Talk:Engram (neuropsychology)

message: The article says that other groups copied Dianetics and used the word "engram."  But it is not clear if those groups used only the word or if their use of the word has to do with physical changes of the brain and body.  While the dictionary defines engram as a posited change in the brains or nerves of a body as a memory storage sort of system, Dianetics doesn't address physical change.  Do those groups posit physical change or do they copy Dianetics concept? Then how exactly did they copy, that is not spelled out at all well. Terryeo 01:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Terryeo.  The groups mentioned are part of the same human potential movement that followed on from Dianetics.  In Dianetics and NLP amongst other such pseudosciences, the term refers confusingly to changes in the brain (but also connected to computing metaphors of neural nets) and also in changes in the nerves of the body involved with instant reactions (claims to sports science).  The main reason NLP and Dianetics use the term pseudoscientifically is because of the mixing up of neuro concepts with early psychology concepts (the unconscious) and using those to support notions of unlimited or superhuman potential.  I think as it stands, the article is clear enough.  The main point is to make sure we distance pseudoscience from legitimate neuroscience.  That will lead to the most clear and conflict reduced article.  Regards HeadleyDown 10:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello HeadleyDown.  In dianetics the term does not refer to changes in the brain.  If you will read the short definition I have included in the article, I have tried to make it as clear as possible.  Dianetics does not address the physical body, it does not address changes in one's nervous system.  I do that understand many, many people might think so but the human body was not addressed per say.  Dianetics says a good deal about memory and does practically nothing but address memory.  But it does not address the human body, the nervous system nor changes as a result of memory.  It talks about recalling a memory, how to recall one clearly and what impedes recall.  When a memory has pain or unconciousness in it,  then it is more difficult to recall.  Dianetics is about becoming able to recall, view, fully view and at last re-significantize one's painful past moments. 
I don't myself know how those other groups you mention use the word "engram" but if they use it in the same way then the later portion of "dianetics, controversy" might be valid.  Certianly we are talking about a "posited" and not a proven, scientific fact, are we not ? Terryeo 14:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I do see there have been a number of "humanistic" sorts of groups that involved themselves with things like EST did. If those articles use the word "engram" then they would link to this article.  I don't know that, myself. Terryeo 00:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Sure, why not expand the article, isn't that what Wiki does best? Various points of views from people of varying experiences?  But I completely disagree with an introduction including "pseudoscientific" because that is a conclusion on the part of the poster, it biases the information rather than introducing the information.  Wikipedia's 2 rules about introduction are:
1. The introduction defines the term and topic and context, and 
2. The introduction prepares the reader for further detail.
So why don't we just stick with that, introduce the subject and then afterwards we can introduce whether it is science, non-science, pseudoscience, mystery, or fairy tale, okay? Terryeo 18:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Engram has to do with memory.  One definition puts forth the idea without scientific proof (posits) that changes of a human body happen.  This is the definition we find in a standard dictionary.  Apparently quite a lot of work and study has gone on, yet clear proof of actual physical change has not happened, at least not yet.  This is after the scientific method but is at this point a hypothesis and not a proven situation.  Dianetics uses this same idea, memory, without the posit.  It bypasses the posit. It simply doesn't care if a physical change happens or doesn't happen. It publishes good results with its methods.  You can find its success stories on the net.  No proof of phsycial change is available, both definitions deal with memory.  Let's be sensible here.  Terryeo 00:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: What is unclear that Dianetics use of "engram" does not have anything to do with the human body?  All of the intro talks about the posited idea that an engram might, possibly, maybe be some kind of body thing.  Fine, good, okay.  But poeple who read the dianetics article or the scientology article will come here to read about engrams and a standard dictionary does not tell of this specialiazed use of the symbol "engram" which is particular to dianetics.  Let us define the specialized definition Dianetics uses, include any controversy applicable and make a whole article of it?  If you wish to call Dianetics pseudoscience, please do so after it is defined because that is actually an evaluation and an judgement and should be part of controversy and not part of nor preceeding a definition.  Let's first define and then educate about controversy, ok? Terryeo 21:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dianetics and Engrams

message: I am preparing a mediation request that also covers this document. Thanks --Comaze 03:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation Request (Engram and Neuro-linguistic Programming)

message: I've checked some reliable sources and have found that engram is not used widely used in Neuroscience (as HeadleyDown said in the comments of  this reversion). --Comaze 11:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC (Engram and Neuroscience) 

