Talk:Holonomic brain theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
Contents |
[edit] If this is going to stay...
It needs some serious improvement. Proposing the structure:
Header Paragraph - something intelligible at least.
(TOC)
[edit] Origins
Brief intro of Karl Pribram and David Bohm, how (if?) they worked together and why they don't now.
[edit] Theory
Not the yadda-yadda explanation we have now, either.
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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.
[edit] See also
Whatever is actually relevent.
[edit] References
Etc.
[edit] External links
Etc.
Let's see what is salvageable here...
brenneman(t)(c) 10:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
