A Comparative Analysis of Morphic Resonance and Orchestrated Objective Reduction

This is a somewhat complicated comparison that I wanted to explore for an aspect of my research. The Deep Dive podcast insight may help you orientate yourself to the essay’s content! Kevin Parker

Cosmic Consciousness: Are Your Thoughts Tuned to the Universe’s Memory?

Introduction

The enduring challenge in science and philosophy known as the “hard problem” of consciousness—the question of why and how subjective, phenomenal experience, or qualia, arises from physical processes—has resisted conventional explanation.¹, ² The prevalent view that consciousness is an emergent property of complex classical computation among neurons, while capable of explaining non-conscious cognitive functions, has yet to bridge the explanatory gap between objective brain activity and subjective feeling.³ In response to this impasse, several radical, non-standard theories have been proposed, venturing beyond the established paradigms of neuroscience and physics. Among the most profound and controversial of these are the Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) theory, developed by mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff, and the hypothesis of Formative Causation, with its mechanism of Morphic Resonance, proposed by biologist and author Rupert Sheldrake.⁴, ⁵

Orch-OR posits that consciousness is not computational in the classical sense but arises from quantum processes occurring within the microtubules of the brain’s neurons.⁶, ⁷ These processes are proposed to terminate via a specific form of quantum state collapse—Penrose’s Objective Reduction (OR)—which connects conscious moments to the fundamental geometry of the universe.⁸, ⁹ In parallel, Sheldrake’s theory of Morphic Resonance challenges the very notion of fixed laws of nature, proposing instead that the universe operates on habit.¹⁰ It suggests that memory is inherent in nature and is transmitted via non-local “morphic fields,” which guide the formation and behavior of all self-organizing systems, from crystals to conscious beings, through a process of resonance with the past.¹¹, ¹²

Though originating from disparate disciplines—quantum physics and developmental biology, respectively—and employing vastly different conceptual toolkits, both theories offer a vision of consciousness and reality that is fundamentally non-local, information-based, and deeply intertwined with the fabric of the cosmos. This report undertakes a rigorous comparative analysis of their foundational principles, proposed mechanisms, and ontological implications. Its purpose is not merely to describe each theory in isolation, but to conduct a deep, synthetic analysis of their potential intersections, conceptual parallels, and profound divergences. The central inquiry is whether these two speculative frameworks, despite their independent origins and distinct controversies, might be viewed as complementary components of a larger, more comprehensive, albeit highly speculative, model of reality.

To provide a foundational overview, the following table presents a high-level comparison of the two theories, establishing their core identities and contrasts before the detailed analysis that follows.

Table 1: Comparative Overview of Orch-OR and Morphic Resonance

Part I: The Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) Theory: Consciousness in Spacetime Geometry

1.1 Foundational Pillars: Mathematics and Medicine

The Orchestrated Objective Reduction theory is a synthesis of two distinct but complementary lines of inquiry, one originating in the abstract realm of mathematical physics and the other in the concrete domain of clinical anesthesiology. This dual parentage provides the theory with both its profound philosophical grounding and its specific biological hypothesis.

The first pillar is Sir Roger Penrose’s argument concerning the non-computable nature of human consciousness. In his seminal works, The Emperor’s New Mind and Shadows of the Mind, Penrose drew upon Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorems to argue that human understanding, particularly in the realm of mathematics, possesses qualities that cannot be simulated by any algorithmic system or classical computer.¹³, ¹⁴ Gödel proved that any sufficiently powerful and consistent formal system contains true statements that cannot be proven within that system. Penrose contended that human mathematicians can, through insight, perceive the truth of these “Gödel-type” propositions, a feat that would be impossible for a system operating solely on a fixed set of axioms and rules.¹⁵ From this, he concluded that consciousness must involve a non-computable process, a physical action that lies outside the scope of classical physics and algorithmic computation. This established the philosophical necessity for a new kind of physics to explain the mind.

The second pillar was provided by Stuart Hameroff, whose work in anesthesiology led him to investigate the intricate cytoskeletal structures within neurons known as microtubules.¹⁶, ¹⁷ While conventional neuroscience focused on synaptic connections as the basis of computation, Hameroff became convinced that the neuron itself was far too complex to be a simple “integrate-and-fire” switch.¹⁸ He proposed that microtubules—hollow, cylindrical polymers made of the protein tubulin—were the true computational substrate within the neuron.¹⁹, ²⁰ Hameroff modeled microtubules as sophisticated molecular automata, capable of processing information at a density and speed far exceeding that of synaptic networks, potentially reaching 10¹⁵ operations per second per neuron.²¹, ²² This hypothesis provided a specific biological location where Penrose’s proposed non-computable process could physically occur, setting the stage for their collaboration in the mid-1990s.²³

1.2 The Mechanism of Quantum Consciousness

The Orch-OR theory proposes a detailed, multi-stage mechanism by which consciousness arises from quantum physics operating within the brain’s microtubule network. This process can be broken down into three key phases: quantum coherence, orchestration, and objective reduction.

The first phase is the establishment of quantum coherence. The theory posits that tubulin proteins within microtubules can act as quantum bits, or “qubits.” Each tubulin can exist in at least two different conformational states, and through quantum mechanics, can enter a superposition of both states simultaneously.²⁴, ²⁵ These superpositions are not based on electron position in the standard sense, but on the collective dipole oscillations of electron resonance clouds within hydrophobic pockets inside the tubulin proteins, driven by quantum London forces.²⁶, ²⁷ These individual tubulin qubits are proposed to become quantum entangled with their neighbors, forming a large-scale, coherent quantum state that spreads throughout the microtubule lattice.²⁸

The second phase is Orchestration, which gives the “Orch” part of the theory its name. This refers to the process by which classical neuronal activities, primarily the integration of synaptic inputs in the dendrites and soma, influence or “orchestrate” the ongoing quantum computations in the microtubules.²⁹, ³⁰ Connective proteins, such as Microtubule-Associated Proteins (MAPs), are thought to act as intermediaries, modifying the spacetime separation of the superposed tubulin states and thereby “tuning” the quantum system.³¹ This orchestration links the quantum processes to the brain’s conventional neurophysiology, ensuring that the resulting conscious experience is relevant to the organism’s sensory input and cognitive state. The quantum computation evolves according to the Schrödinger equation, exploring multiple potential outcomes simultaneously.³²

The final and most crucial phase is Objective Reduction (OR). This is Penrose’s proposed solution to the quantum measurement problem, offering a new form of wave function collapse. In the standard Copenhagen interpretation, collapse is a random event triggered by observation or measurement. Penrose found this randomness unpalatable as a basis for the precise, non-computable nature of mathematical thought.³³ He proposed instead that for any isolated system in superposition, there is an objective threshold at which it will spontaneously collapse into a single, definite state. This threshold is determined by the degree of spacetime separation between the superposed states—each superposition creates its own tiny “blister” in the geometry of spacetime.³⁴ According to Penrose’s indeterminacy principle, this collapse occurs after a time τ when the gravitational self-energy EG of the separation reaches a critical value, given by the equation τ≈ħ/EG, where ħ is the reduced Planck constant.³⁵ The greater the mass-energy separation (EG), the faster the collapse. Each such OR event, occurring within the orchestrated microtubule network, is hypothesized to constitute a discrete moment of conscious experience, a phenomenal “now” replete with qualia.³⁶, ³⁷ The outcome of this collapse is not random, nor is it algorithmically determined; it is a “non-computable” selection of a specific microtubule state, which then proceeds to influence classical neuronal functions like regulating synaptic plasticity and triggering axonal firing.³⁸

