Jump to content

Holonomic Brain Theory


Recommended Posts

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

Hey all. I'm really interested in this theory developed by Karl Pribram and David Bohm. I found it pretty interesting although it received little attention at the time. Essentially this theory describes the brain as a holographic storage network which uses Fourier Transforms to storage/retrieve information.

To put it simple with an example:

1. You perceive a spatio temporal signal (let's say you're watching a 1 minute video).
2. Your brain uses a Fourier Transform to decompose this signal into its constituent frequency components.

3. When you remember the video, your brain uses an Inverse Fourier transform to translate the frequencies back into a spatio temporal signal.

 

The theory assumes that the brain or the essential components of reality are able to do Fourier and Inverse Fourier transforms and that the brain/the essential components of reality have access to some sort of frequency domain as well as to the typical empirical spatio temporal world we usually experience. The spatio temporal signals are a result of the interference pattern created out of the interactions of the frequencies (if I understood this theory correctly).

 

I think this theory should be explored further, as it holds an enormous potential to explain things such as consciousness, recovering functionalities after brain damage and even things more related to pseudoscience (basically due to tradition/dogmatism) like out of body experiences, near death experiences, synchronicity...

 

I'm interested in building a computer simulation based on this theory. So I want to hear your thoughts about it and please, if you have more info related to this, or if you want more info about this contact me :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a really cool idea, yes. But I also want to know the thoughts of other scientists about it. Do you see it plausible, do you think this theory would agree with experiments, etc. Indeed I am more interested in the scientists that won't agree with this cool idea, so I can have another point of view of why it shouldn't be like this. Also I want more resources/similar theories/additional information on similar topics if possible. I've studied some neuroscience (I study Biomedical Engineering) and some models that try to explain things such as consciousness, memory, etc. But to be honest most of them (I'm lying, all of them) are very limited, even the biggest computational neural networks are very limited and we have a lot of computational power. I think this is not a technological problem but a problem of how we model the brain and maybe we should start looking at radically different solutions. I think this one is a very logical one (since working with frequencies is usually computationally cheaper that working with space time signals) and has the potential to explain a lot of phenomena that current models won't ever be able to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My core criticism: Foirier transform requires mostly static info or an unchanging neural substrate to be accurate. You're looking at landscape X and trying to draw map Y, yet we know brain physiology is plastic and ever changing. With each breath our neural structure shifts, the 3D structure changes, and consequently so do our thoughts and responses. The moment you begin the transformation, you're no longer accurately representing what's actually there. It's a castle built in sand, as it were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-humans-evolve-to-see-things-as-they-really-are/

Well accuracy might not be the best word for describing the representation of reality that our brain creates :P. By the way that's just a random paper from the other day. What I mean is that for biological systems if it makes you survive, it's accurate enough. Neural systems are indeed very plastic and we don't even know how most of the subtle changes affect them, but most likely subtle changes in environment or substrate correspond to little changes in perception. So adding a delay in all the processing (that would correspond to the time needed to do the transform) probably wouldn't affect the system's survivability as long as the delay is below the range of the seconds or so in the worst case.

Edited by BlackSunGod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, what I explained here is pretty simplistic when compared to David Bohm's and Karl Pribram original theory. By the way I'm not so much concerned by the beauty of it (although I think it's pretty elegant) but by the amount of phenomena that this theory could explain and overall having a consistent and coherent theory of the mind... I find it really logical: Biology is economy and a lot of operations are computationally cheaper using frequency components than whole spatio temporal signals. I would be very surprised if the biggest computational system of biology (supposedly the brain) hasn't taken advantage of that :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm currently thinking about the tests that could be done. The most straightforward one I think it's a computer simulation and I want to do it as a project for my Biomedical Engineering degree if my teachers let me go the underground way instead of putting me to do the dirty job of their studies lol. Other tests could include presenting different stimulus to subjects, some stimulus more related to frequency patterns and the other stimulus could be typical signals like videos or photographies, then you can see if there is a difference in the activation pattern of both hemispheres (I think that under this theory you should get different activation pattern for each hemisphere depending on the type of the simulus, since the theory states that one hemisphere should be more efficient at dealing with frequency signals and the other with spatial ones, but it should be discussed further since frequency patterns would be also images or sounds, the point would be making super obvious that they're frequencies but even though I'm not sure). If this test gives positive results, it could be explored further by looking for differences between left handed and right handed people or people with brain damage in some hemisphere and the other intact.

This theory predicts things that we see in real life: differences between left and right handed people, people with severed corpus callosum usually end up "having 2 brains" with different properties, people with heavy brain damage not loosing memory or skills (due to the holographic distributed storage of information). It also has potential for explaining scientifically things that until now fall into the category of pseudoscience (and that would be a victory) but are rather well evidence and even used like OBEs (did you know that the CIA used and studied OBEs?) and NDEs or synchronicity...

Of course, I won't be able to convince you of this here and I don't want to either. This is a controversial theory and it is also a bit old, and although it makes a lot of sense it would need a revision ^^ I just want to discuss some radical theories and see if I can get something of value out of them :P

Edited by BlackSunGod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other tests could include presenting different stimulus to subjects, some stimulus more related to frequency patterns and the other stimulus could be typical signals like videos or photographies, then you can see if there is a difference in the activation pattern of both hemispheres (I think that under this theory you should get different activation pattern for each hemisphere depending on the type of the simulus...

Interesting. I very much applaud the fact that you have thought enough about this to be able to describe a specific test. I don't personally know whether or not this particular test will measure the specicific idea of holonomic brain, but that's due to my own limited understanding, not necessarily a fault with the test.

 

Perhaps you could also explore trying to interpret direct measurements from the brain into guesses about what the person was thinking or visualizing. I believe some work has been done in that area, too. Have fun!

 

Food for thought: http://www.nature.com/news/brain-decoding-reading-minds-1.13989

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.