Holonomic brain theory. Is this woo??

PSI, Mediums, Ghosts, UFOs, Things That Go Bump In The Night
User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2839
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Holonomic brain theory. Is this woo??

Postby Shen1986 » Mon Sep 09, 2013 7:37 am

Hi

I came across this and would like to know your opinion:

The holonomic brain theory, originated by psychologist Karl Pribram and initially developed in collaboration with physicist David Bohm, is a model for human cognition that posits cognitive function as being guided by a matrix of neurological wave interference patterns situated temporally between holographic Gestalt perception and discrete, affective, quantum vectors derived from reward anticipation potentials.

Pribram was originally struck by the similarity of the hologram idea and Bohm's idea of the implicate order in physics, and contacted him for collaboration. In particular, the fact that information about an image point is distributed throughout the hologram, such that each piece of the hologram contains some information about the entire image, seemed suggestive to Pribram about how the brain could encode memories.[1] Pribram was encouraged in this line of speculation by the fact that DeValois and DeValois[2] had found that "the spatial frequency encoding displayed by cells of the visual cortex was best described as a Fourier transform of the input pattern."[1] This holographic idea led to the coining of the term "holonomic" to describe the idea in wider contexts than just holograms.


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain

It was made by Bohm:

In collaboration with Stanford neuroscientist Karl Pribram, Bohm was involved in the early development of the holonomic model of the functioning of the brain, a model for human cognition that is drastically different from conventionally accepted ideas.[5] Bohm worked with Pribram on the theory that the brain operates in a manner similar to a hologram, in accordance with quantum mathematical principles and the characteristics of wave patterns.[21]


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm ... _the_brain

And Karl H. Pribram:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_H._Pribram

However people who believes in NDE that are the foul claim this:

Memories can exist outside of the brain (Holonomic Brain Theory).


Taken from: http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

Also Lashley worked on this and others. They even claim they have verified it:

Different pioneers found different views on such nets between theoretical and experimental sciences. Karl Lashley analysed holographic properties at rats (1920-1950), Lloyd A. Jeffress (1948) and Mark Konishi (1993) discussed first interference circuits, Karl Pribram asked for holomorphic relations, Walter Freeman gave 1972 the first wave impression and Andrew Packard observed 1995 waves on animals (octopus).


Taken from: http://www.gfai.de/~heinz/publications/ ... stract.htm

. It may not be the "actual reality" what we perceive/interpret through our brain. ---> Now, the reason i am saying this because - i was reading this wonderful - "Holonomic Brain theory" originated by psychologist Karl Pribram and initially developed in collaboration with physicist David Bohm, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_model ) . The reason i said it it wonderful because - it proposed an idea that - Energy fields are decoded by our brains into a 3D picture, to give the illusion of a physical world. i.e. there are only waves and frequencies which our brain convert for us into images - which we call as "physical world" or "objective reality" . Check this out (if interested) - http://foundingfather1776.wordpress.com ... -illusion/
i think it certainly changes the way we look at things.


Taken from: http://www.orkut.com/Main#CommMsgs?na=4 ... 4094&hl=en

All this information are from believers sites so I am asking for your looks on this.

The only criticism I could find was on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AHol ... ain_theory


Hmm found new info on Bohm. He was a believer no wonder he came with this:

David Bohm and Jiddo Krishnamurti.
Skeptical Inquirer, July, 2000, by Martin Gardner


As Bohm grew older, he became increasingly preoccupied with Eastern mysticism and parapsychology. The Indian philosopher Krishnamurti became a good friend. The "All is One" aspect of Buddhism and Hinduism, and the pantheism of Hegel and Alfred North Whitehead, strongly influenced Bohm's view of the universe. He became convinced that being is multidimensional, with infinite levels in both directions--levels far beyond our comprehension. On Newton's level the universe is deterministic and mind independent. On the quantum level it rests on uncertainty and chance, with tinges of solipsism. Below the quantum level, Bohm believed, is a subquantum world in which determinism and reality return. And below that? The levels are endless. Ultimate truths are forever beyond our grasp. I do not know whether Bohm believed in reincarnation or personified the Unknowable as the Hindu god Brahman, the ultimate ground of being about whom nothing can be said.

"If Bohm's physics, or one similar to it," Gary Zukav writes in his popular New Age book The Dancing Wu Li Masters (1979), "should become the main thrust of physics in the future, the dances of East and West could blend in exquisite harmony. Do not be surprised if physics curricula of the twenty-first century include classes in meditation."

For another typical example of how occult journalists have latched onto Bohm, see Michael Talbot's The Holographic Universe (1991). Talbot buys just about everything on the paranormal landscape including palmistry, UFOs, poltergeists, and dermo-optical perception--the ability to see with fingers, nose, and armpits. His book's main theme is that Bohm's quantum potential field accounts for all paranormal wonders. Curiously, Talbot doesn't mention astrology, even though Bohm's quantum potential might offer a good basis for it.


Bohm's creative work in physics is undisputable, but in other fields he was almost as gullible as Conan Doyle. He was favorably impressed by Count Alfred Korzybski's Science and Sanity, with the morphogenic fields of Rupert Sheldrake, the orgone energy of Wilhelm Reich, and the marvels of parapsychology. [1] For a while he took seriously Uri Geller's ability to bend keys and spoons, to move compasses, and produce clicks in a Geiger counter, all with his mind.

Bohm also flirted with panpsychism, the belief that all matter is in some sense alive with low levels of consciousness. "Even the electron is informed with a certain level of mind," Bohm said in an interview published in Quantum Implications: Essays in Honor of David Bohm (1987), edited by Basil Hiley and David Peat. Bohm's later writings swarm with neologisms such as holomovement, rheomode, levate, enfoldment, soma-significant, and implicate and explicate levels of reality.

