Talk:Holonomic brain theory

This

This article seems rather strange. I can see where "holographic" might come into it, but holonomic is usually defined to have a very specific meaning, completely different from "holographic" or "holistic", which appears to be nothing to do with this article. What gives? -- Karada 22:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No consensus on vfd vote per Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Holonomic_brain_theory. --Woohookitty 08:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Woohookitty and Karada, any update on this? Sas3301 (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Quantum hologram would be a more appropriate term instead of the holographic brain. The holographic brain connotes an understanding that does not fully portray a quantum physics interpretation. Greatest ever (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

If this is going to stay...

It needs some serious improvement. Proposing the structure:

Header Paragraph - something intelligible at least.
(TOC)

Origins

Brief intro of Karl Pribram and David Bohm, how (if?) they worked together and why they don't now.

Theory

Not the yadda-yadda explanation we have now, either.

Proponents

People/organizations/publications who have taken this theory seriously. Not reports in Golden Dawn or Fortean Times, the bar should be a bit higher than that. Has it ever been subject to peer review, what were the outcomes.

Critics

Any ink is good ink. If someone has taken this seriously enough to gripe about, it should go here. Note that "utter crackpot" or the like isn't good enough. Examined and dismissed by someone with the nous to know, that counts.

See also

Whatever is actually relevent.

References

Etc.

External links

Etc.

Let's see what is salvageable here...
brenneman^(t)(c) 10:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Right now i don't have much time to take care of this but if anyone wants to take up the challange before I can they can just check out this link, it has a lot of information on how Pribram and Bohm first started out, what inspired them, how the hologram works, and evidence for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProductofSociety (talk • contribs) 02:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What should link to this article

As I mentioned in the VfD discussion the number of articles that link here needs to be severely trimmed. We don't link every Shakespeare play to Sir Francis Bacon even though there's a theory that he's the real author of those plays. Neither should every article that has something to do with the brain's functioning/misfunctioning link to here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I've taken it off the ones were it wasn't relevant, but left several that seems to have some relationship.
brenneman^(t)(c) 05:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Science

yes they are published scientists but not in any peer reviewed publication on this particular pseudoscience.Check the defn, then discuss. You need to show scientific evidence, not mere speculation. The article itself says it's speculation. ie a theory. If it's not falsifiable in the scientific meaning, then it's pseudoscience. And by the way the hologram stuff is an ANALOGY, surely. Scientists aren't immune to philosophical or scientific error, either. Mccready 08:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did you revert the additions I just made and the references? GangofOne 09:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Eugenics used to appear in peer-reviewed publications. Just saying. 217.35.88.58 (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Easy counterexample is "Holonomic brain theory in imaging and object perception. Pribram, K. H. Carlton, E.H. Acta Psychologica, Volume 63, Issue 2, 1986, Pages 175-210" Terms likes "pseudoscience" and phrases like "peer-reviewed publications" are great but perhaps with credible assertions. The above is not credible at all. Fosterremy (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Quantum and Free

The section headed the quantum dynamics of free will seems not to say anything of note about quantum dynamics, nor free will. Should it have a different name, location, content or all three? 17:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is very vague.1Z 15:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As a general rule, when someone mentions "quantum" in a setting where they are clearly not discussing subatomic particles, it tends to set off a loud QUACK alarm to me. This doesn't automatically make this pseudoscience automatically, but a lot of pseudoscientific and altie-woo crap tends to throw around the term "quantum" in various inappropriate ways (for example, that altie-woo infomercial What the Bleep Do We Know to see this principle in action).

Also, I find it disturbing that this "theory" (really a hypothesis, or probably better described as a brain fart) doesn't seem to actually referencee any established neuroscience research. The term "neuron" only appears in the list of references, it does not appear once in the article. How exactly can you have any sort of theory of the brain that ignores the 100 billion neurons that make up the brain? For the record, I also cannot find any mention of the terms "glial" or "astrocyte" which are the other non-neuron cell components of the brain. This strikes me as roughly comparable to discussing the liver without mentioning cytochrome enzymes, or discussing blood without even once mentioning hemoglobin. ~ Hyperion35 (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should make it clearer that the number of neuroscientists who take these ideas seriously can probably be counted on one hand. The article is mainly of historical interest, because Pribram and Bohm were highly notable people. Looie496 (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the authors

THis is an interesting speculation, which I think would be better dealt with in the pages on the authors, specifically Pribram. To describe it as a theory seems to be confusing speculation with experimental science Midgley 18:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Title of page: RFC

Should not contain "Theory". It is speculation - and is described in the article as speculation. As a theory it would be Pseudoscience whereas as a speculation by a respectable scientist it is actually quite interesting. If editors refrain from trying to make it into something that it is not, and may never be, then there will be no need to explicitly label it as being not a sicentific theory (but a suggestion).