1.3 Ontological Implications: Consciousness and the Fabric of the Universe

The most profound implication of the Orch-OR theory is its radical reframing of the nature of consciousness and its place in the cosmos. It moves consciousness from being a late-stage, emergent property of complex biological systems to a fundamental feature of the universe itself. This represents a significant departure from the dominant scientific view that consciousness arose as a contingent evolutionary adaptation.³⁹ Instead, Orch-OR aligns with a philosophical tradition, notably that of Alfred North Whitehead, which posits that precursors to consciousness have always existed in the universe.⁴⁰

According to this view, the universe is not a mindless, mechanistic system that somehow, through sheer complexity, gives rise to subjective experience. Rather, the very fabric of reality, at the fine-grained Planck scale of spacetime geometry, is imbued with what Hameroff and Penrose term “proto-conscious qualia”—the fundamental ingredients of experience.⁴¹, ⁴² The physical laws governing the universe, specifically the process of Objective Reduction, are not just rules for matter and energy but are also the mechanism by which these proto-conscious elements are selected and actualized into definite conscious moments.⁴³ The brain, therefore, did not invent consciousness; it evolved a mechanism—the microtubule quantum computer—to orchestrate and harness this pre-existing, fundamental property of reality, coupling it to biological processes to create meaningful, cognitive, and causal conscious agents.⁴⁴

This framework attempts to solve the “hard problem” by dissolving it. The question is no longer “How does matter create mind?” but “How does biology access and structure the mind-like properties inherent in the universe?” The answer Orch-OR provides is that each moment of Objective Reduction is not just a physical event but an experiential one, a selection of specific information embedded in the universe’s geometry. Penrose further speculates that this information is Platonic in nature, representing a realm of pure mathematical truth, aesthetic values, and ethical principles.⁴⁵, ⁴⁶ In this audacious vision, a conscious thought is a direct, albeit fleeting, connection between the biomolecular processes in the brain and the basic structure of the universe, a glimpse into an objective reality of truth and beauty.⁴⁷

This reframing of the hard problem as a problem of fundamental physics is arguably the theory’s most significant intellectual contribution. Standard neuroscience seeks to explain consciousness as an emergent product of classical neural computation, but this approach faces the “explanatory gap” of how any computational algorithm, no matter how complex, could generate the subjective feeling of redness or the taste of chocolate.⁴⁸ Penrose circumvents this by arguing that the unique features of consciousness, such as genuine understanding, are non-computable and thus cannot be produced by any classical system.⁴⁹ He therefore seeks a non-computable process in fundamental physics, which he identifies in his proposed Objective Reduction, a process that unites quantum mechanics and general relativity.⁵⁰ By this maneuver, the “hard problem” is no longer about how neurons create qualia, but about how the universe itself gives rise to qualia through a specific physical law (OR). The brain’s role is transformed from that of a generator to that of an amplifier and orchestrator of a fundamental cosmic phenomenon.⁵¹

However, in solving one mystery, the theory arguably introduces another. While Orch-OR is proposed to explain how consciousness arises from matter, the critical step in this process—the non-random, non-computable collapse of the wave function via Objective Reduction—is itself driven by an unexplained influence.⁵² Penrose identifies this influence with Platonic mathematical forms existing in the geometry of spacetime.⁵³, ⁵⁴ Yet, the theory does not provide a mechanism for how spacetime geometry contains these Platonic forms or how these forms causally influence the outcome of an OR event. This is presented as an axiom of the theory. Consequently, Orch-OR does not fully eliminate the mystery of conscious experience; it relocates the “black box” of emergence from the biological brain to the fundamental physics of the Planck scale. This “Platonic black box” represents a crucial conceptual opening, a point of entry where a potential synthesis with other informational theories of consciousness might be possible.

1.4 Critical Assessment and Empirical Status

Since its inception, the Orch-OR theory has been met with intense skepticism and significant criticism from physicists, neuroscientists, and philosophers. The critiques concentrate on several key areas, challenging the theory’s plausibility from both physical and biological standpoints.

The most persistent and damaging criticism is the decoherence argument. Quantum states are notoriously fragile and are easily destroyed by thermal interactions with their environment, a process known as decoherence. Critics, most notably physicist Max Tegmark, have argued that the brain is far too “warm, wet, and noisy” to sustain the delicate quantum coherence required by Orch-OR for the timescales relevant to neural processing.⁵⁵, ⁵⁶ Tegmark’s calculations suggested that any quantum superposition in microtubules would decohere in a matter of femtoseconds (10⁻¹⁵ s), orders of magnitude too short for the 25 milliseconds (ms) Hameroff and Penrose propose for conscious events (corresponding to 40 Hz gamma synchrony EEG).⁵⁷ Although Hameroff and colleagues have offered rebuttals, proposing various shielding mechanisms such as ordered water, actin gels, Debye layer screening, and even topological quantum error correction, these proposals remain largely speculative and lack direct empirical support.⁵⁸, ⁵⁹ More recent critiques have also questioned the very possibility of the required quantum phenomena in microtubules, noting the lack of evidence for the proposed condensates and highlighting the quenching effect of essential proteins like ferritin, which were excluded from some supportive experiments.⁶⁰

A second major line of criticism targets the theory’s philosophical foundation: the Penrose-Lucas argument based on Gödel’s theorem. Many mathematicians, computer scientists, and philosophers reject the argument’s validity.⁶¹, ⁶² Critics like Marvin Minsky have argued that human mathematical understanding need not be consistent, as humans are capable of believing false ideas, meaning consciousness could still have a deterministic, computational basis.⁶³ The consensus in these fields is that the Gödelian argument fails to prove that the human mind is non-algorithmic.

From a neuroscientific perspective, the theory has been criticized for a lack of detailed explanation for key neural phenomena, such as the probabilistic release of neurotransmitters, and for initial errors in calculations regarding the number of tubulin dimers per neuron.⁶⁴ While Penrose and Hameroff have published revisions addressing some of these points, the core hypothesis remains contentious within the neuroscience community.

Empirically, the theory remains in a speculative state. While proponents point to indirect evidence, such as the quantum effects of certain anesthetics on microtubules and observations of quantum coherence in biological photosynthesis, these do not constitute direct proof of the core tenets of Orch-OR.⁶⁵, ⁶⁶ No experiment has yet demonstrated quantum computation or objective reduction occurring in microtubules within a living brain. Despite these substantial challenges, even critics acknowledge that Orch-OR has spurred valuable interdisciplinary dialogue and has opened new conceptual space for the field of experimental quantum neurobiology.⁶⁷ Whether it is ultimately validated or falsified, its exploration forces a deeper questioning of the fundamental relationship between consciousness, biology, and the nature of physical reality.

Part II: The Hypothesis of Formative Causation and Morphic Resonance: A Universe of Habit

2.1 Foundational Pillars: Biology and Philosophy

Rupert Sheldrake’s hypothesis of formative causation, and its central mechanism of Morphic Resonance, arises from a deep dissatisfaction with the explanatory limits of conventional biology and a radical philosophical re-evaluation of the nature of scientific laws. Its foundations are thus rooted in both empirical biological puzzles and a profound critique of metaphysical assumptions that have underpinned science since the 17th century.

The biological pillar of the theory stems from the problem of morphogenesis—the process by which an organism develops its shape and form.⁶⁸ Sheldrake, a developmental biologist by training, argues that genetics and molecular biology, while immensely powerful, are fundamentally incomplete. Genes, he contends, code for the sequence of amino acids in proteins, but they do not, by themselves, explain how these proteins and the cells they constitute are organized into the complex, three-dimensional structures of a hand, a leaf, or a wing.⁶⁹, ⁷⁰ The “genetic program” is a powerful metaphor, but it fails to specify the spatial organization of the organism. To address this explanatory gap, Sheldrake revives and reinterprets the concept of the “morphogenetic field,” an idea first proposed by biologists in the 1920s. He posits that these fields are not merely descriptive concepts but are causal, acting as invisible blueprints or organizing principles that shape developing organisms.⁷¹ This establishes the empirical need for a new type of causation in biology.