In his biography of Bohm, David Peat tells how Bohm carried with him a key bent by Uri Geller as if it were a holy relic. When the key later disappeared, Bohm took this to be Geller's psychokinetic powers at work from a distance. When the key was found an hour later, he believed this to be another paranormal event! Bohm's close associate Basil Hiley at once recognized Geller as a charlatan. He often warned Bohm that if he appeared to endorse Geller it would damage their work. Bohm agreed to back away from Geller. As Hiley said to Peat, Bohm often had to be saved from idiots.

Bohm's Eastern metaphysics, even though it helped shape his interpretation of quantum mechanics, should not be held against the potential fruitfulness of his pilot wave theory. In a similar fashion Isaac Newton's Biblical fundamentalism and his alchemical research cast no shadows over his contributions to physics. Nor did Kepler's belief in astrology throw doubts on his great discoveries.


Taken from: http://thinkg.net/david_bohm/martin_gar ... murti.html

Found the answer:

Despite what Edgar Mitchell claims, the concept of the quantum hologram has nothing to do with understanding consciousness. Perception is not holographic and there is no evidence that physical objects leave behind a holographic record of their existence.


Taken from: http://www.skepdic.com/quantumhologram.html

Here is all explained: http://www.skepdic.com/quantumhologram.html

The theory maybe good but it has nothing to do with a soul or afterlife or things like that. It also has nothing to do with the fact that memories are floating in air. These memories are in our heads nothing more.

If someone can take a look at this I would be very grateful.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
octopus1
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4893
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:11 pm
Custom Title: Deep Sea Mollusk
Location: West of Chester

Re: Holonomic brain theory. Is this woo??

Postby octopus1 » Mon Sep 09, 2013 9:36 am

"He carried a key bent by Uri Geller around with him as if it was a holy relic".

;) I bet he did...

His broader knowledge (Bohm's) notwithstanding, there is nothing scientific in support of this. At all.

In terms of psychology, I'm afraid I wouldn't know. Somebody will, though!
"On the fence".... Without a cushion....

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Holonomic brain theory. Is this woo??

Postby kennyc » Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:01 pm

Shen, I didn't read all that. It's just too much but if a 'key' factor (not Uri Geller's) is that an individual's memories, consciousness, mind functions can exist literally outside the brain then it is pure unadulterated malarky. End of story.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Holonomic brain theory. Is this woo??

Postby kennyc » Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:07 pm

And from that first wiki link:

Holonomy in brain function is really achieved at the quantum level. Waveforms embedded and spread throughout the matrix of a neural system allow new patterns to be produced via the transmutation of quantum waves into particles and back again into waves, vice versa, ad infinitum.[7] The idea of a "quantum mind" is still debated amongst philosophers and scholars, an ensemble of theories flooding the fore of brain functioning ideology. Notable proponents of various quantum mind theories include doctor and endocrinologist Deepak Chopra, philosopher David Chalmers and, and mathematical physicist Roger Penrose.


That's enough for me to relegate it to the Woo bin.

Admittedly there is much we have to learn about the specifics of how the brain works, it might even be some kind of holographic-like memory matrix, but we don't know that and that's no excuse to make up {!#%@} or claim dualism/souls/existence beyond the physical brain/body which is what this and these other ignorant bozos are claiming.


(P.S. I love how this links those three woo-masters together in one fell-swoop! :lol: )
Last edited by kennyc on Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Holonomic brain theory. Is this woo??

Postby kennyc » Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:08 pm

Appropriate here I think:

Image
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Monster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4855
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Holonomic brain theory. Is this woo??

Postby Monster » Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:55 pm

kennyc wrote:Appropriate here I think:

Image

That image is relevant to some of my former coworkers. We used to have an utter moron working for us that was more educated than most of us.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2839
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Holonomic brain theory. Is this woo??

Postby Shen1986 » Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:26 pm

kennyc wrote:And from that first wiki link:

Holonomy in brain function is really achieved at the quantum level. Waveforms embedded and spread throughout the matrix of a neural system allow new patterns to be produced via the transmutation of quantum waves into particles and back again into waves, vice versa, ad infinitum.[7] The idea of a "quantum mind" is still debated amongst philosophers and scholars, an ensemble of theories flooding the fore of brain functioning ideology. Notable proponents of various quantum mind theories include doctor and endocrinologist Deepak Chopra, philosopher David Chalmers and, and mathematical physicist Roger Penrose.


That's enough for me to relegate it to the Woo bin.

Admittedly there is much we have to learn about the specifics of how the brain works, it might even be some kind of holographic-like memory matrix, but we don't know that and that's no excuse to make up {!#%@} or claim dualism/souls/existence beyond the physical brain/body which is what this and these other ignorant bozos are claiming.


(P.S. I love how this links those three woo-masters together in one fell-swoop! :lol: )


Thanks for posting the whole stuff here. I didn't saw that. It seems to me that this whole quantum mind stuff is old. Even Victor Stenger has criticized it:

- http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_consciousness

This is nothing new then even from Bohm and Pribram.

Also if this would be true what Bohm and Pribram are telling we would not have these results:

Stimulating brain cells can make false memories - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 180303.htm
What do memories look like? - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 122123.htm
Brain's 'molecular memory switch' identified - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 125226.htm

These are just the top of the iceberg there is many more scientific experiments which tell that memories are inside our head only.

Thanks for your replies..
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

Genecks
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 8:34 pm

Re: Holonomic brain theory. Is this woo??

Postby Genecks » Tue Apr 22, 2014 8:41 pm

kennyc wrote:And from that first wiki link:

Holonomy in brain function is really achieved at the quantum level. Waveforms embedded and spread throughout the matrix of a neural system allow new patterns to be produced via the transmutation of quantum waves into particles and back again into waves, vice versa, ad infinitum.[7] The idea of a "quantum mind" is still debated amongst philosophers and scholars, an ensemble of theories flooding the fore of brain functioning ideology. Notable proponents of various quantum mind theories include doctor and endocrinologist Deepak Chopra, philosopher David Chalmers and, and mathematical physicist Roger Penrose.


That's enough for me to relegate it to the Woo bin.

Admittedly there is much we have to learn about the specifics of how the brain works, it might even be some kind of holographic-like memory matrix, but we don't know that and that's no excuse to make up {!#%@} or claim dualism/souls/existence beyond the physical brain/body which is what this and these other ignorant bozos are claiming.