message: An engram is a visual pattern that is stored in the brain  --  the memory of some significant event locked into the memory as the behavioral pattern(s) demonstrated during the event.  Some life-threatening or emotionally-disturbing engrams remain within short-term memory affecting eyesight which is corrected with eyeglass or contact lenses.  The modern use of laser vision correction causes 'flight or fight' reactions in the subject and just might be intended to disperse longtime deeply-held engrams.  Beadtot 10/18/2005 05:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, Headley, you (wrongly) make allegations that NLP uses the Dianetics/Scientology definition of engram, and furthermore, since the D/S usage of engram is pseudoscientific, that makes NLP pseudoscientific (despite the fact that the NLP community doesn't use the term at all).  And now....Beadtot writes something that is PRECISELY the kind of Dianetics/Scientology pseudoscientific bullshit use of the term engram, and what is your reply??? "Sounds kind of interesting." followed by a desire for more information.  Un-fucking-believable.  But thanks all get out for demonstrating that you have some really serious problems with even introductory logic.  Akulkis Thu Dec 15 23:25:08 UTC 2005
Akulkis.  Your objections are unwarrented.  I provided information to this article, and I have faith in all editors here except for you and Comaze.  They foster science and cooperative editing.  You foster pseudoscience and obtuse argument as a method of promoting or whitewashing NLP.  Your abusive tone has been noted.  Refer to the NPOV article.  HeadleyDown 02:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  visual patterns stored in the brain 

message: I've taken the first paragraph, which was quite good, and used it as the basis for an introduction, adding only a second paragraph that explains alternate uses or similar terms. The remainer I've left "as is", unchanged, split into "overview" (scientific view) and "scientology/dianetics" (L Ron Hubbard view). 
I do not know the field (although fairly well read on brain/mind in general), so I haven't added or removed any information that wasn't in the article, except one citation on the origin of the term and definition, which is a direct quote.  FT2 14:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting of article into sections

message: This neuroscience, psychology, scientology, nlp related stub could do with expanding.
--HeadleyDown 09:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe any attack was offered.  "jackass lie" isn't so much an attack as a statement of reality.  You're comparing a commonly heard of, prosperous organization (scientology) who uses the word to small, hardly heard of, barely extant, hardly defined organizations. Terryeo 15:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm,  I don't like this.  I made part of the above statement but don't understand how the "jackass lie" got into that context. Terryeo 15:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  move from article to talk page 

message: Just a heads up to people interested in improving this, you can find and search the full text for old issues of Mind at:  - FrancisTyers 23:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving this article

message: In view of the current editing situation I wouldn't dare to write in this entry, but wish to suggest deleting "The existence of neurologically defined engrams is not significantly disputed". 
Matters arising, or rather just surfacing in English as it seems, are showing the existence and academic consideration of technical alternatives to the engram's concepts. I found it by reading  and references therein.
This fact is in my view enough to suggest the convenience (and property) in leaving the initial paragraph just ending more or less as follows:
:"The exact mechanism for memories' retention and its location  has been a persistent focus of research for many decades."
Dave 200.42.95.185 21:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical news 

message: As engram can be a misleading term, due to pseudoscientific popular psychology treating it as a subconscious potential, it is important to allow a quick clarifying comparison on the article between the scientific and the pseudoscientific.  The present arrangement is very useful as it allows a quick glance to see that the engram is a neurological construct in science, and a vague notion of human potential and subconscious power within pseudoscience.  There's nothing wrong with making these quick clarifying comparison sections in an encyclopedia.  Its common practice.  The only reason Comaze wants to delete it off the face of the article is so that he can whitewash NLP (which he has been doing for about 9 months already).  Such censorship is only useful for muddying knowledge in an encyclopedia and helping to promote the charlatan's vested interests. Regards  HeadleyDown 09:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarity and comparison are important on an article such as this

message: Can we determine what definition Sinclair and Bray are using when discussing engrams. Originally it was thought Sinclair and Bray were using the neuropsychology definition. However, recent changes on the NLP page suggest that Sinclair and Bray use the Dianetics version. Also what definition does Drenth use? On the disambiguation page there is no need for the separate definition for Neuro-linguistic programming because the authors are either refering to engram (neuropsychology) or engram (Dianetics). There is no need for engram (NLP). Either way the term (engram) is not used in original or mainstream NLP publications -- and the ambiguity is being used by a group of socks to prop up a weak connection betweem NLP and Dianetics (see WP:NOR). --Comaze 11:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NLP definition of engram? 

message: Looks like brand-new user JimmyT has been busy. One of his edit summaries to this article states: "Dianetics was based on early research, Scientology contains the later developments and is a religious philosophy, not "pseudoscience".  This Hubbardian kind of logic won't wash. There is nothing in mainstream Science journals that has ever validated Dianetics, much less Scientology. wikipediatrix 16:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing there that disproves it either. In fact the criteria presented for science on the Dianetics article does not require the approval of "mainstream Science journals" at all. The first eight don't even mention it. According to Hayakawa, 1951 in those journals no results (for all mental  sciences) may be accepted as "scientific" because of the Placebo Effect. So what mental study is accepted there with comparable results to 50,000 Clears? Spirit of Man 19:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: HeadlyDown, I understand Scientology is accepted as a religion in all countries. What "other places" are you referring to? Do have any current exceptions to that? By the way, demons in Dianetics are just phrases in mental image pictures that ask for the mind to say something, like a person would. When the mental image picture is no longer there the "demon" is "out". Just like a plastic record. If you burn up the plastic it is not longer there and can no longer "talk". Spirit of Man 19:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what does "based on early research" really mean? 