The philosophical pillar is a direct challenge to the Platonic-Pythagorean worldview that has dominated Western science, which holds that nature is governed by eternal, immutable, omnipresent laws.⁷², ⁷³ Sheldrake argues that this concept of timeless laws is a hangover from a pre-evolutionary cosmology. In a universe that is itself evolving since the Big Bang, he asks, why should its laws be exempt from evolution?⁷⁴ He proposes a radical alternative: that the regularities of nature are not governed by transcendent laws but are more akin to habits.⁷⁵ The universe, in this view, has a memory. Its patterns of organization become more probable the more often they are repeated. This shift from “laws” to “habits” replaces a static, metaphysical framework with a dynamic, historical, and immanent one, where the universe learns and evolves its own patterns of order over time.

2.2 The Mechanism of Natural Memory

To explain how this cosmic habituation occurs, Sheldrake proposes a new causal mechanism involving two core concepts: morphic fields and morphic resonance.

Morphic Fields are the posited blueprints for form and behavior. Sheldrake extends the concept of the morphogenetic field beyond biology to all self-organizing systems.⁷⁶ Thus, there are morphic fields for atoms, crystals, molecules, cells, tissues, organisms, and even societies and cultures.⁷⁷ These fields are not fields of energy in the conventional physical sense; they are non-energetic fields of information that impose pattern on the systems under their influence.⁷⁸ They are described as probabilistic structures that work by restricting the inherent indeterminism of physical and biological processes, guiding them towards specific outcomes.⁷⁹ In the language of dynamical systems theory, these outcomes are “attractors,” and the pathways by which systems are drawn towards them are “chreodes.”⁸⁰ A morphic field for an oak tree, for example, contains the information for the characteristic form of an oak, guiding the growth of an acorn toward that end-state.

The mechanism for the transmission and accumulation of this information is Morphic Resonance. This is the process by which a given self-organizing system is influenced by all previous similar systems.⁸¹ This influence is proposed to occur non-locally, across both space and time, based on similarity of pattern or form.⁸² The more similar a developing system is to past systems, the more strongly it “tunes in” to their collective influence. For example, a rat learning a new trick in a laboratory in London is hypothesized to make it easier for other rats of the same breed to learn the same trick anywhere else in the world, because its learning contributes to the collective morphic field for that species.⁸³ This process creates a cumulative, pooled memory for each “kind” of thing, from a quartz crystal to a human being. The more often a pattern is repeated—a chemical crystallized, a behavior learned—the stronger its “habit” becomes, and the more probable its recurrence in the future.⁸⁴

While long criticized for its lack of a precise mathematical basis, recent theoretical work has attempted to formalize Sheldrake’s hypothesis. One such approach models the morphic field, Φ(x, t), using the language of classical and quantum field theory.⁸⁵ In this formulation, the field’s evolution is described by a differential equation where its state at a given point in spacetime is influenced not only by local factors but by a non-local integral term. This term contains a “memory kernel,” K, which mathematically represents the process of morphic resonance by encoding the influence of past and distant states on the present system.⁸⁶, ⁸⁷ This work aims to bridge the gap between Sheldrake’s conceptual hypothesis and a testable, mathematical model.

2.3 Ontological Implications: Memory, Mind, and a Living Universe

The implications of the morphic resonance hypothesis are profound, fundamentally altering our understanding of memory, mind, and the nature of life itself. Its most radical claim is that memory is not stored as material traces within the brain.⁸⁸ This directly contradicts the mainstream neuroscientific view that memories are encoded in synaptic changes and neural networks.⁸⁹ Instead, Sheldrake proposes that the brain functions more like a television receiver than a video recorder.⁹⁰ It does not store the information of past experiences but acts as a “tuning system.” Through a process of self-resonance with its own past states, the brain tunes into the vast repository of its own memories, which are maintained by the morphic field.⁹¹

This concept extends beyond individual memory to collective and instinctual behavior. Instinct, in this view, is not a “genetic program” for behavior but is the species’ collective memory, inherited by each individual through morphic resonance with the countless ancestors of its kind.⁹² This provides a framework for understanding phenomena that have long puzzled biologists, such as the intricate behaviors of social insects or the navigational abilities of migratory birds. Sheldrake explicitly connects this idea to the psychologist C.G. Jung’s concept of the “collective unconscious,” suggesting that the archetypes and shared psychic information Jung described are aspects of the human species’ morphic field, accessible to all individuals.⁹³

Furthermore, the theory posits that the mind itself is not confined to the physical brain. Just as a magnetic field extends beyond the surface of a magnet, the morphic fields of mental activity are proposed to extend beyond the skull through the processes of attention and intention.⁹⁴ This “extended mind” provides a theoretical basis for explaining phenomena that are typically relegated to the domain of parapsychology, such as telepathy and the sense of being stared at.⁹⁵ Telepathy, for instance, is reconceptualized not as a “paranormal” power but as a normal, natural form of communication mediated by the morphic fields that connect members of a social group, particularly those with strong emotional bonds.⁹⁶

This perspective redefines the role of the brain in a manner that is critical for comparison with other theories of consciousness. Conventional neuroscience, and even a quantum theory like Orch-OR, largely operates within an “encephalic” paradigm, where consciousness and memory are generated and stored within the brain’s physical structure. Sheldrake’s hypothesis is radically non-encephalic. If memory, form, and instinct are not located in the brain, then the brain’s primary function must be re-evaluated. It becomes a transceiver—a complex physical system whose function is to access, process, and contribute to non-local, immaterial fields of information. This “brain as transceiver” model is a powerful, unifying concept within Sheldrake’s work and is a key feature shared with broader post-materialist science paradigms, which also propose that the brain acts as a filter or receiver for a more fundamental consciousness.⁹⁷, ⁹⁸ This functional redefinition of the brain—from generator to tuner—is the most important conceptual parallel to seek when attempting a synthesis with a mechanistic theory like Orch-OR.

2.4 Critical Assessment and Empirical Status

The hypothesis of morphic resonance is one of the most controversial ideas in modern science, and it has been subject to intense and sustained criticism since its introduction. The majority of the mainstream scientific community rejects the theory, with critiques spanning its scientific validity, methodological rigor, and philosophical underpinnings.

The most frequent charge is that the theory is pseudoscience or “magical thinking.”⁹⁹, ¹⁰⁰ Critics argue that it lacks sufficient evidence and is inconsistent with well-established data from genetics, embryology, and neuroscience.¹⁰¹, ¹⁰² The idea of inheriting acquired characteristics via a non-material field, for example, appears to contradict the central dogma of molecular biology and the modern evolutionary synthesis. Neuroscientists point to what they consider “massive evidence” that memories are, in fact, stored through physical and chemical changes in the brain, directly opposing Sheldrake’s non-local memory model.¹⁰³

Another significant criticism is that the theory is unfalsifiable and overly vague. Some critics contend that the concept of a morphic field is so formless that it can be invoked to explain almost any phenomenon, making it impossible to disprove in the Popperian sense of the word.¹⁰⁴ Sheldrake counters this by proposing specific, testable predictions. For example, he predicts that as more people complete a new type of IQ test, the average scores should rise globally due to morphic resonance, or that new chemical compounds should become progressively easier to crystallize all over the world after the first crystallization establishes a new morphic field.¹⁰⁵, ¹⁰⁶ However, critics often dismiss the experiments Sheldrake has conducted as being poorly designed, subject to experimenter bias, or having more conventional alternative explanations, such as the spread of microscopic “seed” crystals in the air or subtle changes in experimental technique.¹⁰⁷

Perhaps the most fundamental weakness of the theory from a physicist’s perspective is its lack of a known mechanism. Morphic resonance proposes a new form of causation—an influence that travels non-locally across space and time—without identifying a physical medium, a carrier particle, or an energetic basis for this transmission.¹⁰⁸ While Sheldrake suggests it may be related to quantum non-locality, the connection remains analogical rather than mechanistic. This stands in stark contrast to theories like Orch-OR, which, for all its speculative elements, is grounded in the established mathematics and concepts of quantum mechanics and general relativity.