I move we change the page title, I suggest just "Holonomic brain" but others are possible. Midgley 15:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"Theory" doesn't bother me so much. After all, the "Holographic principle" sounds even more well founded, but the article describes it, too, as speculative conjecture! How about "hypothesis" instead of theory? I would like to see holonomic changed because I don't recall Karl Pribram or David Bohm using it. Didn't they use "holographic" or "hologram" as the metaphor? Isn't this a far piece from the mathematical definition of holonomic? --Blainster 05:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

How about hypothesis or model? All theories were once hypotheses before they survived significant testing. Being untested so far, it could be argued that it hasn't gained the status of theory yet and is still a hypothesis. Alternatively it could be argued that this is a framework, or model, of how the brain might function. Moving forward with the assumption that this is correct might result in fruitful research that later vindicates the hypothesis, and that sort of thing and use is often called a model. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There is real experimental evidence to support the idea that the topic is not theory. Greatest ever (talk) 11:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Talbot's book

Should this really be referenced if you want the article to be taken seriously?

Many of the references in that book have serious flaws (some "reports" were later proven to be hoaxes, many articles were not (peer-) reviewed at all) If you're going to use that book as a reference, you might as well use the Bible and Lord of the Rings as well. 93.97.30.204 (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure anybody around here wants the article to be "taken seriously", at least if that means persuading readers that the theory makes sense. If you had something else in mind, could you clarify? Looie496 (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

As interesting as that book is, I wouldn't want to see it cited in any remotely-serious scientific article! You might as well cite uncyclopedia! 217.35.88.58 (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to add my name in agreement that Talbot's book seems a bad choice of reference. I think this article should be written from the perspective of a scientific theory, since it was proposed by and critiqued by some highly respected scientists, and not from the viewpoint of quantum mysticism, though it may be worth the article informing the reader that some of these ideas have been taken-up/hijacked/warped by some quantum mystics. This maybe necessary to help the reader distinguish between article that are scientific and those that are mystical, as well as that the distinction between the two is sometimes blurred by various authors. I would also suggest the "The Holographic Paradigm in Zen and Tao" link might be worth removing due to its potential to conflate/blur science and mysticism in the mind of the reader. Annoyamouse (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Talbot's book is a thin reference on the subject and only covers the topic within part one. I would direct readers to other scholarly sources of which there are many. Greatest ever (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Questionable link to Tegmark's paper "Problem with Quantum Mind Theory"

Regarding the Max Tegmark paper "Problem with Quantum Mind Theory" link ([1]), this site doesn't seem particularly suitable as a reference source to a scientific paper. Surely a link to this "well-known" (to quote the article) scientific paper can be found on a site that isn't devoted to a personal view on the writings of Carlos Castaneda. The site (sustainedaction.org) describes itself as “A website devoted to exploring and evaluating the legacy of Carlos Castaneda, and to investigating other possibilities for increased awareness and expanded perception.”. It seems devoted to whether Carlos Castaneda is really a sorcerer etc (the author claims to be a follower of Carlos Castaneda) and seems to be about mystical, supernatural, and (at best) metaphysical, concepts and beliefs. Even if links to sites on mysticism are to be included in this (scientific philosophy of mind) article, this does not seem to be a good site to choose, since the site includes the personal views of the author and may not have a neutral POV. As the link has no indication of the nature of the site, this could prove misleading to Wikipedia readers. Can't we find a better reference? I'd think this paper must be hosted on a scientific site somewhere on the web. Just my 2 cents, Annoyamouse (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Chalmers

Not a proponent of quantum mind Datafile28 (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Citations

Numerous assertions are made in this article regarding Fourier transforms of signals originating outside the body which, to the extent of my education, appear to be false. I have added citation needed tags for these statements and others which I believe to to be false or unverifiable. If you have a reliable source for these statements, please reference it or the material will be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VmZH88AZQnCjhT40 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I will be working on this page for my introduction to neuroscience course. David Ullmann 1994 (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That should be interesting. Looie496 (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm also going to be working on this page for the same intro neuroscience course (Sept 2013-Dec 2013) as David Ullmann 1994. Joy1818 (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

NSCI project

I mentioned it earlier, but me and David Ullmann 1994 have been working on this page for our intro neuroscience course. We should be posting our first version tomorrow. It would be great if we could get some feedback on it. Afterwards, we'll make whatever changes we need to and eventually do a 2nd and 3rd version over the next few weeks. Our classmates and professors will also be making comments on the page. We're both new to wikipedia so any suggestions and comments we could get from more experienced users would be a big help! Thanks! Joy1818 (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Do you intend to simply replace the current article with the contents of your sandbox, or what? Looie496 (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

not really. I'm going to try to merge it with what's existing as much as possible, and hopefully clarify some of the existing stuff too. Joy1818 (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That should be fine. The existing material is mostly not very good, so I don't think you should worry too much about messing it up. Looie496 (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

ok thanks! we're going to have to do a few versions before the final anyways, so by the end I'm sure we'll figure out what/how to integrate. Joy1818 (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment 1