(P.S. I love how this links those three woo-masters together in one fell-swoop! :lol: )


I could just as well claim that we live in a block universe and that you're an absolutely ignorant person. If you want to relegate the block universe in the "woo bin," by all means. However, since I'm doing research on holonomic brain theory, and I'm not quite satisfied with what I've been finding so far on the Internet, then I'm going to write in this thread. Also, your argument seems very ignorant, which is why I decided to sign up and post in this thread.

First off, I don't recall the originator of the holonomic brain theory going into anything mystic, such as the concept of the soul. So, I don't see where your argument that this is "woo" is valid in relation to the holonomic brain theory, as originated by Pribam. Also, no one has defined "woo," but I'm under the impression that "woo" means speculative fanaticism without merit.

It the other links that start going into the mystical aspects with ideas, such as the near-death experience. The holonomic brain theory is listed in relation to some argument by the near-death.com website. The holonomic brain theory, as I understand, says that there is a "spread pattern" somewhere, somehow, that is generating consciousness throughout the various transformations done by the nervous system.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2839
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Holonomic brain theory. Is this woo??

Postby Shen1986 » Wed Apr 23, 2014 4:49 am

Genecks wrote:I could just as well claim that we live in a block universe and that you're an absolutely ignorant person. If you want to relegate the block universe in the "woo bin," by all means.


First welcome to the forum.

Second so much hatred in your first post?? Wow..

Genecks wrote:However, since I'm doing research on holonomic brain theory, and I'm not quite satisfied with what I've been finding so far on the Internet, then I'm going to write in this thread. Also, your argument seems very ignorant, which is why I decided to sign up and post in this thread.


You are doing research on this? Really how? That you are surfing on the Internet and reading everything you find? Then if this is the case you missed one spot which again claims it is foolish:

Pribram's holonomic model of brain function did not receive widespread attention at the time, but other quantum models developed since, including brain dynamics by Jibu & Yasue and Vitiello's dissipative quantum brain dynamics. Though not directly related to the holonomic model, they continue to move beyond approaches based solely in classic brain theory.[2][10][15] The holonomic model, as well as other quantum models, have faced criticism. Some feel the theories are too avant-garde, and the misinterpreted adoption of similar ideas by certain pseudoscientific groups, including some quantum mysticists has strengthened this opinion. Other scientists, especially Mulhauser, have argued against quantum models based on scientific grounds.[2]


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_ ... ive_models

Also this makes the whole model suspicious:

This model allows for important aspects of human consciousness, including the fast associative memory that allows for connections between different pieces of stored information and the non-locality of memory storage (a specific memory is not stored in a specific location, i.e. a certain neuron).[1][10][11]


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory


First off, I don't recall the originator of the holonomic brain theory going into anything mystic, such as the concept of the soul. So, I don't see where your argument that this is "woo" is valid in relation to the holonomic brain theory, as originated by Pribam. Also, no one has defined "woo," but I'm under the impression that "woo" means speculative fanaticism without merit.


First you are contradicting yourself because you wrote this and later on this:

Genecks wrote:It the other links that start going into the mystical aspects with ideas, such as the near-death experience. The holonomic brain theory is listed in relation to some argument by the near-death.com website.


Second No really? So what is this?:

This model allows for important aspects of human consciousness, including the fast associative memory that allows for connections between different pieces of stored information and the non-locality of memory storage (a specific memory is not stored in a specific location, i.e. a certain neuron).[1][10][11]


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory

It claims that memories are not stored in the brain itself but jumps to some non-locality stuff. The same stuff like Deepak Chopra or others woo believers claim.

Third you already mentioned this but its good to see the original source.Also the Near-Death experience site use this model as evidence that we have a soul:

a. Memories can exist outside of the brain (Holonomic Brain Theory).


Taken from: http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

Genecks wrote:The holonomic brain theory, as I understand, says that there is a "spread pattern" somewhere, somehow, that is generating consciousness throughout the various transformations done by the nervous system.


Maybe you understood it wrong because the theory is saying that our memories are outside the brain which is total woo..
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

Genecks
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 8:34 pm

Re: Holonomic brain theory. Is this woo??

Postby Genecks » Fri May 02, 2014 6:54 am

I believe you're misinterpreting passages, not reading between the lines, and not discriminating the information enough. That is what appears to me to be going on here on this web forum, which is why I stepped in.

If you take a fine look at the Wikipedia page, you'll notice that certain statements are not sourced. I don't think you're taking enough of a detailed look at the statements that are being made. I don't recall the Holonomic brain theory listing itself as mystical.

Even though that NDE website talks about holonomic brain theory, it's doing such in a manipulative way. It's not directly relevant, I believe. It's simply listing a theory, but the theory does not necessitate the NDE website's beliefs. No, I don't believe I'm contradicting myself.

I really don't want to dissect everything for you, but if I have to, then I will.

Memories can exist outside of the brain (Holonomic Brain Theory).

- http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

The NDE website appears to be arguing that holonomic brain theory exists as evidence of the NDE views talked about on that website. However, holonomic brain theory does not necessitate their views. The only thing said on that website is that "Memories can exist outside of the brain."

Great. So, all that can really be said on the NDE website is that "Memories can exist outside of the brain," as per holonomic brain theory; and that holonomic brain theory does not necessitate the NDE views. Get it?

Now, there does become a definitional issue involved with "brain," which if somehow waves or fields emminate from the the nervous system, then a person might argue that is part of the brain. Another person might argue that is not part of the brain. And that memories can exist outside of the brain is not necessitated by holonomic brain theory, if I recall correctly. Memories exist in the brain, in various regions that come together from the windowed holography. But the perception of memory is of the hologram, if I understand correctly.

Take a more critical analysis of what Dr. Melvin Morse is pushing, because it seems like unjustified bull****. I've not read his work nor justification of holonomic brain theory in his theory of NDE; but I believe it's poorly justified on the NDE website. I'm calling him either a fool or a fraud.