Despite this widespread criticism, the theory continues to attract interest, particularly from those working outside the scientific mainstream and within fields like consciousness studies and the philosophy of mind. Its value may lie less in its immediate scientific vindication and more in its power as a radical critique of the metaphysical dogma of materialism and its ability to open new avenues of thought about the nature of life, memory, and evolution.

Part III: A Synthetic Analysis: Points of Convergence and Divergence

While originating from different scientific traditions and proposing distinct mechanisms, the Orch-OR and Morphic Resonance theories share a common ground in their challenge to classical, mechanistic explanations of reality. A detailed comparative analysis reveals deep structural parallels alongside fundamental divergences, particularly concerning the concepts of non-locality, information, and memory.

3.1 The Nature of Non-Locality: Entanglement vs. Resonance

Both theories are built upon a foundation of non-locality, but they invoke different forms of this phenomenon, one rooted in established physics and the other proposing a more radical, novel connection.

Orch-OR’s non-locality is derived directly from quantum mechanics, specifically the principle of quantum entanglement.¹⁰⁹, ¹¹⁰ When particles become entangled, their fates are linked in such a way that a measurement on one instantaneously influences the state of the other, regardless of the spatial distance separating them. Orch-OR hypothesizes that this entanglement occurs between tubulin qubits within a microtubule and potentially extends across multiple neurons through cellular channels known as gap junctions, creating a large, unified quantum state.¹¹¹, ¹¹² This form of non-locality is primarily spatial; it connects distant points at the same moment in time. While some more speculative interpretations of Orch-OR hint at the possibility of temporal non-locality, allowing for “backward time effects” where conscious choice could influence past neural activity, this is not the central tenet of its non-local claim.¹¹³

Morphic Resonance’s non-locality is a more expansive and speculative concept. It posits a connection between similar systems that is independent of both space and time.¹¹⁴, ¹¹⁵ This is a crucial distinction. The influence of morphic resonance is not just from one place to another at the same time, but from the past to the present. A new crystal forming today is said to be influenced by all similar crystals that have ever formed, and a rat learning a task is influenced by all similar rats that have learned that task throughout history.¹¹⁶ This trans-temporal resonance has no direct equivalent in standard quantum mechanics and represents a new principle of causation.

This fundamental difference highlights a key aspect of their relationship: Orch-OR works within the (albeit strange) confines of known physics, while Morphic Resonance proposes a new law of nature. The following table dissects these crucial concepts to prevent conceptual slippage and provide a clear baseline for comparison.

Table 2: Analysis of “Information” and “Non-Locality” Concepts

3.2 Information as a Foundational Principle: Platonic vs. Habitual

Both theories elevate information to a primary role in the ontology of the universe, but they conceive of its nature and origin in fundamentally opposing ways. This divergence reflects a classic philosophical debate between eternalism and historicism.

For Penrose and Orch-OR, the information that gives content to consciousness is Platonic and static. It is a pre-existing, eternal, and unchanging realm of mathematical truth, aesthetic form, and perhaps even ethical value that is woven into the very geometry of spacetime at the Planck scale.¹¹⁷, ¹¹⁸ Consciousness does not create this information; it accesses it. The universe, in this view, contains a repository of perfect, objective truth that the process of Objective Reduction allows the mind to glimpse. This aligns with a long tradition in physics and mathematics that views the laws of nature as timeless and immutable discoveries rather than evolving constructions.¹¹⁹

For Sheldrake and Morphic Resonance, information is habitual and dynamic. It is not pre-existing but is created and accumulated over the entire history of the cosmos.¹²⁰, ¹²¹ The universe is a learning system. Every time a new form or behavior comes into being, it creates a new “habit” that is added to the collective memory of nature, making its future recurrence more likely.¹²² The information contained in morphic fields is therefore historical, cumulative, and constantly evolving. This represents a profound philosophical clash: is the universe like a student discovering the timeless theorems in a cosmic textbook (Plato), or is it like an author writing its own story as it goes (Habit)?

3.3 The Locus and Nature of Memory: In the Brain or In the Field?

The two theories present starkly different models of memory, which follows directly from their differing views on information.

Orch-OR, while not primarily a theory of memory, implicitly offers a brain-based (encephalic) model. The classical states of the microtubules that are selected by each OR event are proposed to regulate synaptic function, thereby encoding memories through physical changes in the brain’s neural network.¹²³, ¹²⁴ This is a quantum-level refinement of the standard neuroscientific model of memory storage, but it still locates memory within the physical structure of the brain.

Morphic Resonance proposes a radical non-encephalic model of memory. The brain is not a storage device but a retrieval system.¹²⁵ Individual memories are not stored as material traces but are accessed from the individual’s own past states via self-resonance, while collective memories and instincts are accessed from the species’ morphic field.¹²⁶ This idea finds some resonance with holonomic brain theories, which also propose a distributed, non-localized form of memory storage, but Sheldrake takes the concept a step further, moving the storage locus outside the brain entirely.¹²⁷, ¹²⁸

This divergence presents a fascinating point for potential synthesis. One could speculate that the Orch-OR mechanism is not responsible for storing the full memory trace itself, but rather for encoding a unique quantum “retrieval key.” This key, when activated, would be the physical configuration that allows the brain to “tune in” to the correct informational pattern within the vast, non-local morphic field.

This comparative analysis reveals a compelling pattern. Orch-OR can be conceptualized as a theory of the brain’s quantum hardware and its fundamental operating system, while Morphic Resonance can be seen as a theory of the software or data that this hardware accesses from a universal, non-local repository. Orch-OR describes a specific, physical mechanism within the brain: quantum computations in microtubules terminating in Objective Reduction. This is the “hardware” and the “CPU cycle” of consciousness.¹²⁹, ¹³⁰ Morphic Resonance, in contrast, describes the content: informational fields of form and habit built up over all of history.¹³¹, ¹³² A computer’s hardware is inert without software to run, and a vast database is inaccessible without hardware to process it. In this light, the two theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They could be describing two different, complementary aspects of a single, unified system. Orch-OR could be the answer to how the brain physically processes quantum information, while Morphic Resonance could be the answer to what information it is processing.

Furthermore, the theories appear to address different scales of the same problem. Orch-OR is a “bottom-up” theory, starting from the quantum physics of the Planck scale, moving up through the nanoscale of tubulins and the cellular scale of neurons, to explain consciousness at the organism level.¹³³, ¹³⁴ Morphic Resonance is a “top-down” theory, starting with macro-level observations in biology and cosmology, positing a universal or species-level field, and then suggesting this field influences micro-level events like cellular development.¹³⁵, ¹³⁶ Their respective weaknesses are the mirror image of their strengths. Orch-OR struggles to explain the rich, specific, and meaningful content of consciousness, relying on the abstract “Platonic black box.” Morphic Resonance struggles to explain the physical mechanism of its influence. This suggests they might be two halves of a single, multi-scale process, meeting somewhere in the middle to form a more complete, albeit speculative, picture.

Part IV: Towards a Unified Framework: Speculative and Philosophical Integrations

Having analyzed the core principles, divergences, and potential complementarities of Orch-OR and Morphic Resonance, it becomes possible to explore broader philosophical frameworks that might contain them both. These frameworks, including David Bohm’s Implicate Order, the Extended Mind thesis, and the paradigm of Post-Materialist Science, provide a metaphysical language for unifying the quantum-mechanical brain with the informational universe. This exploration culminates in a speculative synthesis that attempts to weave the two theories into a single, coherent hypothesis.

