatory elements and signaling pathways.

Transcription Factors: Proteins called transcription factors bind to DNA at specific sites, controlling the expression of genes in a cell-specific manner. These factors are influenced by intracellular and extracellular signals, enabling cells to respond dynamically to their environment.

Epigenetic Modifications:

DNA Methylation and Histone Modification: These chemical modifications to DNA and histones can stably alter gene expression without changing the DNA sequence. Epigenetic changes play a crucial role in cellular differentiation and development, explaining how cells with identical genomes can develop into diverse cell types.

Non-Coding RNAs:

Regulation by RNAs: Non-coding RNAs, such as microRNAs and long non-coding RNAs, regulate gene expression post-transcriptionally. These molecules contribute to the spatial and temporal control of gene activity, adding another layer of complexity to how the genome directs development.

Comprehensive Understanding of Development

Morphogen Gradients:

Pattern Formation: Morphogens are signaling molecules that form gradients and provide positional information to cells, guiding them to adopt specific fates. These gradients are well-characterized in developmental biology and explain how spatial patterns emerge in tissues.

Cell-Cell Communication:

Signaling Pathways: Cells communicate through various signaling pathways (e.g., Notch, Wnt, Hedgehog), which coordinate their behaviors during development. This intercellular communication is crucial for forming organized structures and ensuring proper tissue and organ development.

Mechanical and Bioelectric Cues:

Mechanotransduction: Mechanical forces and cell shape changes influence gene expression and cellular behavior. Mechanotransduction pathways convert these physical signals into biochemical responses.

Bioelectric Signals: Bioelectric gradients across cell membranes also contribute to cell communication and pattern formation. These bioelectric signals integrate with genetic and biochemical signals to guide development.

Scientific Evidence and Mechanistic Insights

Experimental Validation:

Genetic and Molecular Evidence: Extensive experimental research supports the role of genetic, epigenetic, and signaling mechanisms in development. Techniques such as gene knockout/knock-in, CRISPR editing, and live imaging of developing embryos provide direct evidence of how specific genes and pathways control morphogenesis.

Developmental Models: Model organisms (e.g., fruit flies, zebrafish, mice) have been instrumental in elucidating the genetic and molecular basis of development. These studies consistently demonstrate the sufficiency of genetic and biochemical mechanisms in driving morphological changes.

Reproducibility and Predictability:

Consistent Outcomes: Genetic and epigenetic mechanisms lead to reproducible and predictable developmental outcomes. Perturbations in these pathways produce consistent and explainable phenotypic changes, reinforcing the idea that they are the primary drivers of morphogenesis.

Conclusion

Sheldrake's argument that morphological changes can't be caused by the genome because every cell contains a complete genome overlooks the complexity of genetic regulation and cellular communication. The following points highlight the scientific shortcomings of his reasoning:

Misunderstanding of Gene Regulation: Cells use complex regulatory networks, epigenetic modifications, and non-coding RNAs to control gene expression in a highly specific manner.

Comprehensive Developmental Mechanisms: Well-characterized mechanisms, including morphogen gradients, cell-cell communication, and bioelectric signals, explain how cells with the same genome can develop into different structures.

Strong Experimental Evidence: Extensive research supports the role of genetic and molecular mechanisms in development, providing reproducible and predictable results.

In contrast, Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields lack empirical support and do not provide mechanistic details consistent with observed biological processes. Conventional scientific understanding, based on genetics and cell biology, remains robust and well-supported by evidence.

If electrical fields govern (parts of) biological processes, what governs these electrical fields? How do we avoid an infinite regess?

To understand how bioelectric fields govern biological processes without falling into an infinite regress, it's important to look at the hierarchical and integrated nature of biological regulation. Here's a simplified explanation of how these fields are generated, maintained, and regulated:

Generation and Maintenance of Bioelectric Fields

Ion Channels and Pumps:

Basic Components: The primary drivers of bioelectric fields are ion channels and pumps in cell membranes. These proteins control the movement of ions (like sodium, potassium, and calcium) in and out of cells.

Resting Membrane Potential: By actively transporting ions, cells establish a difference in charge across their membranes, known as the resting membrane potential. This electrical potential is crucial for many cellular functions.

Cellular Signaling:

Signal Transmission: Cells communicate using electrical signals, especially in nerve and muscle cells. This communication involves changes in membrane potential that propagate as action potentials.

Modulation by Ligands: Ion channels and pumps are often regulated by ligands (molecules that bind to receptors), such as neurotransmitters and hormones, which can open or close these channels.

Tissue-Level Coordination:

Electrical Syncytium: In some tissues, like the heart, cells are electrically coupled through gap junctions, allowing them to function as a coordinated unit. This ensures synchronized contractions and other coordinated activities.

Regulation of Bioelectric Fields

Genetic and Epigenetic Controls:

Gene Expression: The expression of ion channel and pump genes is regulated by genetic and epigenetic factors. Transcription factors, microRNAs, and other regulatory molecules influence which channels are produced and in what quantities.

