In this question on the physics site, it is asked if astronomical objects can be conscious. Now, in a sense, every object has to be "conscious" somehow, as every object is composed of the same stuff. Stones are considered as dead though and jellyfish or bacteria as conscious. In this article writ...
Minor nitpicks: I think when you say, "moving stuff in galaxies (first detected by Zwiegl)" you are really referring to Zwicky's observations of moving galaxies within galaxy clusters.
Also, no one has quantum gravity theories that are well-developed enough to explain/predict dark-matter phenomena. There speculative "modified gravity" theories which attempt to do so; these are classical (in the same way tha General Relativity is "classical"), not quantum. (MOND is too kludgy and ad-hoc to qualify as a theory of gravity.)
I am fairly sure that Sheldrake could go and quantitatively test his idea. There are a few places in your description of his working hypothesis, that should allow for this, the most important one probably that of selectively beamed luminosity. This should lead to spectacularly different stellar populations than observed. But ofc him doing this work would discredit him, so he'll not do it.
Given who Sheldrake is, I do not think this is a "useful" question, since it's no better than asking astronomy.SE about the pronouncements of Joan Quigley or Joan Dixon.
@RonJohn Well, he seems to link his thoughts, in this piece, on which I stumbled accidentally, to many other scientists (he even mentions Zwicky, who is considered a real scientist), I haven't read anything from his hand (I know he claims there to be a morphogenetic field, which obviously has to be there!).
@Barbierium what does "he seems to link his thoughts ... to any other scientists" mean, other than name dropping and New Age technobabble? It not valid when Deepak Chopra does it, and it's not valid when Sheldrake says it. For example: "field theories of consciousness propose that some electromagnetic fields actually are conscious, and that these fields are by their very nature integrative".
@Barbierium just as importantly, although you repeatedly say you think it's ridiculous, the rest of what you've written shows that you quite believe what he's written, or you are at least a New Age devotee.
@Barbierium "I meant many other scientists. Because of this, it seems that he is scientific too." What you're saying is, "He name drops, therefore he must be scientific." NO. That's not how science works.
@RonJohn I can imagine that matter-energy rays are emitted in certain preferred directions. The fact to use other scientists for one's own convictions (though the claim of the existence of the rays, so it's written in the piece I linked). makes it maybe worse. But why shouldn't the rays be scientific. Consciousness is another thing.
@Barbierium you can imagine that "matter-energy rays are emitted in certain preferred directions". That's nice; I can imagine Star Destroyers, light sabers, and Princesses dressed as half-naked slave girls. That doesn't make it scientific. "But why shouldn't the rays be scientific." Your understanding of Science is seriously flawed. (I can't think of a good SE site to point you to, though, and the comment section isn't the place to explain it to you.)
Free from any other considerations, I think consciousness here shall be taken as that of individual cells differentiating, or as you said, that of game of life elevents. Somehow it just means communication & rules. Nothing more.
Discussion on question by Barbierium:…
Discussion on question by Barbierium:…