4.1 David Bohm’s Implicate Order as a Unifying Metaphysics

The work of theoretical physicist David Bohm offers a particularly potent framework for unifying Orch-OR and Morphic Resonance. Dissatisfied with the fragmentation he saw in quantum mechanics, Bohm proposed a new notion of order based on the concept of “unbroken wholeness in flowing movement,” which he termed the holomovement.¹³⁷, ¹³⁸ Within this holomovement, he distinguished between the explicate order—the manifest world of separate objects and events that we perceive—and a deeper, more fundamental implicate order, in which everything is “enfolded” into everything else.¹³⁹, ¹⁴⁰ The explicate order is a projection, a temporary unfolding from this deeper, enfolded reality.

This concept of a primary, undivided whole provides a powerful metaphysical ground for the profound interconnectedness and non-locality central to both Orch-OR and Morphic Resonance. The implicate order can be conceived as the fundamental reality from which both the specific quantum-gravitational geometry of Penrose’s Objective Reduction and the informational morphic fields of Sheldrake’s hypothesis emerge as different aspects of its unfolding.

Bohm’s ideas are explicitly compatible with Sheldrake’s. Physicists intrigued by Morphic Resonance, including Bohm himself, saw his theory of the implicate order as extraordinarily compatible with the proposal of non-local, informational fields.¹⁴¹, ¹⁴² The morphic field can be seen as a specific expression of the implicate order’s potential for form, a stable “sub-totality” within the universal flux.¹⁴³ Similarly, the non-local connections of quantum entanglement, which are central to Orch-OR, are a key feature of the implicate order. Bohm developed his theory precisely to explain the “spooky action at a distance” that so troubled Einstein, arguing that entangled particles are not truly separate but are connected at the deeper, implicate level.¹⁴⁴ Therefore, Bohm’s holomovement provides a philosophical container rich enough to house both the quantum brain processes of Orch-OR and the trans-temporal informational fields of Morphic Resonance, viewing them not as separate phenomena but as different manifestations of a single, undivided reality.

4.2 The Extended Mind and Post-Materialist Science

The combined implications of Orch-OR and Morphic Resonance align seamlessly with two significant philosophical movements that challenge conventional, brain-bound models of mind: the Extended Mind thesis and the paradigm of Post-Materialist Science.

The Extended Mind thesis, first proposed by philosophers Andy Clark and David Chalmers, argues that cognitive processes are not necessarily confined within the skull.¹⁴⁵, ¹⁴⁶ They contend that external artifacts, like a notebook or a smartphone, can become so deeply integrated into our cognitive loops that they constitute a literal part of the mind. Both Orch-OR and Morphic Resonance can be seen as radical extensions of this idea. Orch-OR extends the mind not just to a notebook, but to the fundamental geometry of the universe itself, suggesting a cognitive coupling with the cosmos.¹⁴⁷ Morphic Resonance extends the mind even further, proposing that our memories and instincts are part of a non-local field shared with our entire species and even with the past, making the mind both spatially and temporally extended.¹⁴⁸, ¹⁴⁹

This perspective is a cornerstone of the emerging paradigm of Post-Materialist Science. Articulated in a 2014 manifesto by a group of scientists, this paradigm seeks to move beyond the dogma of scientific materialism, which holds that matter is the sole reality and consciousness is its byproduct.¹⁵⁰, ¹⁵¹ Post-materialism posits, in alignment with both Orch-OR and Morphic Resonance, that mind is a fundamental and primordial aspect of the universe, not reducible to matter.¹⁵² It emphasizes the deep interconnectedness between mind and the physical world, the reality of non-local phenomena, and the role of the brain as a “transceiver” of mental activity rather than its generator.¹⁵³, ¹⁵⁴ By situating Orch-OR and Morphic Resonance within this broader intellectual movement, their individual claims, while still speculative, appear less as isolated anomalies and more as components of a coherent, alternative worldview that is gaining traction among a growing number of interdisciplinary researchers.

4.3 A Speculative Synthesis: Orch-OR as Mechanism, Morphic Resonance as Information

Building upon the preceding analysis, it is possible to formulate a grand, speculative hypothesis that synthesizes the two theories into a single, cohesive model. This synthesis leverages the “hardware/software” and “bottom-up/top-down” complementarities identified earlier, proposing that Orch-OR describes the physical transceiver mechanism that allows the biological brain to read from and write to the informational database of Morphic Resonance.

The proposed synthetic process unfolds as follows:

1. Tuning and Superposition: The process begins in the dendrites of the brain’s neurons. Synaptic inputs and other neurophysiological processes “orchestrate” the microtubule network, preparing it for a quantum computation. This orchestration causes a vast number of tubulin proteins to enter a coherent quantum superposition.¹⁵⁵ In this synthetic model, this quantum state is not merely a physical configuration; it is the physical act of the brain “tuning” itself to be receptive to specific informational fields.
2. Resonant Information Influx: As the quantum superposition evolves, it is influenced by more than just local factors. It enters into a state of morphic resonance with relevant past patterns. This means the quantum state is co-determined by the historical information contained within the morphic fields corresponding to the organism’s species, its individual past, and its current cognitive and emotional context. This is the influx of “software” into the “hardware.”
3. The Co-Determined Collapse: The superposition reaches the Penrose threshold for Objective Reduction (τ≈ħ/EG) and collapses.¹⁵⁶ This is the moment of conscious experience. Crucially, in this synthetic model, the non-random, non-computable outcome of this collapse is determined by the confluence of two distinct streams of information:
   • The Universal Grammar (from Orch-OR): The fundamental, timeless, Platonic-mathematical information embedded in the geometry of spacetime provides the universal constraints, the “physical laws” or “grammar” within which consciousness can operate. This is Penrose’s contribution.
   • The Historical Content (from Morphic Resonance): The specific, cumulative, habit-based information from the relevant morphic field provides the context-dependent, meaningful content of the experience—the memory, the instinct, the idea. This is Sheldrake’s contribution.
4. Classical Output and Action: The collapse results in a specific classical state of the microtubule lattice. This outcome, now a piece of classical information, proceeds to influence neuronal firing rates and regulate synaptic plasticity, translating the integrated conscious moment into physiological action and behavioral response.¹⁵⁷ This action, in turn, creates a new pattern of activity that contributes back to the morphic field, completing the feedback loop.

This synthetic model resolves the primary weaknesses of each theory when considered in isolation. It provides Morphic Resonance with a concrete, physically-grounded, and potentially testable mechanism within the brain, answering the charge of it being “magical thinking.” Simultaneously, it fills the “Platonic black box” of Orch-OR with a rich, evolving, and biologically relevant source of information, explaining how a universal physical process can give rise to the specific, personal, and adaptive content of individual consciousness.

This synthesis elegantly reconciles the timeless with the historical. Penrose’s framework provides the eternal, unchanging “laws” or physical constraints of reality, while Sheldrake’s framework provides the evolving, cumulative “habits” or informational content. Consciousness, in this unified view, is the experience of historical, learned information (Morphic Resonance) unfolding within the immutable framework of universal physical law (Orch-OR).