Epigenetic Modifications: DNA methylation and histone modifications can alter the expression patterns of these genes, responding to environmental cues and cellular needs.

Feedback Mechanisms:

Homeostasis: Cells and tissues maintain bioelectric homeostasis through feedback mechanisms. If the membrane potential deviates from the norm, cells can adjust ion channel activity or ion pump function to restore balance.

Signal Integration: Cells integrate multiple signals, including bioelectric, chemical, and mechanical cues, to make coordinated decisions about growth, differentiation, and function.

Environmental Interactions:

External Stimuli: External factors such as electrical fields, mechanical stress, and chemical signals from other cells or the environment can influence bioelectric states.

Adaptive Responses: Cells can adapt their bioelectric properties in response to changing conditions, ensuring appropriate responses to developmental and environmental changes.

Avoiding Infinite Regress

Hierarchical Organization:

Multiple Levels of Regulation: Bioelectric fields are part of a broader regulatory network that includes genetic, epigenetic, biochemical, and environmental factors. This multi-layered control system ensures that bioelectric fields are both influenced by and influencing other regulatory processes.

Emergent Properties: Biological systems exhibit emergent properties where complex behaviors arise from the interactions of simpler components. Bioelectric fields are one such emergent property, resulting from the coordinated activity of ion channels, pumps, and cell signaling pathways.

Causal Loops:

Feedback Loops: Biological regulation often involves causal loops where the output of one process feeds back to influence the input. These loops prevent infinite regress by providing a closed, self-regulating system. For example, bioelectric signals can affect gene expression, which in turn can alter the production of ion channels that maintain the bioelectric state.

Integration with Developmental Programs:

Programmed Responses: Developmental processes are guided by genetic programs that specify how cells should behave in different contexts. These programs integrate bioelectric signals as part of the overall regulatory framework, ensuring coordinated development and differentiation without the need for an external, infinite cause.

Conclusion

Bioelectric fields are governed by a complex interplay of genetic, epigenetic, biochemical, and environmental factors, integrated into hierarchical and self-regulating systems. This multi-layered approach avoids infinite regress by ensuring that bioelectric phenomena are both influenced by and contributing to broader regulatory networks. Understanding these interactions provides a comprehensive view of how bioelectric signals guide development, regeneration, and cellular function.

Further Reading

Kasra, "A Revolution in Biology, how developmental biology might contain the secrets to life, intelligence, and immortality", www.bitsofwonder.co, June 8, 2024

Frank Visser, "Sheldrake Revisited, More on Sounds, Fields and the Origin of Form", June 2019

Frank Visser, "'Science Has No Answer', Ken Wilber's Mistaken Strategy of Belittling Science", April 2016

Frank Visser, "Rupert Sheldrake and the Evo-Devo Revolution", December 2013

Rupert Sheldrake, "Morphogenetic Fields, Reply to Frank Visser", December 2013

Frank Visser, "Tadpoles in Trouble: Ken Wilber on Regeneration", November 2013

Further Viewing

Levin on Sheldrake

While looking for other online comparisons between Levin and Sheldrake I found this surprisingly open-minded comment on Levin's WordPress blog "Forms of life, forms of mind" (March 8, 2024):

Q: What about Rupert Sheldrake's work? Doesn't your work on bioelectrics prove him right?

A: I know Rupert; I think he's interesting, and his hypothesis—which to me sounds like "Hebbian learning in the mind of the universal mind"—is also interesting. I am glad that Rupert is out there producing these ideas and thinking about experiments that could support what in effect would be a revision of materialist physics as we know it. I've read most of his books, especially the earlier ones and am glad I did. Do I need his hypothesis to explain anything we've done in the lab? For now the answer is no, which is why I haven't gotten involved in any public discussions about his ideas. I have nothing significant to add to what he's already (eloquently) said, as our work neither requires his proposed effects nor sheds light on how it might work. I have a specific research path which keeps me very busy, and no unconventional physics is necessary for it, so there's no useful reason for me to get involved in this topic right now. At one point, on a podcast, someone said that I don't talk about his work because I'm afraid of being labeled a heretic. That's not it; that ship has sailed, and I'm fine being a heretic on things I have new, strong backing for. There are also a thousand other topics I find interesting but not needed for what I am trying to develop and I don't have the time to get deep into all the other controversies. I am glad Rupert's ideas are out there; at some point they may connect in a strong way to what we're doing, and if they do, I will have no problem diving in. For now, it hasn't been necessary and no helpful connection between our results and his idea has come forth yet.

Sheldrake on Levin

When I asked Rupert Sheldrake for a response to this article, he swiftly replied (June 12, 2024):

Dear Frank,

Thanks for this. It's an interesting and well-informed response from ChatGPT. I myself think that the bio electric fields are the interface between morphogenetic fields and a developing organism and that bio electricity itself could not initiate or create the forms. And I think a lot of Levin's work would be illuminated by morphic resonance, including the ability of decapitated flatworms to remember what they had learned after they regenerated a new head. But, as he explains, there's no need for him to get involved in unnecessary controversies at this stage.

Best wishes
Rupert