Overall, I think you did a great job describing a very wordy topic. While readability was difficult sometimes, that's just the nature of the article because of all the physics/mathematical/computer science terms and technology. It might be helpful to include links to other Wikipedia pages (or just a definition in a sentence) about some of the more technical terms (like root vibratory structures, etc.). The links that are already there are very helpful! I think you did a good job explaining the relationship between holonomic brain theory and memory, and I liked the Applications section at the end because of its relevancy to other areas of research. This is another area that could include Wikipedia links to the different disorders listed.

--Hannahgrotz (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment! I agree, readability was an issue for us too, even with the old wikipedia article and the journal articles we found. I tried adding in some links and definitions to help with that and I changed some of the confusing wording. Joy1818 (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment 2

Hi fellow neuroscience students! I just wanted to comment on the organization of this stub. I think it would be easier to read if you separated some of the bigger paragraphs into smaller paragraphs. Also, none of the information under "Applications" is cited. If this section wasn't written by you and you haven't found any evidence to support these statements, then it might be necessary to rewrite this section. Under references, "Reference List" is misspelled. Also, it would probably be best to integrate all sources under one reference section. If you could incorporate more images to this topic, that would also be helpful to see a visual representation relating the hologram to the holonomic brain theory. The analogies in "The Hologram and Holonomy" under Theory Overview was very helpful to understand the concept. You guys did a great job on this topic. I personally feel that this must be a difficult topic that would involve a lot of technical terms, but you made it somewhat understandable.

--Aly.neuro (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I broke up some of the bigger paragraphs, especially in the holograph & synaptodendritic web sections. I also fixed the mispelling for the reference list. I agree that integrating in one list would probably work better, except they were separated in the older version of the page. The references in the second section are not ones that I used, and I don't know if they actually went to specific facts before. I'm a bit wary to get rid of them, just because they might be an important resource to someone else, but they don't work with the automatic formatting of the main reference list, so I'm not sure how to integrate them. I also added in some pictures related to holograms. Joy1818 (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment 3

Hi Everyone!

I think you all did a great job with what seems like a very hard topic to digest. Sometimes, however, I think you presume that that reader knows more on the subject than they might, because some of the paragraphs and terms are hard to take in. That said, I think overall you did a really good job. I have some suggestions below:

The introduction has no citations, adding a few will make the page more credible. In the intro you describe it as a theory that depicts the "holographic storage network" and I think you need to add just a sentence more to explain in basic terms what exactly that is. Likewise you say "This model allows for important aspects of human consciousness, including fast associative memory and the non-locality of memory storage." Again not exactly sure what you mean here and think it needs to be clearer. How does the model allow for those aspects? What exactly does it entail? In the "Origins and Development" section you do not introduce Van Heerden in this section and I would say something about who he or link to him if there is an existing page.

Next, I think you are missing some key citations under the "Synaptodendritic Web" section. First you say there is evidence for other types of synapses but don't say what that evidence is or site the research that shows that evidence. I would add a citation there. Then again you say " While unconscious behavior is mediated by impulses through nerve circuits, conscious behavior arises from microprocesses in the dendritic arbor" in the same section and I think that is something that definitely warrants a citation. Then in following sentence you say that a single tree in the dendritic network can receive 100,00 to 200,00 inputs should have a citation after it.

Lastly, I think the sections on "The Hologram and Holonomy" and "The Synpatodendritic Web" would read a little easier if you broke the big paragraphs up.

But otherwise, great job!

--Cabbadi (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I added citations to the intro and tried to add in some explanations and make wording clearer. I also added some links which will hopefully help with that. I also added in citations for the sentences you mentioned in the synaptodentritic web section and broke up the big paragraphs. Joy1818 (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

PUA

A PUA character(s) somewhere on this page is preventing maintenance bots from cleaning it up. I can't find it/them. — kwami (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

could the sigma in "Σn=n..." from one of the articles in the reference section be the problem? Joy1818 (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Nonsensical deprecation of the concept in the introduction

Taking a 'can't see the forest for the trees' swipe at the quite obvious evidence supporting the implications of this model defies the underlying symmetries between the quite visible structure versus the invisible wave frequency orchestratration enabled, and attributable, to coordinated timing. The fact that most of the published science utilizes fractured, fairytale, disintregrated, then part by part, step by step experimentation, does not mean editors can willynilly interject disinformative, "can't see the patently obvious patterns", dismissive, op/ed style of deprecation from the get go. The intro is boorishly pov... ombudsman Ombudsman (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)