View source for Talk:Holonomic brain theory

This short article is perfectly acceptable as is. An extremely minor point is the confusing formatting of the Kandell quote. Perhaps the best service this reviewer can render is to remind Prof. Pribram of the excitement that a reference to the distinction between explicate and implicate and a reference to his work with Bohm might bring to a reader new to this area. Neither of these points constitute any reason for delaying the formal acceptance of this worthwhile summary.

<review>message to curators</review>

1) the chapter could be improved just by moving up and down paragraphs within it. As a definition of the main terminology comes almost near the end and technical notations are located at the beginning.
Moving these paragraphs up and down would help the reader. I have tried to do so in my editing of this entry.

2) it is not clarified if the holonomic theory is a metaphor or a model. If it is a model why not mentioning mathematics for Fourier transforms (direct and inverse) and discuss the experimental evidence of it?

3) there are some interesting epistemological implications which are not yet explored. For example, relations and differences with other connectionist approaches, chaos in the brain (Freeman), complexity (Varela), quantum brain (Penrose) and quantum fields (Vitiello).

4) It would be very interesting some consideration on why this holonomic approach is not very much cited in neurophysiology handbooks and cognitive (neuro)science introductions. As this approach might have many interesting applications in ICT and human interfaces, why not including something about this.

Regards
Franco Orsucci