I take your points about morphic fields, as I have all along really. I think the debates we're seeing here are reflecting the individual attitudes several of us expressed in the pseudoskepticism thread. I agree that there is little evidence for morphic fields, which puts me in the "I don't know" arena. Presumably you are more of the "little evidence means I am doubtful" persuasion.
I'm more concerned that Sheldrake is being as specific as he is when he has no grounds for being so specific.
Maybe some kind of field or fields is/are involved. If gravitational and quantum fields, why not a telepathic field?
I'm not saying it can't be a field. My question is what indicates that it
is a field as opposed to some other mechanism?
If you agree that there is no reason to suspect that it might as a result of the action of a field any more than any other possible mechanism - then I put it to you that you agree when Sheldrake says specific things about this field, such as 'individual and collective memories may be stored in morphic fields' he has no scientific grounds for doing so.
He isn't the first or only person to suggest the idea that the brain isn't the repository of consciousness and I find it intriguing. Materialistic reductionists who believe that the physical actions of the brain alone result in consciousness, don't like it for obvious reasons.
Without knowing how one system is meant to communicate with the other - I'm at a loss as to how to really go about testing that they do.
It is my suggestion that instead of trying to come up with some vague hypothesis that creates no specific testable predictions we just concentrate on testing telepathy under a variety of conditions and continue to try and develop a hypothesis that can explain all previous results and allow us to predict future ones.