Karl Pribram’s Holonomic Universe and David Bohm’s Holomovement. A Short discourse.

Karl Pribram (b. February 25^th, 1919 in Vienna) graduated with a B.S. in 1938, followed with a M.D. in 1941, both from the University of Chicago. Always the inquisitive rebel (e.g. as a young student challenging Catholic nuns as to the evidence and whereabouts of God – for which he was expelled), Karl Pribram has always been at the forefront of neuroscience and neurological research. At the time of his graduation, the dominant theory about memories and the brain was Wilder Penfield’s engram theory. Penfield was a neurosurgeon who discovered that whilst operating on the brains of epileptics, should he electronically stimulate the temporal lobes of said brain on fully conscious patients, they re-experienced memories vividly both in texture and detail. As Penfield wrote:

‘It was evident at once that these were not dreams. They were electrical activations of the sequential record of consciousness, a record that had been laid down during the patient’s consciousness, a record that had been laid down during the patient’s earlier experience. The patient “re-lived” all that had been aware of in that earlier period of time as in a moving—picture “flashback.”¹

One cannot underestimate the importance of this research for it set in motion a paradigm that to some extent predominates even today. The “engram” that Penfield postulated meant that within particular areas of the brain there is (or should be according to Penfield) a direct correlation with memories.

Enter the young Pribram. In 1946, he was employed by the pre-eminent neuropsychologist Karl Lashley at the Yerkes Laboratory of Primate Biology, Florida. Here Lashley had spent decades researching for “the elusive anisms responsible for memory”.² What Lashley had done was to train rats to negotiate a maze and once they had so, to selectively remove sections of their brains. Even with most of their brains removed their memories remained “stubbornly intact”.³ When Pribram helped to write up the huge amount of research, the fact that no area of the brain reflected memory was a lightning bolt that awoke his consciousness.

In 1948 Pribram went to Yale. Here he became convinced that in the absence of memories living in particular areas of the brain (or even in particular neurons), they then had to be distributed across the brain’s neural network. Lashley himself had suggested that that the brain interference patterns might play a role especially in perception, however he too was at a loss as to how this occurred. So this is the scenario: Even when the temporal lobes were surgically incised, memories remained — stroke victims, the self same story. To boot, Penfield’s research was also problematic in that he found it could not be duplicated in any other way other than with epileptics.⁴ So… the brain obviously stored memories, however the mechanism by which it did so continued to elude him.⁵

In an interview Pribram was asked as to the “classic puzzles of brain science”.⁶ The engram as seen above as well as “the constancy problem, the question of how we recognise an object regardless of distance or the perspective from which it is viewed […] Then there’s the similar problem in the motor system, in which skills can be transferred from one limb to another […] I’m right handed, but if I try, I can write with my left hand. Or even by holding a pencil with my teeth […] [Also the problem of imitative learning whereby you can copy a certain behaviour e.g. a tennis serve, without ever having done so […] The vastness of our memory – how do we store immense amounts of information in a small space?⁷ [T]he question raised is: how does a hard wired brain, in which connections between parts is fixed, allow perceptual flexibility?”⁸ [emphasis added].

Quo Vadis?

Lashley’s observation about ‘interference patterns” comes to bear fruit when Pribram reads in Scientific American (in the mid-1960’s) about how to build a hologram.^{9 10} What excited Pribram was that “one of the things that make a holograph possible is a phenomenon known as interference. Interference is the crisscrossing pattern that occurs when two or more waves, such as waves of water, ripple through each other. For example, if you drop a pebble into a pond, it will produce a series of concentric circles that expand outward. If you drop two pebbles into the pond, you will get two sets of waves that expand and pass through one another. The complex arrangement of crests and troughs that results from such collisions is known as an interference pattern…Any wavelike phenomena can create an interference pattern, including light and radio waves. Because laser light is an extremely pure form of light, it is especially good at creating interference patterns. It provides, in essence, the perfect pebble in the perfect pond. As a result, it was not until the invention of the laser that the hologram […] became possible.”¹¹ The hologram is a very particular storage device (vide Jeff Prideaux). The interference patterns are the method by which elaborate information is captured and this information can be seen by exposing the hologram to light.

So, again, what got Pribram so excited?