Pribram's holonomic model of brain function did not receive widespread attention at the time, but other quantum models developed since, including brain dynamics by Jibu & Yasue and Vitiello's dissipative quantum brain dynamics. Though not directly related to the holonomic model, they continue to move beyond approaches based solely in classic brain theory.[2][10][15] The holonomic model, as well as other quantum models, have faced criticism. Some feel the theories are too avant-garde, and the misinterpreted adoption of similar ideas by certain pseudoscientific groups, including some quantum mysticists has strengthened this opinion. Other scientists, especially Mulhauser, have argued against quantum models based on scientific grounds.[2]


OK, great. So, let me break that quote down for you.

1) Other quantum models developed...
That's great and not necessarily relevant to disproving holonomic brain theory.

2) It's talking about other models, and none of them are being stated as directly relevant to the holonomic model.

3) It takes about holonomic brain theory, and then it shifts the whole issue of the paragraph to "other models," which previously stated, are not directly relevant to holonomic brain theory.

4) "Some feel the theories are too avant-garde, and the..." This is a crap statement, as it does not say whether or not it's necessarily touching on holonomic brain theory or OTHER MODELS related to quantum models.

Get it?

So, it appears that all that's being said is that the other models are crap rather than holonomic brain theory itself.

Other models are being discussed. Please note the lack of citations in that quote.

Non-locality is being argued. This goes back to a debate where people were attempting to figure out where memories were located in the brain. Have you ever heard of a computer filesystem being spread out over multiple harddrives? Perhaps parts of one file existing on multiple harddrives at the same time but retrievable in an algorithmic way?

Genecks
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 8:34 pm

Re: Holonomic brain theory. Is this woo??

Postby Genecks » Fri May 02, 2014 7:33 am

Unfortunately, I cannot look at my previous post. My apologies to an admin/mod.

I spent time around computer scientists, and I believe this is what I'm thinking of when considering memory of multiple hard drives: RAID.

http://www.recover-raid.com/RAID_understand.html

...Pribram suggests these processes involve electric oscillations in the brain's fine-fibered dendritic webs, which are different from the more commonly known action potentials involving axons and synapses.[3][4][5] These oscillations are waves and create wave interference patterns in which memory is encoded naturally, in a way that can be described with Fourier Transformation equations.[3][4][5][6][7] Gabor, Pribram and others noted the similarities between these brain processes and the storage of information in a hologram, which also uses Fourier Transformations.[1][8] In a hologram, any part of the hologram with sufficient size contains the whole of the stored information. In this theory, a piece of a long-term memory is similarly distributed over a dendritic arbor so that each part of the dendritic network contains all the information stored over the entire network.[1][8][9] This model allows for important aspects of human consciousness, including the fast associative memory that allows for connections between different pieces of stored information and the non-locality of memory storage (a specific memory is not stored in a specific location, i.e. a certain neuron).[1][10][11]


- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2839
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Holonomic brain theory. Is this woo??

Postby Shen1986 » Fri May 02, 2014 10:52 am

Genecks wrote:I believe you're misinterpreting passages, not reading between the lines, and not discriminating the information enough. That is what appears to me to be going on here on this web forum, which is why I stepped in.


Really??

Genecks wrote:If you take a fine look at the Wikipedia page, you'll notice that certain statements are not sourced. I don't think you're taking enough of a detailed look at the statements that are being made. I don't recall the Holonomic brain theory listing itself as mystical.


This is wrong: I quoted this it has a source with number 2:

he holonomic model, as well as other quantum models, have faced criticism. Some feel the theories are too avant-garde, and the misinterpreted adoption of similar ideas by certain pseudoscientific groups, including some quantum mysticists has strengthened this opinion. Other scientists, especially Mulhauser, have argued against quantum models based on scientific grounds.[2]


Also it is not mystical really? Memories that are not inside your head you call not mystical when we have enough evidence that memories are inside our heads?

Genecks wrote:Great. So, all that can really be said on the NDE website is that "Memories can exist outside of the brain," as per holonomic brain theory; and that holonomic brain theory does not necessitate the NDE views. Get it?


I get it and it claims that memories exist outside the brain which is woo..

Genecks wrote:1) Other quantum models developed...That's great and not necessarily relevant to disproving holonomic brain theory.


Yeah other QM theories were woo but this one is not? Strange reasoning..

Genecks wrote:2) It's talking about other models, and none of them are being stated as directly relevant to the holonomic model.


The same as above. Others QM models failed but this one is okay? Really?

Genecks wrote:Non-locality is being argued. This goes back to a debate where people were attempting to figure out where memories were located in the brain. Have you ever heard of a computer filesystem being spread out over multiple harddrives? Perhaps parts of one file existing on multiple harddrives at the same time but retrievable in an algorithmic way?


Perhaps?? We already know that memories exist in the brain and we have a lot of evidence to back this up and even cases like Alzheimer or dementia which destroys ideas that memories are outside of the brain.

I will reply in more detail when I have more time but so far this is pretty weak.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Holonomic brain theory. Is this woo??

Postby kennyc » Fri May 02, 2014 11:41 am

Just to be clear..... The brain is a MASSIVE parallel processor..... MASSIVE! Each rainfall neuron is almost like a very small cpu....with multiple inputs, multiple outputs and a variety of chemical/analog inhibitors an enhancers at the synapses and perhaps even within the cells.

The brain, particularly the consciousness process, has integrated access to much of the sensory input, memory, comparison and matching abilities used to make judgments as well as access to emotional states and even unconscious information.

However this activity and ability is in no way indicative that it is holographic and as far as I know from the reading I've done it is simply very highly integrated and distributed but there is nothing to indicate that it operates in a holographic manner. Of course that is always up for revision as we learn more.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Holonomic brain theory. Is this woo??

Postby kennyc » Fri May 02, 2014 11:48 am

Genecks wrote:I believe you're misinterpreting passages, not reading between the lines, and not discriminating the information enough. That is what appears to me to be going on here on this web forum, which is why I stepped in.

