Xref: utzoo sci.skeptic:3837 sci.physics:13129 sci.bio:3107
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!umich!umeecs!msi-s0.msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!alwin
From: alwin@cs.umn.edu ('Gonzo Bob' Alwin)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Question about Rupert Sheldrake
Message-ID: <1990Jun1.173327.5762@cs.umn.edu>
Date: 1 Jun 90 17:33:27 GMT
References: <697@netmbx.UUCP> <30291@cup.portal.com> <1990Jun1.051632.5542@tc.fluke.COM>
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis - CSCI Dept.
Lines: 15

In article <1990Jun1.051632.5542@tc.fluke.COM> inc@tc.fluke.COM (Gary Benson) writes:
>In article <30291@cup.portal.com> Murray_R_Pearce@cup.portal.com writes:
>> appeared in The Skeptical Inquirer. Gardner discusses Sheldrake's book
>> A New Science of Life in which "morphogenetic fields" are discussed.
>
>Do tell. I've been trying to learn more about morphogenetic field theory for

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that the theory takes issue
>with the standard explanation for the answers to questions like "why do all
>squirrels look the same when there are so many vast differences in thef
>appearance of humans?"

Perhaps if we interacted with with squirrels as much as we do with
other humans, we would not say that they all look the same.  Recognition
is a skill that is learned.