In the aforementioned interview, Goleman asked:

“What does any of this have to with the brain? [And Pribram answered…]

“Sir John Eccles mentioned in an article several years ago that the “synaptic potentials” – the electrical exchanges between brain cells don’t occur alone. Every nerve branches, and when the electrical signal goes down the branches, a ripple, a wave front is formed. When other wave fronts come to the same location from other directions, the wave fronts intersect and set up an interference pattern. It’s somewhat like the meeting of ripples the form around two pebbles thrown into a pond […] It seemed plausible to me that if there are interfering wave fronts in the brain, these fronts might have the same properties as a hologram. Both holograms and brain tissue can be cut up without removing their image-processing capabilities. Holograms are resistant to damage like memory in the brain […] the brain had to behave, in part. Like a hologram.”^{12 13}

The “perceptual flexibility” (vide above) Pribram was looking for finds its home in the hologram. There was a further problem that he was fully aware of and that was the mechanism through which the brain took in the information, and again, in how it released said information. Pribram was convinced that as the brain showed holographic similarities, it would then also have to be subject to the “mathematical laws that comprise a hologram.”¹⁴

There is numerous data which shows this mechanism is called a “Fourier transform”¹⁵, named after Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier (1768 – 1830). This is a form of calculus “that transforms a complex pattern into its compound auditory waves.”¹⁶

The data of how the brain performs this “Fourier transform” comes from various laboratories and scientists across the world:

• Georg Simon Ohm (1789-1854) postulated auditory brain cells act as frequency analysers.
• Nikolai Bernstein showed that the movements of dancers converted into the language of waveforms could be analysed using the Fourier transform.
• Helmholtz showed this analysis explained how the auditory system functioned.
• Fergus Campbell showed the “visual system […] worked as a frequency analyser for patterns”.¹⁷
• The work of Russell and Karen DeValois (1979) of Berkley¹⁸ clinched this. They “mathematically converted a plaid pattern into the Fourier domain […] and then recorded how the cells in the visual cortex responded to the same plaid […They] found the cells were selective for the Fourier transform, not the pattern of the original plaid itself.”¹⁹
• Pribram’s “final” epiphany came with the work of David Bohm.

David Bohm had long had a problem with Niels Bohr’s assertion that at the sub-atomic electron level “particles only come into existence in the presence of an observer, then it would be meaningless to speak of a particle’s properties and characteristics as existing before they are observed”.²⁰ Bohm chose instead to focus on the interconnectedness between apparently unrelated sub-atomic particles. For some rhyme or reason, this was the orphan child that no scientist other than Bohm recognised.

Bohm received his doctorate from the University of California in 1943 whereupon he worked at the Lawrence Berkeley Radiation Laboratory. Here he studied plasmas (gases containing a high density of electrons and ions. Here he made a fundamental discovery, viz. “electrons [in plasma] stopped behaving like individuals and started behaving as if they were part of a larger and interconnected whole. Although their individual movements appeared random, vast numbers of electrons were surprisingly well organised.”²¹

In 1947 Bohm became assistant professor at Princeton and continued his study in this field, only this time in the field of metals. He discovered that unlike Niels Bohr’s assertion about two particles being connected in a way “Einstein did not believe was possible”²², “there were no longer situations involving two particles, each behaving as if it knew what the other were doing, but entire oceans of particles, each behaving as it what untold trillions of others were doing.” (emphasis added).²³

From Niels Bohr’s perspective i.e. that particles don’t exist in the absence of an observer, and, that nothing existed beyond this sub-atomic sphere, proved to be the hunting ground for Bohm. He overthrew these assumptions. This allowed him to provide for better explanations than Bohr. This new sub-atomic field he called the quantum potential “and theorised that, like gravity, it pervaded all of space. However, unlike gravitational fields, magnetic fields, and so on, its influence did not diminish with distance.”²⁴

This is a powerful concept in our understanding of what is reality. This concept of “wholeness” proposed by Bohm turns science on its head. No longer is the state of the system the result of the interaction of its parts but that “the behaviour of the parts were actually organised by the whole”.^{25 26} “Electrons are not scattered because, through the action of quantum potential, the whole system is undergoing a co-ordinated movement more like a ballet dance than like a crowd of unorganised people²⁷ […] such quantum wholeness of activity is closer to the organised unity of functioning parts of a living being than it is the kind of unity that is obtained by putting together the parts of a machine.”²⁸ Imagine! The very substance that constitutes “reality” has of its own, an intelligence. David Bohm’s thinking is that we in are ourselves a construct of something deeper and perhaps infinitely larger.