message: What "edit war" are you speaking of in your most recent edit summary to Engram (neuropsychology)? --JimmyT 10:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're referring to this edit, I believe, and I was referring to what sure looked like an edit war over how this article (Engram (neuropsychology)) should characterize the substantially different subject of the Dianetic concept of the "engram".  Well, I view it as fairly obvious that it shouldn't; it should only alert the reader that the word "engram" has a much different meaning in Dianetics and Scientology, and that if they want to find out about that meaning, they should go to the article that's devoted to that meaning, Engram (Dianetics).  There could possibly be merit to a brief section comparing the concept of the engram in neuropsychology to the concept of the engram in other theories/belief systems, but to simply devote space in Engram (neuropsychology) to descriptions of these other concepts (completely unnecessary, when they are described in their own articles) verges on POV forking. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Edit war" 

message: I have a point I'm curious on; perhaps someone can clarify it for me (and if for me, then quite likely for the article as well.)  I had heard that the memory RNA hypothesized by O'Connell was considered a "chemical engram".  However, the article as it's currently written describes the engram concept in a way that seems to preclude this possibility, describing it as specifically a change to the tissues themselves.  Which of these is accurate? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memory RNA 

message: The section previously called Neuro-Linguitic Programming, EST contained ambiguous;
::"NLP and EST also use the term engram in relation to the subconscious, extraordinary claims, past lives therapy, and unlimited human potential.
It's unclear whether or not ideas such as past lives, etc pertained to both NLP and EST or merely one and not the other. Further more nothing seems to be sourced or reference in regards to EST and those assertions. The concepts have been seperated, bulleted and other concepts have been added as well, making a heading change necessary. The POV dispute has been removed, with the ambiguity which was in liklihood part of that dispute. Doc_Pato 1:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguities fixed 

message: This post is just for the record in case anyone here has had issues with the named editor or others editing similarly on this article. The following editors are as of June 5 2006, blocked indefinitely under any name:
:* HeadleyDown editing as ""
:* HeadleyDown editing as ""
:* HeadleyDown editing as ""
:* HeadleyDown editing as ""
:* HeadleyDown editing as "".
:* Also identified as sockpuppets and indefinitely blocked: "", "", and 4 or so "single-use" sockpuppets.
:* Finally, "" was also blocked, for breach of multiple policies (not a sock of HeadleyDown, but repeated major conduct and editorship issues)
It is not confirmed whether other editors are also in the same sockpuppet/meatpuppet group. They may be. It may also help to be alert in general, to new editors and repeat behavior. Reversion of heavy duty POV editing and forged cites added over many months (back to May 2005) has been needed in cleaning up that article.
Please see Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming for more, including summary of reasons and behaviors related to this. 
Formal ban and block documentation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans. 
FT2 (Talk) 14:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General info: HeadleyDown, and about 14 sockpuppets blocked on similar article to this 

message: As it stands, the article says, "Studies have shown that declarative memories move between the limbic system, deep within the brain, and the outer, cortical regions."  Is that true?  It isn't backed up, as far as I can see.  Do memories move? Unfree (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Movement of memories

message: We should also comment about Scoville and Milner studies of damaged hippocampus and how they conflict with Lashley's work. e.g. retrograde amnesia. See See also: Penfield; Rempel-Clower et al. (1996)----Action potential  discuss contribs 01:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scoville and Milner 

message: I wonder why the definition contains the phrase “as biophysical or biochemical changes in the brain”?  Why physical?  I have seen it being used without any reference to any physical trace, as e.g. Rudolf Steiner in GA73, p.106.  So where is this definition based on? H. (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why physical? 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Memory trace. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memory trace listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: To add to this article:  mention of engraphy and ecphory. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: To add to article

message: In this edit,  added a reference to a study on Purkinje cells as if that represented some sort of evidence for physical manifestation of engram. Looking at the paper, you'll notice that it does not mention engram as a term.
Much later, in this edit, I removed the reference with the edit summary . That's long enough ago that I don't remember how I came to make this edit, but I'll stand by the reasoning.
Today, in this edit,  reverted my removal. The edit summary was . Should I assume that the use of  here was a reference to us as Wikipedia editors?
As you can see from earlier discussions on this talk page, engram is endangered as a useful term because it has been skunked through use in various pseudoscientific pursuits. We must hold ourselves to a strict standard of evidence when making statements here and adding a paragraph of speculation that Purkinje cells, as shown through a particular study, might have some properties needed to embody engrams is going beyond that strict standard, particularly as the paper does not mention this. So, I still call this unallowed synthesis. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 16:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I used "we" as "we - cognitive scientists / people coming in from cognitive sciences". SvenAERTS (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

text: I didn't know the term "engram" "has been skunked through use in various pseudoscientific pursuits" because I tend to manage to stay away from that - I don't have time for that.  How do you talk about a unit of memory then when talking to other cognitive scientists, pedagogists, etc from where your brain can re-emerge a number, a fact, a concept? SvenAERTS (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purkinje cells and synthesis