RS. Evoln of Telepathy

 Ah, that makes more sense—Rupert Sheldrake.

Sheldrake does propose something closer to what you’re recalling, but it’s important to separate his hypotheses from established genetics or mainstream neuroscience.

What Sheldrake actually proposes (in simplified form)

Sheldrake is known for the idea of “morphic resonance”:

• Nature has memory-like fields (“morphic fields”)
• Patterns of behavior, learning, or form become easier to repeat once they’ve occurred before
• This applies across biology, not just genetics

From that framework, he speculates that things like:

• animal instincts
• learned behaviors
• and even human “psychic” phenomena

could become more common or easier over time due to collective repetition rather than genetic evolution.

So in his view, something like telepathy (if it exists) wouldn’t necessarily be coded in DNA—it would become habitual in nature itself, via these morphic fields.

About the “evolution of telepathy” idea

Sheldrake has suggested (in essays and talks, not mainstream studies) that:

• telepathy-like effects might be more common in animals than acknowledged
• humans may have had stronger intuitive or “psychic” social perception in pre-modern contexts
• modern culture (language, technology, analytical thinking) may suppress or distract from it

But this is speculative theory-building, not established experimental science.

Critical scientific status

Mainstream view:

• morphic resonance has not been demonstrated in controlled, reproducible experiments
• claims about telepathy remain unverified at the level required for acceptance in neuroscience or biology

Supporters’ view:

• it offers an alternative framework for patterns that feel hard to explain (habits, instincts, anecdotal psi experiences)

Critics’ view:

• it lacks a mechanism consistent with physics
• evidence is anecdotal or statistically contested

Linking back to your earlier idea (DNA / history / clairvoyance)

The idea you mentioned earlier (clairvoyance being “older” or more common historically) aligns more with Sheldrake’s style of thinking, but:

• he would frame it in terms of field-based habits in nature
• not “old DNA being detected in psychic families”

So the thread you’re sensing is real at the level of speculative interpretation, but not something that has empirical support in genetics or evolutionary biology.

If you want, I can map Sheldrake’s “morphic fields” side-by-side with Advaita and Buddhist models of mind—there are some interesting (and some misleading) overlaps people often point to.