This is mindboggling stuff but it still left some very practical problem. For example, how to explain “Bohr”s photons” (vide footnote 27) having the same angles of polarisation. He postulated that what Bohr had considered “two” photons could instead be considered “one”. He explained this by giving the example of a fish in a tank. Assume two cameras were observing said fish – one head-on and one from the side. The fish appears to be two fishes because of the different observation points. As importantly, as one fish moves, so too does the other at exactly the same time. As Talbot observes: “[B]ecause the quantum potential permeates all of space, all particles are non-locally connected […] the picture of reality Bohm develops was not one in which sub-atomic particles were separate from one another and moving through the void of space, but [rather] one in which all things were part of an unbroken web and embedded in space that was as real and rich with process as the matter that moved through it.”²⁹

Late in the 1950’s, Bohm (now a research fellow at Bristol University – thanks to McCarthyism), and Yakir Aharonov, discover what is to be called the Aharonov – Bohm effect. Essentially, what this is, is for an electron, under the right circumstances, to be able to “ […] ’feel’ the presence of a magnetic field that is in a region where there is zero probability of finding the electron.”³⁰ This is another striking example of the “non-local interconnectedness” that is Bohm’s trademark. Bohm in a very powerful way is making a claim to an “intelligence” that is as controversial now as it was then. Even today there are doubters claiming that the Aharonov – Bohm effect simply does not exist. Be this as it may, Bohm is postulating this during the 1950’s and, as such, suffers the same problem of Carl Pribram, viz., how to explain this.

Enter the 1960’s and Bohm has turned his attention to “order’ (not surprisingly). Again he turns science on its head by realising that “order” is simply not that which is organised, vis-á-vis that which is not. He now talks about matter having various degrees of organisation. We are talking hierarchies of organisation and with this come the notion that this may be an infinite order. Given “infinite order”, this would imply that there is no randomness. This is an incredible place to come to. The only “randomness” would be an “apparent randomness”, i.e., the depth of organisation is too deep for us to observe so therefore it only appears to be random. So, what appears to be “disorganised” may only be a different level of “organisation”. When thinking of this, one must continuously keep Bohm’s “wholeness” in mind. At this point of his thinking, our very concept of reality is changing. Everything is connected all at once. Everything is organised, again, all at once. Everything, without locale, “knows” about everything else.

At this time, the goddess of “serendipity” chooses to show her face. Bohm sees on the B.B.C. a program that demonstrates a peculiar phenomenon. It is a cylinder filled with glycerine and a handle with which to turn the glycerine backwards or forwards. A drop of ink is put into the glycerine and when the handle is turned one way the ink spreads, becoming thinner and thinner, until it appears to disappear. However, when the handle is turned in the opposite direction, the ink “reconstitutes” itself³¹. For Bohm this was a revelation. “This immediately struck me as very relevant to the question of order, since, when the ink drop was spread out, it still had a “hidden” (i.e. non-manifest) order which was revealed when it was reconstituted. On the other hand, in our usual language, we would say that the ink was in a state of “disorder” when it was diffused through the glycerine. This led me to notions of order must be involved here.”³²

With the above in mind, we finally come to an explanation. The functioning of a hologram and what this implies, now, as in the case of Pribram, finds a fertile place. This business of the ink moving in and out of observation; how there are orders that are “hidden or enfolded”³³, how, given the right perspective, the order (picture) reveals itself; all of this inspires Bohm as to an explanation. Unlike Pribram, who in all likelihood at this time would have looked to the “unbroken web” (vide above) as producing interference patterns in which holograms could have been generated, Bohm takes this further. He is ” […] convinced […] that the universe actually employed holographic principles in its operation, [and] was itself a kind of giant, flowing hologram” and this distilled his thoughts into providing for a “sweeping and cohesive whole.”³⁴

That both Pribram and Bohm come to explanation vis-á-vis reality during the same period is no doubt, some kind of a universal zeitgeist joke. “Synchronicity” is after all explained by the hologram. One would suppose that the universe might have a giggle at our expense at some point.