If you take a fine look at the Wikipedia page, you'll notice that certain statements are not sourced. I don't think you're taking enough of a detailed look at the statements that are being made. I don't recall the Holonomic brain theory listing itself as mystical.

Even though that NDE website talks about holonomic brain theory, it's doing such in a manipulative way. It's not directly relevant, I believe. It's simply listing a theory, but the theory does not necessitate the NDE website's beliefs. No, I don't believe I'm contradicting myself.

I really don't want to dissect everything for you, but if I have to, then I will.

Memories can exist outside of the brain (Holonomic Brain Theory).

- http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

The NDE website appears to be arguing that holonomic brain theory exists as evidence of the NDE views talked about on that website. However, holonomic brain theory does not necessitate their views. The only thing said on that website is that "Memories can exist outside of the brain."

Great. So, all that can really be said on the NDE website is that "Memories can exist outside of the brain," as per holonomic brain theory; and that holonomic brain theory does not necessitate the NDE views. Get it?

Now, there does become a definitional issue involved with "brain," which if somehow waves or fields emminate from the the nervous system, then a person might argue that is part of the brain. Another person might argue that is not part of the brain. And that memories can exist outside of the brain is not necessitated by holonomic brain theory, if I recall correctly. Memories exist in the brain, in various regions that come together from the windowed holography. But the perception of memory is of the hologram, if I understand correctly.

Take a more critical analysis of what Dr. Melvin Morse is pushing, because it seems like unjustified bull****. I've not read his work nor justification of holonomic brain theory in his theory of NDE; but I believe it's poorly justified on the NDE website. I'm calling him either a fool or a fraud.

Pribram's holonomic model of brain function did not receive widespread attention at the time, but other quantum models developed since, including brain dynamics by Jibu & Yasue and Vitiello's dissipative quantum brain dynamics. Though not directly related to the holonomic model, they continue to move beyond approaches based solely in classic brain theory.[2][10][15] The holonomic model, as well as other quantum models, have faced criticism. Some feel the theories are too avant-garde, and the misinterpreted adoption of similar ideas by certain pseudoscientific groups, including some quantum mysticists has strengthened this opinion. Other scientists, especially Mulhauser, have argued against quantum models based on scientific grounds.[2]


OK, great. So, let me break that quote down for you.

1) Other quantum models developed...
That's great and not necessarily relevant to disproving holonomic brain theory.

2) It's talking about other models, and none of them are being stated as directly relevant to the holonomic model.

3) It takes about holonomic brain theory, and then it shifts the whole issue of the paragraph to "other models," which previously stated, are not directly relevant to holonomic brain theory.

4) "Some feel the theories are too avant-garde, and the..." This is a crap statement, as it does not say whether or not it's necessarily touching on holonomic brain theory or OTHER MODELS related to quantum models.

Get it?

So, it appears that all that's being said is that the other models are crap rather than holonomic brain theory itself.

Other models are being discussed. Please note the lack of citations in that quote.

Non-locality is being argued. This goes back to a debate where people were attempting to figure out where memories were located in the brain. Have you ever heard of a computer filesystem being spread out over multiple harddrives? Perhaps parts of one file existing on multiple harddrives at the same time but retrievable in an algorithmic way?



And this post is nothing but apologist BS. Do you actually have any scientific evidence or proof to back up this holonomic theory you seem to hold so dear?
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Holonomic brain theory. Is this woo??

Postby kennyc » Fri May 02, 2014 11:54 am

Shen1986 wrote:
Genecks wrote:I believe you're misinterpreting passages, not reading between the lines, and not discriminating the information enough. That is what appears to me to be going on here on this web forum, which is why I stepped in.


Really??
......



Yes, really apparently. He's clearly the top expert in this field, kind of like Isodual and magnegas. :lol:
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

Whitedude
Poster
Posts: 228
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 11:53 am

Re: Holonomic brain theory. Is this woo??

Postby Whitedude » Fri May 02, 2014 3:13 pm

Memories can exist outside of the brain (Holonomic Brain Theory).


Please cite scientific evidence for that magical claim.
I am not longer posting on this forum. Too busy in real life with other interests.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Holonomic brain theory. Is this woo??

Postby kennyc » Fri May 02, 2014 3:18 pm

Whitedude wrote:
Memories can exist outside of the brain (Holonomic Brain Theory).


Please cite scientific evidence for that magical claim.


Exactly. I mean other than books, technology, etc. But those are not directly connected to and associated in real time to the brain.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

Genecks
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 8:34 pm

Re: Holonomic brain theory. Is this woo??

Postby Genecks » Sat May 03, 2014 2:30 am

It appears that the original poster is more interested in the NDE side of things. Also, the statement with (Holonomic brain theory) with it was not put in quote tags. I think that would be recognized if people read the sources. I'm not confirming the NDE theory supported from that near death website. Nor am I falsifying holonomic brain theory in this thread.

None of the listed sources talk about the falsification of the holonomic brain theory: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That would be recognized if people read the sources. The sources talk about other models.

What appears to be going on here is that holonomic brain theory is being argued to be "woo." I'm assuming "woo" means not true. To argue that holonomic brain theory is not true, it would need to be falsified (scientific "truth" argument). The NDE argument from the near death website attempts to use holonomic brain theory as some kind of support for the NDE theory.

From my interpretation of holonomic brain theory, living neurons would be necessary for the hologram to occur. Otherwise, if the neurons were to die, then there could be no hologram. Furthermore, the mechanism of consciousness is not well explained nor is the perception of memory. Personally, I don't care about the NDE stuff at the moment. My current research is in consciousness and perception.

The near death experience theory by Dr. Morse may not be true. However, that the NDE theory is not true does not necessitate that the holonomic brain theory is not true. I'm assuming that it's not perfect, but it's the only physicalist theory that has peaked my interest as of late to be close to how perception and consciousness occurs. As for the NDE theory, I can perceive it relating to holonomic brain theory if but saying that somehow there exists a feature of a person's identity that can interact with the brain and the outside world be unscathed by reality, as though the brain generates an infinite regress into another dimension (thus this is what observes the hologram), whereby features of that dimension can then communicate back to the brain. However, I perceive that if the brain were to die, all that would be left is that dimension in the form of a blank slate.