Crucially, a robust synthesis should do more than just reconcile existing ideas; it should generate novel, testable predictions that would not arise from either theory alone. This model does so:

• Prediction 1 (Microtubule Entrainment): If Orch-OR is the transceiver for Morphic Resonance, then the quantum vibrations in microtubules should be measurably sensitive to collective learning. An experiment could involve two geographically isolated but genetically identical groups of organisms (e.g., slime molds or flatworms). Group A is trained to navigate a novel maze. According to the synthesis, this should establish or strengthen a specific morphic field. Subsequently, when the naive Group B is introduced to the same maze, one should observe not only that they learn faster (Sheldrake’s prediction), but that the specific frequencies and coherence patterns of microtubule vibrations (Hameroff’s domain of measurement) within Group B’s organisms measurably shift to more closely resemble those of the “expert” Group A, even before successful navigation is achieved. This would demonstrate a physical entrainment of the quantum hardware by the non-local informational software.
• Prediction 2 (Anesthetic Disruption of Learning): Anesthetics are known to cause loss of consciousness, which Hameroff attributes to their dampening of high-frequency quantum vibrations in microtubules.¹⁵⁸ If this is the physical mechanism for “tuning in” to morphic fields, then administering sub-anesthetic doses of these agents should selectively disrupt the acquisition of novel behaviors (which rely heavily on morphic resonance from other learners) more significantly than it disrupts the performance of well-established, instinctual behaviors (which are supported by much stronger, older morphic fields). This would directly link the physical mechanism of anesthesia to the informational content proposed by Sheldrake.

Conclusion

The Orchestrated Objective Reduction theory and the hypothesis of Morphic Resonance represent two of the most audacious and controversial intellectual endeavors to grapple with the fundamental mysteries of consciousness and cosmic order. While originating from the disparate fields of quantum cosmology and developmental biology, and facing trenchant criticism from the scientific mainstream, a deep comparative analysis reveals that they are not merely independent curiosities. They share a foundational commitment to a universe that is non-local, information-based, and in which mind plays a primary, rather than peripheral, role.

This report has detailed their core tenets, identifying Orch-OR as a “bottom-up” theory describing a potential quantum-physical mechanism within the brain, and Morphic Resonance as a “top-down” theory describing the influence of non-local, historical information fields. Their primary points of divergence—particularly regarding the nature of information (Platonic vs. habitual) and the locus of memory (encephalic vs. non-local)—are precisely the areas where they are most complementary. The weaknesses of one are addressed by the strengths of the other, suggesting a natural synergy.

The speculative synthesis proposed herein—wherein Orch-OR’s quantum processes in microtubules act as the physical transceiver for the informational content of Sheldrake’s morphic fields—offers a coherent, albeit unproven, framework for unifying these two radical ideas. This model posits that each conscious moment is a collapse of a quantum state co-determined by both the timeless mathematical structure of the universe and the cumulative, historical habits of nature. This synthesis not only resolves key conceptual problems within each theory but also generates novel, interdisciplinary, and potentially testable predictions.

It must be unequivocally stated that this entire discussion resides at the outermost fringes of scientific inquiry. Both theories remain far from mainstream acceptance, and their synthesis is doubly speculative. However, the value of such an exploration lies not in immediate empirical validation, but in its capacity to expand the conceptual landscape of science.¹⁵⁹ By forcing a confrontation between the physics of the very small and the biology of the very large, between the timeless and the historical, and between mechanism and meaning, the intersection of Orch-OR and Morphic Resonance points toward a fascinating and potentially fruitful direction for future inquiry in a post-materialist science. It challenges us to ask whether the “music” of conscious experience is not merely played by the orchestra of the brain, but is a resonance between that orchestra and the memory of the universe itself.