We know that Pribram shows the brain and memories are a function of the Fourier transform. Bohm takes this further by showing the universe performs the Fourier transform in the way it functions. Where does this leave us? With David Bohm, the implications of what he says are revolutionary in every way.

• “Tangible reality of our everyday existence is really a kind of an illusion, like a holographic image. Underlying it is really a deeper order of existence, a vast and more primary level of reality that gives birth to all the objects and appearances of our physical world in much the same way a piece of holographic film gives birth to a hologram. Bohm calls this deeper level of reality, the implicate (which means “enfolded”) order, and he refers to our own level of existence as the explicate (or “unfolded”), order.”³⁵
• “[…] Bohm believes that an electron is not one thing but a totality or ensemble enfolded throughout the whole space [emphasis added] […] When an electron appears to be moving it is due to a continuous series of […] unfoldments and enfoldments”³⁶, particles are in continuous flux, appearing and disappearing continuously. To put it another way, “[…E]lectrons and other particles are sustained by a constant influx from the implicate order, and when a particle appears to be destroyed, it is not lost. It has merely enfolded back into the deeper order.”³⁷ This is very important in our understanding as to how things function at the sub-atomic level because it provides an explanation for some of the puzzles that abound.

1. The “constant and flowing exchange between the two orders, explains how particles, such as an electron in the positronium atom, can shape-shift from one kind of a particle to another […] [O]ne particle, say an electron, enfolded back into the implicate order while another, say a positron, unfolds and takes its place.”³⁸
2. This organisational capacity also shows why “reality becomes non-local at the sub-quantum level. As we have seen, when something is organised holographically [called “holomovement” by Bohm to show its dynamic nature of “folding’ and “unfolding”], all semblance of location breaks down. Saying that every part of a piece of holographic film contains the information possessed by the whole is really another way of saying that the information is distributed non-locally.”³⁹

As we can see, Bohm provides with some revolutionary insights, but what are we really talking about? As mentioned both Pribram and Bohm have come to explanation about how we function in the universe. To be precise, they are talking about a re-evaluation of what is reality. This “reality” is based in the hologram and how the “Fourier transform” works. When taking both Pribram and Bohm together, “[t}heir theories provide a profound new way of looking at the world. Our brains mathematically construct objective reality by interpreting frequencies that are ultimately projections from another dimension, a deeper order of existence that is beyond space and time. The brain is a holograph enfolded in a holographic universe.”⁴⁰ Understandably this is a difficult concept to grasp, but what it means, in essence, is that “reality” might not be what we originally thought it was. In fact,” [w]hat is “out there” is a vast ocean of waves and frequencies, and reality looks concrete to us because our brains are able to take the holographic blur and convert it into sticks and stones and other familiar objects that make up our world.”⁴¹ Let us be clear here, however. On the “sticks and stones” hologram that our brain manufactures, this reality does have joy, happiness, pain and suffering. The implications of how we deal with reality must change. For example, if Bohm is correct and “wholeness” shows that everything is connected, then this too has profound implications in our everyday lives. If everything in the universe is part of a continuum, then “despite the apparent separateness of things at the explicable level, everything is a seamless extension of everything else, and ultimately even the implicate and explicate orders blend into one another.”⁴² But as Bohm points out this does not mean we live in an undifferentiated mass. “Things can be of an undivided whole and still possess their own unique qualities […] [However, as humans we have a tendency to divide and fragment this universe into “things” {or as Bohm called it, “relatively independent sub-totalities”}, and although through thinking and perception this may allow us certain decision making abilities, […] to fragment the world and ignore the dynamic inter-connectedness of all things is responsible for our problems, not only in science but in our lives and our society as well. For instance, we believe we can extract the valuable parts of the earth without affecting the whole. We believe we can deal with various problems in our society, such as crime, poverty, and drug addiction, without addressing the problems in our society as a whole […] Our current way of fragmenting the world into parts not only doesn’t work, but may even lead to our extinction.”⁴³ [emphasis added]

And so, by a long and circuitous route we come to “TraumaPractik©”, and the www.anatomyoftauma.com.