So, do I think the NDE theory by Dr. Morse can be thrown in the trash? Not at the moment, as holonomic brain theory has not been falsified. Can holonomic brain theory be thrown in the trash? No at the moment, as holonomic brain theory has not been falsified.

My interest is in holonomic brain theory rather than the near-death experience issue. The original poster appears to be interested in the near-death experience issue, although consciousness and perception could be argued to have a significant interplay if near-death experiences have some physicalist grounds in relation to identity existing beyond the brain.

My current interpretation of holonomic brain theory is that the neurons give rise to some kind of wave or field similar to how electricity passed through a wire generates a magnetic field. The magical aspects come in if somehow there is a field and it does something to reality to generate independence from the laws of physics as we know it: As if the brain can generate something like a singularity. I don't know if that is true. What bothered me about this thread was how the sources were discussed, arguments toward holonomic brain theory, and the lack of discussion toward sources to argue specifically for its falsification.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2839
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Holonomic brain theory. Is this woo??

Postby Shen1986 » Sat May 03, 2014 4:33 am

Genecks wrote:It appears that the original poster is more interested in the NDE side of things. Also, the statement with (Holonomic brain theory) with it was not put in quote tags. I think that would be recognized if people read the sources. I'm not confirming the NDE theory supported from that near death website. Nor am I falsifying holonomic brain theory in this thread.


Nope its not only the NDE side it is that the theory is saying that memories exist outside the brain and it uses Quantum Mechanics which is wrong again.

Genecks wrote:None of the listed sources talk about the falsification of the holonomic brain theory: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That would be recognized if people read the sources. The sources talk about other models.


Thanks for showing your bias here and all you have is just a belief. This is a typical woo believer stance because with that maxim you can make claim that everything exists from telepathy, aliens to god in the sky or pink invisible unicorns.:

Because there is always this faint possibility that evidence hasn't been observed yet, a common maxim is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - and is often used by people to hang on to their beliefs even when faced with a lack of evidence for them. However, this is technically an incorrect maxim; if evidence is lacking when we expect it to be abundant, then it very much allows us to dismiss a hypothesis, and absence of evidence is evidence of absence.


Taken from: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Absence_of_evidence

Genecks wrote:From my interpretation of holonomic brain theory, living neurons would be necessary for the hologram to occur. Otherwise, if the neurons were to die, then there could be no hologram. Furthermore, the mechanism of consciousness is not well explained nor is the perception of memory. Personally, I don't care about the NDE stuff at the moment. My current research is in consciousness and perception.


Memory is explained and it was found in the brain. Consciousness is worked on and there is progress no need to add here god in gasps arguments. Also tell me what happens to the hologram when the person dies? Because according to some sources of this holonomic theory consciousness lives on - like the NDE website.

Genecks wrote:The near death experience theory by Dr. Morse may not be true. However, that the NDE theory is not true does not necessitate that the holonomic brain theory is not true. I'm assuming that it's not perfect, but it's the only physicalist theory that has peaked my interest as of late to be close to how perception and consciousness occurs. As for the NDE theory, I can perceive it relating to holonomic brain theory if but saying that somehow there exists a feature of a person's identity that can interact with the brain and the outside world be unscathed by reality, as though the brain generates an infinite regress into another dimension (thus this is what observes the hologram), whereby features of that dimension can then communicate back to the brain. However, I perceive that if the brain were to die, all that would be left is that dimension in the form of a blank slate.


This is a god in the gasps there is no need to invoke other dimensions for consciousness or things like that also the whole theory like you wrote stinks - it is like the TV receiver theory but now with other dimensions.

Genecks wrote:So, do I think the NDE theory by Dr. Morse can be thrown in the trash? Not at the moment, as holonomic brain theory has not been falsified. Can holonomic brain theory be thrown in the trash? No at the moment, as holonomic brain theory has not been falsified.


It has been because other theories like these like that of Roger Penrose received a lot of criticism. Also this theory so far has not gained much attention and I can see why. It lacks evidence to begin with.

Genecks wrote:My interest is in holonomic brain theory rather than the near-death experience issue. The original poster appears to be interested in the near-death experience issue, although consciousness and perception could be argued to have a significant interplay if near-death experiences have some physicalist grounds in relation to identity existing beyond the brain.


First you claim it is not magical and now you claim it is? Strange?

Genecks wrote:My current interpretation of holonomic brain theory is that the neurons give rise to some kind of wave or field similar to how electricity passed through a wire generates a magnetic field. The magical aspects come in if somehow there is a field and it does something to reality to generate independence from the laws of physics as we know it: As if the brain can generate something like a singularity. I don't know if that is true. What bothered me about this thread was how the sources were discussed, arguments toward holonomic brain theory, and the lack of discussion toward sources to argue specifically for its falsification.


Again you claim magic and a magical brain.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

Majora
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:25 am

Re: Holonomic brain theory. Is this woo??

Postby Majora » Sat Jul 04, 2015 9:17 am

I apologize in advance for posting in a year-old topic, but I just could not help but be completely and unexaggeratedly astounded by the sheer level of brutish, antagonizing ignorance contained in this thread. I feel it would be an injustice to let this sit available for immediate reference to the public without at least making a small effort in passing to amend this by mentioning these unacceptably poor arguments.

The user 'Genecks' entire point of discussion was not to support or deny any particular aspect of the Holonomic Brain Theory. Rather, he or she was noting the illogical nature of 'kennyc' completely negating the analytical value of an entire theory based on a single third-party interpretation of the theory - in this case, the near-death experience article. Making this reasonable argument, 'Genecks' was supporting neither the theory itself nor the contents of the near-death experience interpretation in relation to the theory, he or she was criticizing and questioning the haste and particularly the manner in which 'kennyc' and 'Shen1986' came to the conclusion that the theory is baseless. In doing so, 'Genecks' was being neither "hateful", claiming to be "clearly the top expert in this field, kind of like Isodual and magnegas. :lol:", or claiming to possess "magic and a magical brain"; all straw man arguments non-conducive to discussion.