References

1. Chalmers, David J. 1996. The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.  
2. Hameroff, Stuart, and Roger Penrose. 2014. “Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory.” Physics of Life Reviews 11 (1): 39–78.  
3. Penrose, Roger. 1994. Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  
4. Hameroff, Stuart, and Roger Penrose. 2014. “Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory.” Physics of Life Reviews 11 (1): 39–78.  
5. Sheldrake, Rupert. 2009. Morphic Resonance: The Nature of Formative Causation. Rochester, VT: Park Street Press.  
6. Hameroff, Stuart, and Roger Penrose. 2016. “Orchestrated Objective Reduction of Quantum Coherence in Brain Microtubules: The ‘Orch OR’ Theory.” In Biophysics of Consciousness: A Foundational Approach, edited by Roman R. Poznanski, Jack A. Tuszynski, and Todd E. Feinberg, 517-576. Singapore: World Scientific.  
7. Hameroff, Stuart. n.d. “Orch OR.” The Science of Consciousness Conference. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
8. Penrose, Roger, and Stuart Hameroff. 2011. “Consciousness in the Universe: Neuroscience, Quantum Space-Time Geometry and Orch OR Theory.” Journal of Cosmology 14.  
9. Hameroff, Stuart. n.d. “Home | Stuart Hameroff, MD.” Accessed October 26, 2023.  
10. Sheldrake, Rupert. n.d. “Morphic Resonance.” Sheldrake.org. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
11. Sheldrake, Rupert. n.d. “Morphic Resonance and Morphic Fields an Introduction.” Sheldrake.org. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
12. Sheldrake, Rupert. 1981. A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Formative Causation. London: Blond & Briggs.  
13. Penrose, Roger. 1989. The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  
14. “Orchestrated objective reduction.” Wikipedia. Last modified July 25, 2025.  
15. Feferman, Solomon. 1995. “Penrose’s Gödelian argument.” Psyche 2 (10): 21–32.  
16. Hameroff, Stuart. n.d. “Stuart Hameroff | The Science of Consciousness Conference.” Center for Consciousness Studies, University of Arizona. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
17. Hameroff, Stuart. 2023. “Conscious awareness is the most fundamental level of the universe with Dr. Stuart Hameroff.” Expanding on Consciousness (podcast), July 20, 2023.  
18. Hameroff, Stuart. 2015. “Is your brain really a computer, or is it a quantum orchestra tuned to the universe?” Interalia Magazine, November 2015.  
19. “Orchestrated Objective Reduction theory explained.” Number Analytics (blog). Accessed October 26, 2023.  
20. Hameroff, Stuart. 1987. Ultimate Computing: Biomolecular Consciousness and Nanotechnology. Amsterdam: North-Holland.  
21. Penrose, Roger, and Stuart Hameroff. n.d. “Consciousness, Brain and Evolution.” NeuroQuantology.  
22. Hameroff, Stuart. 2022. Interview by Curt Jaimungal. Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal (podcast video), YouTube, May 26, 2022.  
23. Hameroff, Stuart. n.d. “Research Overview – Orch OR.” Hameroff.arizona.edu. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
24. Hameroff, Stuart, and Roger Penrose. 2021. “Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR).” Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences 8: 779932.  
25. “Orchestrated Objective Reduction and Morphic Resonance.” Number Analytics (blog). Accessed October 26, 2023.  
26. Hameroff, Stuart R., and Roger Penrose. 2014. “Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory.” Physics of Life Reviews 11 (1): 39–78.  
27. “Orchestrated Objective Reduction.” Wikipedia. Last modified July 25, 2025.  
28. Hameroff, Stuart R. 2012. “How quantum brain biology can rescue conscious free will.” Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience 6: 93.  
29. Hameroff, Stuart, and Roger Penrose. 2021. “Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR).” Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences 8: 779932.  
30. Hameroff, Stuart R., and Roger Penrose. 2014. “Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory.” Physics of Life Reviews 11 (1): 39–78.  
31. “Orchestrated objective reduction.” Wikipedia. Last modified July 25, 2025.  
32. Hameroff, Stuart, and Roger Penrose. 2014. “Consciousness in the universe: a review of the ‘ORCH OR’ theory.” Physics of Life Reviews 11 (1): 39–78.  
33. “Orchestrated objective reduction.” Wikipedia. Last modified July 25, 2025.  
34. Collins, Amanda. 2015. “Orchestrated Objective Reduction: A Theory of Consciousness.” Senior Thesis, William & Mary.  
35. “Orchestrated objective reduction.” Wikipedia. Last modified July 25, 2025.  
36. Hameroff, Stuart, and Roger Penrose. 2014. “Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory.” Physics of Life Reviews 11 (1): 39–78.  
37. “Theories of Consciousness: Orchestrated Objective Reduction.” Medium (blog), May 15, 2023.  
38. Hameroff, Stuart, and Roger Penrose. 2021. “Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR).” Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences 8: 779932.  
39. Hameroff, Stuart, and Roger Penrose. 2014. “Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory.” Physics of Life Reviews 11 (1): 39–78.  
40. Penrose, Roger, and Stuart Hameroff. n.d. “Consciousness, Brain and Evolution.” NeuroQuantology.  
41. Hameroff, Stuart, and Roger Penrose. 2014. “Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory.” Physics of Life Reviews 11 (1): 39–78.  
42. “Orchestrated Objective Reduction theory explained.” Number Analytics (blog). Accessed October 26, 2023.  
43. Hameroff, Stuart R., and Roger Penrose. 2014. “Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory.” Physics of Life Reviews 11 (1): 39–78.  
44. Hameroff, Stuart, and Roger Penrose. 2016. “Orchestrated Objective Reduction of Quantum Coherence in Brain Microtubules: The ‘Orch OR’ Theory.” In Biophysics of Consciousness: A Foundational Approach, edited by Roman R. Poznanski, Jack A. Tuszynski, and Todd E. Feinberg, 517-576. Singapore: World Scientific.  
45. Hameroff, Stuart. n.d. “Stuart Hameroff | The Science of Consciousness Conference.” Center for Consciousness Studies, University of Arizona. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
46. Hameroff, Stuart. 2022. Interview by Curt Jaimungal. Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal (podcast video), YouTube, May 26, 2022.  
47. Hameroff, Stuart R., and Roger Penrose. 2014. “Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory.” Physics of Life Reviews 11 (1): 39–78.  
48. “Theories of Consciousness: Orchestrated Objective Reduction.” Medium (blog), May 15, 2023.  
49. “Orchestrated objective reduction.” Wikipedia. Last modified July 25, 2025.  
50. “Orchestrated objective reduction.” Wikipedia. Last modified July 25, 2025.  
51. Hameroff, Stuart R., and Roger Penrose. 2014. “Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory.” Physics of Life Reviews 11 (1): 39–78.  
52. “Orchestrated objective reduction.” Wikipedia. Last modified July 25, 2025.  
53. Hameroff, Stuart. n.d. “Stuart Hameroff | The Science of Consciousness Conference.” Center for Consciousness Studies, University of Arizona. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
54. Hameroff, Stuart. 2022. Interview by Curt Jaimungal. Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal (podcast video), YouTube, May 26, 2022.  
55. “Orchestrated objective reduction.” Wikipedia. Last modified July 25, 2025.  
56. “Orchestrated objective reduction.” Wikipedia. Last modified July 25, 2025.  
57. Tegmark, Max. 2000. “Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes.” Physical Review E 61 (4): 4194–4206.  
58. Penrose, Roger, and Stuart Hameroff. n.d. “Consciousness, Brain and Evolution.” NeuroQuantology.  
59. “Orchestrated objective reduction.” Wikipedia. Last modified July 25, 2025.  
60. “Orchestrated objective reduction.” Wikipedia. Last modified July 25, 2025.  
61. “Orchestrated objective reduction.” Wikipedia. Last modified July 25, 2025.  
62. “Orchestrated objective reduction.” Wikipedia. Last modified July 25, 2025.  
63. Minsky, Marvin. 1990. “The Emperor’s New Mind.” Review of The Emperor’s New Mind, by Roger Penrose. Artificial Intelligence 42 (2-3): 357–365.  
64. “Orchestrated objective reduction.” Wikipedia. Last modified July 25, 2025.  
65. “Theories of Consciousness: Orchestrated Objective Reduction.” Medium (blog), May 15, 2023.  
66. Hameroff, Stuart. n.d. “Research Overview – Orch OR.” Hameroff.arizona.edu. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
67. “Criticism of Orch-OR theory.” YouTube video, 2:45. Posted by “Quantum Sense,” November 15, 2023.  
68. Sheldrake, Rupert. 2012. The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry. London: Coronet.  
69. Sheldrake, Rupert. n.d. “Morphic Resonance and Morphic Fields an Introduction.” Sheldrake.org. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
70. Sheldrake, Rupert. 1988. “Morphic Fields.” Paper presented at the International Transpersonal Conference, Santa Rosa, CA.  
71. Sheldrake, Rupert. n.d. “Morphic Fields.” Essentia Foundation. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
72. Sheldrake, Rupert. 1988. “Part I – Mind, Memory, and Archetype: Morphic Resonance and the Collective Unconscious.” In The Re-Enchantment of Science, edited by David Ray Griffin. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.  
73. Sheldrake, Rupert. 2009. Morphic Resonance: The Nature of Formative Causation. Rochester, VT: Park Street Press.  
74. Sheldrake, Rupert. 2009. Morphic Resonance: The Nature of Formative Causation. Rochester, VT: Park Street Press.  
75. Sheldrake, Rupert. n.d. “Morphic Resonance.” Sheldrake.org. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
76. Sheldrake, Rupert. 1988. “Morphic Fields.” Paper presented at the International Transpersonal Conference, Santa Rosa, CA.  
77. Sheldrake, Rupert. n.d. “Morphic Fields.” Essentia Foundation. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
78. “A brief introduction to morphic fields.” Medium (blog), October 23, 2018.  
79. Sheldrake, Rupert. n.d. “Morphic Resonance and Morphic Fields an Introduction.” Sheldrake.org. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
80. Sheldrake, Rupert. n.d. “Morphic Resonance and Morphic Fields an Introduction.” Sheldrake.org. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
