The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature [Kindle Edition]

I am sympathetic to Sheldrake's startling if somewhat vague theory of morphic fields. However, if (like me) you have read other books of his such as the one that started it all off, A New Science of Life, you might find this one a bit familiar, repetitive and maybe dull.

It doesn't feel like there's a whole lot of new material here. Rather, each section follows a rather predictable pattern: Sheldrake describes some scientific phenomenon that is currently not well understood, such as how memories are stored in the brain or how flocks of birds are so well co-ordinated. He then gives the rather vague standard scientific explanation and points out its weaknesses, e.g. that there is little evidence to support it (though also usually little to rule it out either).

Then a sentence appears such as 'However, according to the hypothesis of formative causation...' followed by Sheldrake's routine explanation of the phenomenon in terms of morphic fields. This explanation is so vague - not much more than saying there are 'morphic fields' from other similar organisms in the past guiding the phenomenon so that it all works as described - as to be no more satisfactory than the standard scientific explanation. In fact a friend pointed out to me that the morphic field explanation often seems little more than a restatement of the problem: 'the reason it behaves as it does is there is some special thing [labelled a morphic field] which makes it behave like that'.

Sheldrake also often backs up his theory by quoting some curious long-forgotten early 20th century research into or theorizing about the topic (and I wonder how much credibility scientific literature of that vintage can have).

That's not to say there isn't something to Sheldrake's theory; but it's a very vague theory, and this book doesn't make it more convincing. What is needed is experimental evidence for it; a few possible experiments are outlined here, but they haven't been carried out. More interesting from this viewpoint are his other books "7 experiments that could change the world" and particularly "Dogs that know when their owners are coming home", which provides quite convincing evidence of animal telepathy, though whether this has anything to do with morphic fields is an open question.

So my verdict: read his other books in preference, particularly if you're new to Sheldrake's theories.

Although quite dry Sheldrake's scholarly book proposes the important idea that a vast information field underlies all reality, from crystals through to complex life forms. These fields are often nested i.e. a complex organism such as the human body would have a multiplicity of fields sitting as it were one inside the other. Not only do these fields pre-exist, perhaps in the sense of archetypes, but new forms of activity create new fields and also changes in activity update the fields. These fields might also be considered as the 'habits' of nature.
Sheldrake also examines ideas from history which support his idea of morphogenesis.
In my view the book is a must read for those who wish to understand different and non-mechanistic approaches to the problem of evolution and the development of consciousness.

I had a familiarity with Sheldrake's ideas prior to reading Presence of the Past, gained in the main through his and other websites. I'd also read 'Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home' which I have to say I didn't really enjoy. Sheldrake ideas are fascinating but I found 'Dogs' somewhat repetitive and whilst some of the stories are interesting they served to illustrate the constraints of a mechanistic understanding of phenomena rather than to elucidate Sheldrake's theories. The same can be said for 'Presence of the Past', however in terms of the depth of coverage and the explanation of ideas it is far superior.

I find Sheldrake's writing a little variable. For example, his discussion of the philosophy of science is very well written. He clearly explains complex ideas and shows their limitations without being dismissive. The weakness in his writing comes when he discusses his own theories. He seems to tag them on as an afterthought. I found myself wanting him to put a bit more meat on the bones of his theories and to worry a little less about appearing as an observer who seeks evidence one way or the other to confirm or deny his hypothesis. Personally, I'd prefer him to write with belief rather than detachment.

Having not been hugely positive about the book, I must say I do have a great admiration for Sheldrake. This is partly why I've given 4 stars. The main reason for the score though, is that despite its flaws the book does point towards a new way of understanding reality. That's no small thing. I have the Science Delusion sitting on my shelf and will read that shortly, but I expect that to really get tune into Sheldrake's morphic field I'm going to have to read 'A New Science of Life'.