'Genecks' argument can be summarized initially as a critique of a rushed, unengaging, and lazy consensus reached by 'kennyc' and 'Shen1986', and finally as a defense in response to juvenile and unsupported statements made by the latter two individuals in a collective attempt to over-simplify and antagonize he or she for not also condemning the theory as unfounded based on the nature of a single interpretation independent of the whole theory. Assuming the two of you have not experienced any significant philosophy-altering life events since posting here, I can say with complete certainty that neither of you would do terribly well in my class or hopefully any other, and I say this to you on a personal level, not to be "hateful" or "magical", or whatever your rebuttals were, exactly.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2839
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Holonomic brain theory. Is this woo??

Postby Shen1986 » Mon Jul 06, 2015 6:35 am

Majora wrote:I apologize in advance for posting in a year-old topic, but I just could not help but be completely and unexaggeratedly astounded by the sheer level of brutish, antagonizing ignorance contained in this thread. I feel it would be an injustice to let this sit available for immediate reference to the public without at least making a small effort in passing to amend this by mentioning these unacceptably poor arguments.


First welcome to the forum. Second you start it with a nice rant and it seems you did not read the whole thread to begin with. Genecks claimed that memories could existed without the brain:

'The only thing said on that website is that "Memories can exist outside of the brain."

This is a quote from Genecks himself.

Majora wrote:The user 'Genecks' entire point of discussion was not to support or deny any particular aspect of the Holonomic Brain Theory. Rather, he or she was noting the illogical nature of 'kennyc' completely negating the analytical value of an entire theory based on a single third-party interpretation of the theory - in this case, the near-death experience article. Making this reasonable argument, 'Genecks' was supporting neither the theory itself nor the contents of the near-death experience interpretation in relation to the theory, he or she was criticizing and questioning the haste and particularly the manner in which 'kennyc' and 'Shen1986' came to the conclusion that the theory is baseless. In doing so, 'Genecks' was being neither "hateful", claiming to be "clearly the top expert in this field, kind of like Isodual and magnegas. ", or claiming to possess "magic and a magical brain"; all straw man arguments non-conducive to discussion.


The theory itself in question is claiming that Memories exist beyond the brain at least by the woo crowd. Second here is another example how Pribrams theory is used:

In The Holographic Universe, Talbot made many references to the work of David Bohm and Karl H. Pribram, and it is quite apparent that the combined work of Bohm and Pribram is largely the cornerstone, upon which Talbot built his ideas. Michael Talbot attempted to use the holographic perspective to explain paranormal activity and extrasensory perception. Talbot also ties in elements of Carl Jung's "collective unconscious" theory, as well as the synchronicity phenomenon, to suggest the existence of an underlying Unified Field, that ties all things in the Universe together. Talbot also often referenced Stanislav Grof, whose work on Holotropic Breathwork was also of obvious influence. It is said that Talbot has made the often esoteric concepts of Bohm, Pribram, et al, accessible to the general public. This may be in some part due to his earlier work as a science fiction author. Talbot attempted to incorporate psychology, anthropology, spirituality, religion, and science to shed light on truly profound questions that we have struggled with since the genesis of humanity.


Taken from: http://www.theshiftofconsciousness.info ... on_Youtube

Here we have another example where Pribram himself claims that memories are not stored in cells which is bogus and was disproved by science itself:

Pribram's holonomic model, developed in collaboration with quantum physicist David Bohm, theorizes that memory/information is stored not in cells, but rather in wave interference patterns. Pribram was drawn to this conclusion by two facts:

There are visual cortex response functions that correspond to Gabor functions, which in turn are related to hologram image functions.
Drastic lesions can be made in animal brains which reduce, but do not extinguish memories (training), as demonstrated by Karl Lashley in the 1920s.


Taken from: http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Karl_H._Pribram

Examples how others tried to deny this and how a known skeptic Dr. Steven Novella has responded with evidence: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde ... -memories/

Majora wrote:'Genecks' argument can be summarized initially as a critique of a rushed, unengaging, and lazy consensus reached by 'kennyc' and 'Shen1986', and finally as a defense in response to juvenile and unsupported statements made by the latter two individuals in a collective attempt to over-simplify and antagonize he or she for not also condemning the theory as unfounded based on the nature of a single interpretation independent of the whole theory. Assuming the two of you have not experienced any significant philosophy-altering life events since posting here, I can say with complete certainty that neither of you would do terribly well in my class or hopefully any other, and I say this to you on a personal level, not to be "hateful" or "magical", or whatever your rebuttals were, exactly.


I am thankful that I would not be in your class. :lol: It would be about the ideas that everything is real. It is also not very polite to make treats to begin with. Second you do not know me and I wrote why I do not agree with this "theory".

From what I read you rant here it seems that you have not read Pribram and even this whole thread. Last thing I am extremely careful here to play with Quantum Mechanics and I think even Pribram does not completely understands it, so I think its quite premature to base our mind/consciousness on some Quantum Mechanics stuff because we do not have yet understood Quantum Mechanics and there are many problems with it and there are also many interpretations with it and I doubt Majora that you are a Quantum Mechanics expert. Lastly this whole Quantum Mind stuff is quite old and was repeated for centuries when a new discovery was made, like when radio waves were found then the mind was a radio wave like thing with a receiver etc.. This is also why I am so skeptical about this. So this is my reply for the time being.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

Revial
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Holonomic brain theory. Is this woo??

Postby Revial » Sun Feb 12, 2017 12:38 am

Almost two years later, I am stepping in to thank Majora for bringing reason to a discussion after Genecks has left. The discussion was so frustrating for me, having to bear the unfair intellectual laziness perpetuated by Shen1986 and kennyc, so thank you, Majora, for recognizing the patterns of dishonesty unfolding here.