81. Sheldrake, Rupert. 1988. “Morphic Fields.” Paper presented at the International Transpersonal Conference, Santa Rosa, CA.  
82. Sheldrake, Rupert. n.d. “Morphic Resonance and Morphic Fields an Introduction.” Sheldrake.org. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
83. Sheldrake, Rupert. 2011. Interview by “New Thinking Allowed.” YouTube video, June 20, 2011.  
84. Sheldrake, Rupert. n.d. “Morphic Fields.” Essentia Foundation. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
85. Singh, Navjot. 2025. “A Field Theory approach to Morphic Resonance.” Preprint, submitted March 12, 2025.  
86. Singh, Navjot. 2025. “A Field Theory approach to Morphic Resonance.” Preprint, submitted March 12, 2025.  
87. Singh, Navjot. 2025. “A Field Theory approach to Morphic Resonance.” Preprint, submitted March 12, 2025.  
88. Sheldrake, Rupert. n.d. “Morphic Resonance.” Sheldrake.org. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
89. Kurczek, Jake, and John Butler. 2013. “The Problem with Rupert Sheldrake.” The Humanist, July 29, 2013.  
90. Reddit user comment on “Non-local Consciousness Theory: Your thoughts on it?” r/consciousness, February 2023.  
91. Kastrup, Bernardo. 2012. “My philosophy and Sheldrake’s morphic resonance.” Metaphysical Speculations (blog), March 27, 2012.  
92. Sheldrake, Rupert. n.d. “Morphic Resonance and Morphic Fields an Introduction.” Sheldrake.org. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
93. Sheldrake, Rupert. 1988. “Morphic Fields.” Paper presented at the International Transpersonal Conference, Santa Rosa, CA.  
94. Sheldrake, Rupert. n.d. “Morphic Resonance and Morphic Fields an Introduction.” Sheldrake.org. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
95. Sheldrake, Rupert. n.d. “Morphic Resonance and Morphic Fields an Introduction.” Sheldrake.org. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
96. Sheldrake, Rupert. n.d. “Morphic Resonance and Morphic Fields an Introduction.” Sheldrake.org. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
97. Beauregard, Mario, Gary E. Schwartz, and Lisa Miller, et al. 2014. “Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science.” Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing 10 (5): 272–74.  
98. Beauregard, Mario, Gary E. Schwartz, and Lisa Miller, et al. 2014. “Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science.” PDF.  
99. “Rupert Sheldrake.” Wikipedia. Last modified July 18, 2025.  
100. Woolfe, Sam. 2013. “The problem with Rupert Sheldrake.” SamWoolfe.com (blog), July 29, 2013.  
101. “Rupert Sheldrake.” Wikipedia. Last modified July 18, 2025.  
102. Rutherford, Adam. 2009. “A book for burning? No, certainly not.” The Guardian, September 8, 2009.  
103. Blakemore, Colin. 1981. “A new science of life?” Review of A New Science of Life, by Rupert Sheldrake. Nature 293: 335.  
104. Jones, David E. H. 1988. “Sheldrake’s ideas are magical thinking.” The Times, August 18, 1988.  
105. Sheldrake, Rupert. 2011. Interview by “New Thinking Allowed.” YouTube video, June 20, 2011.  
106. Sheldrake, Rupert. 1988. “Morphic Fields.” Paper presented at the International Transpersonal Conference, Santa Rosa, CA.  
107. “Rupert Sheldrake.” Wikipedia. Last modified July 18, 2025.  
108. Evans, Jules. 2013. “The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake.” Philosophy Now, no. 93.  
109. “Orchestrated Objective Reduction and Morphic Resonance.” Number Analytics (blog). Accessed October 26, 2023.  
110. Hyland, Terry. 2025. “Morphic Fields, Quantum Nonlocality and Neo-Idealist Conceptions of Consciousness: Towards A Unification.” Research and Analysis Journal 8 (5): 1–5.  
111. “Orchestrated objective reduction.” Wikipedia. Last modified July 25, 2025.  
112. Hameroff, Stuart R. 2012. “How quantum brain biology can rescue conscious free will.” Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience 6: 93.  
113. Hameroff, Stuart R. 2012. “How quantum brain biology can rescue conscious free will.” Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience 6: 93.  
114. Sheldrake, Rupert. 1988. “Morphic Fields.” Paper presented at the International Transpersonal Conference, Santa Rosa, CA.  
115. Sheldrake, Rupert. n.d. “Morphic Resonance and Morphic Fields an Introduction.” Sheldrake.org. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
116. Sheldrake, Rupert. n.d. “Morphic Resonance and Morphic Fields an Introduction.” Sheldrake.org. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
117. “Orchestrated objective reduction.” Wikipedia. Last modified July 25, 2025.  
118. Sheldrake, Rupert. 1988. “Part I – Mind, Memory, and Archetype: Morphic Resonance and the Collective Unconscious.” In The Re-Enchantment of Science, edited by David Ray Griffin. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.  
119. Sheldrake, Rupert. 1988. “Part I – Mind, Memory, and Archetype: Morphic Resonance and the Collective Unconscious.” In The Re-Enchantment of Science, edited by David Ray Griffin. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.  
120. Sheldrake, Rupert. n.d. “Morphic Resonance.” Sheldrake.org. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
121. Sheldrake, Rupert. 2009. Morphic Resonance: The Nature of Formative Causation. Rochester, VT: Park Street Press.  
122. Sheldrake, Rupert. 1988. “Morphic Fields.” Paper presented at the International Transpersonal Conference, Santa Rosa, CA.  
123. Hameroff, Stuart, and Roger Penrose. 2021. “Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR).” Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences 8: 779932.  
124. Hameroff, Stuart R., and Roger Penrose. 2014. “Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory.” Physics of Life Reviews 11 (1): 39–78.  
125. Kastrup, Bernardo. 2012. “My philosophy and Sheldrake’s morphic resonance.” Metaphysical Speculations (blog), March 27, 2012.  
126. Sheldrake, Rupert. n.d. “Morphic Resonance and Morphic Fields an Introduction.” Sheldrake.org. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
127. “Memory Beyond the Brain.” Consciocentric.com. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
128. “Holonomic brain theory.” Wikipedia. Last modified August 15, 2023.  
129. Hameroff, Stuart, and Roger Penrose. 2021. “Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR).” Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences 8: 779932.  
130. “Orchestrated objective reduction.” Wikipedia. Last modified July 25, 2025.  
131. Sheldrake, Rupert. n.d. “Morphic Resonance and Morphic Fields an Introduction.” Sheldrake.org. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
132. Sheldrake, Rupert. n.d. “Morphic Resonance and Morphic Fields an Introduction.” Sheldrake.org. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
133. “Orchestrated objective reduction.” Wikipedia. Last modified July 25, 2025.  
134. Hameroff, Stuart R., and Roger Penrose. 2014. “Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory.” Physics of Life Reviews 11 (1): 39–78.  
135. Sheldrake, Rupert. 1988. “Morphic Fields.” Paper presented at the International Transpersonal Conference, Santa Rosa, CA.  
136. Sheldrake, Rupert. n.d. “Morphic Fields.” Essentia Foundation. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
137. Bohm, David. 1980. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.  
138. Bohm, David. 1980. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. PDF.  
139. “Implicate and explicate order.” Wikipedia. Last modified June 12, 2023.  
140. Dabrowski, Irene J. 1995. “David Bohm’s Theory of the Implicate Order: Implications for Holistic Thought Processes.” Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies 13: 1–23.  
141. Sheldrake, Rupert. 1988. “Morphic Fields.” Paper presented at the International Transpersonal Conference, Santa Rosa, CA.  
142. Sheldrake, Rupert. 1988. “Morphic Fields.” Paper presented at the International Transpersonal Conference, Santa Rosa, CA.  
143. “David Bohm, Implicate Order and Holomovement.” Science and Nonduality. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
144. “David Bohm’s Theory of the Implicate Order.” Stoa del Sol. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
145. Clark, Andy, and David J. Chalmers. 1998. “The Extended Mind.” Analysis 58 (1): 7–19.  
146. Rupert, Robert D. 2009. “Cognitive Systems and the Extended Mind.” The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition.  
147. Hameroff, Stuart R., and Roger Penrose. 2014. “Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory.” Physics of Life Reviews 11 (1): 39–78.  
148. Sheldrake, Rupert. n.d. “Morphic Resonance and Morphic Fields an Introduction.” Sheldrake.org. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
149. Footnotes 2 Plato (blog). “The Extended Mind and Michael Persinger’s ‘God-Helmet’.” May 16, 2011.  
150. Beauregard, Mario, Gary E. Schwartz, and Lisa Miller, et al. 2014. “Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science.” Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing 10 (5): 272–74.  
151. Beauregard, Mario. n.d. “The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul.” Interalia Magazine. Accessed October 26, 2023.  
152. Beauregard, Mario, Gary E. Schwartz, and Lisa Miller, et al. 2014. “Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science.” PDF.  
153. Beauregard, Mario, Gary E. Schwartz, and Lisa Miller, et al. 2014. “Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science.” Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing 10 (5): 272–74.  
154. Beauregard, Mario, Gary E. Schwartz, and Lisa Miller, et al. 2014. “Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science.” PDF.  
155. Hameroff, Stuart, and Roger Penrose. 2021. “Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR).” Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences 8: 779932.  
156. “Orchestrated objective reduction.” Wikipedia. Last modified July 25, 2025.  
157. Hameroff, Stuart R., and Roger Penrose. 2014. “Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory.” Physics of Life Reviews 11 (1): 39–78.  
158. “Theories of Consciousness: Orchestrated Objective Reduction.” Medium (blog), May 15, 2023.  
159. “Criticism of Orch-OR theory.” YouTube video, 2:45. Posted by “Quantum Sense,” November 15, 2023.