No.791
here's an interesting scientist named Rupert Sheldrake who studies phenomena like pets sensing when their owners are coming home, people feeling someone staring at them from a distance, or knowing when someone is about to contact them. I’ve had these experiences myself.
Sheldrake calls this the "Morphic Field." He believes some beings can communicate mentally, possibly through some form of quantum energy. For example, certain birds navigate using cells in their brains that sense Earth’s magnetic field, directing them where to go.
But you can’t replicate the Morphic Field in a lab. If a friend’s worry sends a mental signal to me, you can’t force it to happen repeatedly, so science can’t study it properly. This is why science often fails when dealing with human experiences.
Take the statement, "Pizza makes me happy." A scientist might test this by giving me pizza for every meal for a month. When I inevitably get tired of it, they’d conclude, "Pizza does not make this person happy." But that’s wrong—pizza does make me happy, just only when I’m in the mood. The same unpredictability applies to psychic phenomena if they depend on passion or spontaneity, they can’t be summoned at will.
If phenomena like psychic connections or the 'Morphic Field' can't be reliably replicated in a lab, does that mean they’re beyond scientific study or does science need new methods to understand them? How would you design an experiment to test subjective, unpredictable experiences like intuition or emotional resonance?