Just to add something for a potential future reader:
Shen1986 is reiterating his argument, that "memories residing outside of the brain is woo". Pribram's theory isn't insinuating this - it's a straw-man argument from Shen. Pribram is talking about non-locality in the sense Genecks has mentioned with the RAID metaphor. The third party's "NDE" theory claims have nothing to do with Pribram's theory validity.

Shen's claim, that "memories are stored in cells" first relies on the misleading "storage" metaphor, and itself is unsubstantiated - Pribram's theory hasn't been invalidated as of yet.

Before resorting to intellectual condescension, I'd recommend reading some of Pribram's original work. It might be a very humbling experience.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9935
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Holonomic brain theory. Is this woo??

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sun Feb 12, 2017 10:33 pm

Revial wrote:Pribram is talking about non-locality in the sense Genecks has mentioned with the RAID metaphor. The third party's "NDE" theory claims have nothing to do with Pribram's theory validity.

- Pribram's theory hasn't been invalidated as of yet.


There are actually two questions in the thread:

Is holonomic brain theory viable?

Has holonomic brain theory been co-opted by people making invalid claims for it?

So far as I can determine, the answer to both questions is 'yes'

(I came across holonomic brain theory when I was reading up on disjunctive agnosia (dis-unity of content in a single consciousness - like when schizophrenics say they are having thoughts that are not their own.)
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2839
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Holonomic brain theory. Is this woo??

Postby Shen1986 » Mon Feb 13, 2017 6:30 am

Revial wrote:Almost two years later, I am stepping in to thank Majora for bringing reason to a discussion after Genecks has left. The discussion was so frustrating for me, having to bear the unfair intellectual laziness perpetuated by Shen1986 and kennyc, so thank you, Majora, for recognizing the patterns of dishonesty unfolding here.


Laziness? Starting a discussion with attacks is never a good sign and shows bias. Also claiming dishonesty is lame and old. This is a old believer tactic and is known even in psychology - attack the person you do not like with a Ad hominem.

Revial wrote:Just to add something for a potential future reader:
Shen1986 is reiterating his argument, that "memories residing outside of the brain is woo". Pribram's theory isn't insinuating this - it's a straw-man argument from Shen. Pribram is talking about non-locality in the sense Genecks has mentioned with the RAID metaphor. The third party's "NDE" theory claims have nothing to do with Pribram's theory validity.


Again not true and a lie. Here even wikipedia claims that memories in this model are NOT stored in this brain:

This model allows for important aspects of human consciousness, including the fast associative memory that allows for connections between different pieces of stored information and the non-locality of memory storage (a specific memory is not stored in a specific location, i.e. a certain neuron).[1][10][11]


Taken from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory

As for Genecks RAID metaphor he has to show evidence and not just claim it. We are talking here about HARD evidence and not about philosophical implications and claims how he does interpret it. Also Genecks has his own interpretation of this theory which he thinks is right now but can be wrong later so this is just a philosophical discussion but I if you want to convince me that this theory is true, you need real evidence in the form that memories exist outside the brain.

Here is Genecks statement where is his own interpretation:

My current interpretation of holonomic brain theory is that the neurons give rise to some kind of wave or field similar to how electricity passed through a wire generates a magnetic field. The magical aspects come in if somehow there is a field and it does something to reality to generate independence from the laws of physics as we know it: As if the brain can generate something like a singularity. I don't know if that is true. What bothered me about this thread was how the sources were discussed, arguments toward holonomic brain theory, and the lack of discussion toward sources to argue specifically for its falsification.


So if you want to convince me here with this you have to try harder. Also I am NOT against the whole theory if you can see Revial I am again those parts that claim who mostly - that its based on Quantum Mechanics and that the memories are outside the brain which is like claiming we have a soul but I think that people defend this theory mostly because of this and not for the other thoughts it has.

Also here is so far what is right and wrong about this theory:

Paul King, Computational Neuroscientist, fmr Redwood Center for Theoretical Neuroscience
Updated Oct 11, 2015 · Upvoted by Bradley Voytek, Ph.D. neuroscience, UCSD Asst. Professor Cognitive Science
The holonomic brain idea is a well-intentioned over-application of a physics concept to the brain.

There are many bits and pieces of the idea that are probably correct:
Oscillations in the brain are functionally important
In perceptual domains, especially early-stage vision and audition, wavelets that look like a Fourier transform are an important signal transformation
It is likely that nuanced signal processing happens within dendritic trees, including involving oscillations
Representation and memory in the brain is highly distributed, making holograms a reasonable high-level metaphor

However it goes too far to put all of these together and conclude that the brain operates in a Fourier coordinate system as a distributed space-time transformation using local field potentials, following a model equivalent to a hologram.

The Fourier wavelets found in early-stage visual and auditory cortex are more likely explained by this being the most natural decomposition of this particular type of environmental signal, as has been shown by theoretical work that came 10-20 years after Pribram's theory was proposed. Oscillations in the brain probably have more to do coordination, routing, and signal integration than with Fourier coding. And dendritic computation is most likely an optimization to increase the depth and resolution of cortical information processing, not a holographic strategy.

However as with all things with the brain, never say never until a coherent proven theory emerges.


Taken from: https://www.quora.com/What-do-todays-ne ... rain-model

So here you can see that even some stages in the theory are not up to date. I know that it can change but I am on the fence what is up to date if something changes and there will be evidence that this theory is true then okay I accept it but so far no.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
gorgeous
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3452
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Holonomic brain theory. Is this woo??

Postby gorgeous » Mon Feb 13, 2017 10:13 am

memories are outside of the brain? where? just floating in the head bumping into stuff?? ....I think that would be the mind....told ya....
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2196
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Holonomic brain theory. Is this woo??

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Feb 13, 2017 11:11 am

I think the Visual Cortex is a clear counter-example to this holonomic brain idea.
"As private parts to the gods are we! They play with us for their sport. "
- Lord Melchett, Blackadder II


Return to “UFOs, Cryptozoology, and The Paranormal”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest