Sheldrake on Vitalism

From Three Approaches to Biology, Part II

R. Sheldrake

...Vitalists are portrayed as ludicrous figures clinging desparately to the belief that living organisms do not obey the laws of physics and chemistry, while the whole tide of science has flowed ever more strongly against them. The 'discrediting' of vitalism is usually said to have begun with the first synthesis of an organic chemical, urea, in the early nineteenth century, and to have been made more and more conclusive by every new discovery of physiology, genetics, biochemistry, biophysics and molecular biology.

This imaginary history forms an important part of the folk-lore of the mechanists. But in reality, vitalists did not deny that processes in living organisms took place in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry. What they did think was that matter was organized in a special way in living organisms, which was different from that discoverable by ordinary chemistry...

Although vitalism is totally out of fashion, it seems worth considering what the neo-vitalists actually said. In the following sections. some of the ideas of the two most prominent, Driesch himself. and the French philosopher Henri Bergson (1859-1941) are briefly summarized and discussed. Although their most important books were written over seventy years ago, they are still extraordinarily interesting and contain insights of great originality.

From Three Approaches to Biology, Part II

R. Sheldrake

...Vitalists are portrayed as ludicrous figures clinging desparately to the belief that living organisms do not obey the laws of physics and chemistry, while the whole tide of science has flowed ever more strongly against them. The 'discrediting' of vitalism is usually said to have begun with the first synthesis of an organic chemical, urea, in the early nineteenth century, and to have been made more and more conclusive by every new discovery of physiology, genetics, biochemistry, biophysics and molecular biology.

Frankly, minds do not obey the laws of physics and chemistry, and have never been scientifically demonstrated to. Rather, minds resonate with physical forms that are affected by the laws of physics and chemistry, so the incarnate mind will naturally resonate with those changes.

Frankly, minds do not obey the laws of physics and chemistry, and have never been scientifically demonstrated to. Rather, minds resonate with physical forms that are affected by the laws of physics and chemistry, so the incarnate mind will naturally resonate with those changes.

Laws? 

Laws? 

Who decided what these "laws" were? Does the physical universe have lawyers? Is the physical universe actually just some corporate hellhole?

If one looks carefully, there are certain indications that 'vitalism' is becoming an acceptable alternative hypothesis again. While classical vitalism suggested the existence of an inexplicable life force, contemporary perspectives like those proposed by James A. Shapiro offer a more nuanced, evidence-based framework. In Evolution: A View from the 21st Century, Shapiro argues that cells possess cognitive capabilities that allow them to process information, make decisions, and actively restructure their genomes in response to environmental challenges. He describes this as 'natural genetic engineering,' emphasizing the form of agency and adaptability that goes beyond purely mechanistic explanations of cellular behavior.

I have to admit it's never been clear to me how vitalism was falsified.

You'd think scientists would have created life from non-living elements if this were true?

Even if this were to be the case, to even say there are irreducible elements of biology not explicable in principle by physics, or [there exist] "laws" of nature that only bind/ground entities at the biological level...those options seem to just be vitalism in more acceptable dress?

Who decided what these "laws" were? Does the physical universe have lawyers? Is the physical universe actually just some corporate hellhole?

And where are the laws? Why don't they change? How do they govern/bind that which they supposedly control?

And where are the laws? Why don't they change? How do they govern/bind that which they supposedly control?

Because the pesky lawyers keep sending cease and desist letters! /s

Seriously, though... it's why Sheldrake's concept of "habits of nature", "habits of physics", etc, make much more logical sense. They are strong, stable patterns, however they're not set in stone, apparently, if the speed of light isn't fixed as widely claimed. So if the "laws" are not fixed, then they're not "laws". And besides, there seems to be confusion in general between "laws of physics" as in behaviour of matter, and the way "law" is used in mathematical terminology. In mathematics, laws are not set in stone or unchangeable ~ so in that sense, the mathematical "laws of physics" does make sense as logically changeable.

[Laird]

From Three Approaches to Biology, Part II

R. Sheldrake

The other two parts for easy access for those interested:

Part I. The Mechanistic Theory of Life

Part lll. Organicism

These were written over forty years ago. I wonder whether Rupert would make any changes given developments in biology over the intervening years. I don't expect so, but it would be interesting to know.