Talk:Body memory

No known means?

"The idea is pseudoscientific as there is no known means by which tissues other than the brain are capable of storing memories" That's wrong given: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enteric_nervous_system http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gut-second-brain http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18779997 Much of those "memory" incidents may be coincidence or wishful thinking but claiming "no known means" is wrong based on current scientific knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.24.123.50 (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

I believe the article would be improved if it recognized that sometimes the term "body memory" has a quite different meaning than is provided as the introduction for this article. I believe the term sometimes refers to the things we do that we do not realize we are doing at the time, like when we scratch something that itches even when we are trying not to scratch that vulnerable spot because scratching it is just making it worse.

We do many things that we are not thinking about. I have to stop and check my body to see if I'm slumping, or crossing my legs. I type but don't pay attention to the letters I type. I concentrate on the words. I speak, without noticing how my tongue forms certain sounds differently than other terms. I believe the term "body memory" or "bodily memory" is used to talk about such instances and, at the very least, we should change the initial definition so that Wikipedia does not imply otherwise.

But I am new to this process and too busy right now to put more effort into it at the moment, except perhaps to give a quick example just by googling the term "Body memory" and pointing to one of the first pages I go to: Consider, then, this example: [2]

I also want to make a comment on MaxMangel's remarks below. I judge from his remark that he represents the original author of this page on Body Memory. In his comments here on Talk he recognizes at least some weaknesses in his article, and says he'll come back and correct them, but that was 2006, and 2006 was 6 years ago. Someone, perhaps me at a later time (sigh) should clean up this article. And maybe Wikipedia should note it as needing some work. Wikipedia is too good, too important to all of us, for us not to note the acknowledged weaknesses at least on the main page. Jolanza (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This

This page only discusses the positive view of "Body Memory" with only a single line against this idea, and even that line was written in a way to make “Body Memories” sound good. This article is written as if “Body Memory” was a fact not a theory. Yet, the American Medical association and American Psychiatric Association all dispute the very notion of Body memory. Also, the Federal Court System has concluded that “Body Memories” cannot be used as evidence in trial and is not scientifically valid.

To be Neutral more information on how this is a Theory and that the medical community disputes the very existence of “Body Memories”, need to be included. It need to be re-written to include a more balanced view.ARTEST4ECHO 20:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Bold textYeah, I know, it needs citations, references, links, etc. I'll get there. MaxMangel 02:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you might rethink this article... I recently saw a video taken by the Sensorimotor Psychotherapy Institute which showed an ex-Vietnam veteran being de-traumatised. His own experience was a series of very clear physical sensations and reactions in his body which occurred when he accessed memories of specific traumatic incidents. The body sensations/movements occured simultaneously with the memory, and if they are NOT allowed, then the trauma remains unresolved, because (presumably) the somatic components are an integral part of the memory. Of course, lots of this body memory stuff is based on personal experience - as are most of the other consciousness-related subjects. There are pretty good models of trauma by Pierre Janet (and more recent workers), and models of how to successfully work with the Autonomic Nervous System (ANS) imbalance caused by a retained trauma.

The issue with this - ultimately - is do you really trust your own body and your own memory? If you dont do that, and think that it's all cerebral, then of course, your world view will be pretty impervious to this kind of phenomenon. This also has repercussions for "False Memory Syndrome" (do you really remember what you had for breakfast yeaterday, and if you ate alone, how could anyone corroborate that?)

The traumatic events which are recalled in so-called "false-memory syndrome" are essentially somatic (body) memories. If memory is partly somatic, then everything our body has progressed through may produce some degree of somatic memory - including prenatal events. These wouldn't be experienced in the normal memory sense, because they occur at a pre-verbal (and possibly pre-visual) period on our formation, but some sensory information may be preserved.

I agree fully that a) it is possible to fantasise, b) if we imagine being attacked, then our bodies respond more or less with increased adrenaline, c) memories can be distorted and mixed up with other memories (and in these days of film and television, that is quite complex). However, you can't get post-traumatic stress disorder PTSD by imagining a bomb or fantasising a rape. And recent research into Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and the more severe DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder) shows that there are very clear physiological responses to memories which are abnormal, and cannot be reproduced by actors or by fantasising. These include blood pressure, heart rate, heart rate variability and cortical activity (including L-R incoherence to prevent access to somatic memories). There is very little doubt that anyone who has PTSD or DID has experienced very severe trauma - and that (if you were to work with these people you would observe that) some form of memory emerges somatically. Body memory. Dictostelium 14:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure who you are arguing with. Please keep your posts here confined to discussion of how to improve this article. You have made significant changes that do not match the look and feel of how wikipedia articles are presented. Please take the time to peruse more articles on the wiki to see what I mean and fix the problem. Also, the article cannot have sentences that contradict each other. Also, please remember the wiki rules for verifiability - so source any of your statements that might be consindered controversial. I don't want to have to come back to this article and remove all your edits because your statements were biased and unsourced. MaxMangel 03:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You failed to improve your changes so I reverted most of them. Please read the rules on how to edit articles properly before trying again. MaxMangel 00:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is ridiculous. I have done a rewrite based on some logic of my own. Since this is entirely a pseudo-science theory that any third-grader could dispute, there aren't a lot of "sources" available at this point to discuss it. The only related link given was broken, so we might just as well delete this article. Herunar (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience conflated with clinical term

The term Body Memory as used by clinicians who work with trauma survivors basically refers to physiological response, feeling and energy that is dissociated from its original time and place, often due to psychogenic amnesia. A simple example: surges of adrenaline triggered by memories related to the circumstances in which a trauma occurred. IE. a vet sitting at a drive-thru window hears a car backfire and his fight or flight response kicks in. Other uses of the word, sure. But uh, the most common usage has nothing to do with the rather ludicrous pseudoscience given at the top of the page. West world 00:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

==

The word "confabulation (false memories)" is used incorrectly in this article.

Also, most "body memories" can be more accurately described as anxiety symptoms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.110.177 (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverted per WP:PROVEIT

I've reverted the page per WP:PROVEIT, as well as removing the see also section per WP:ALSO WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Edit 13:58, 15 January 2009 by Bodymemoryglobal copied text verbatim from articles including but not limited to http://www.globalhealingtherapies.com/article_bmr_phenom.html and http://www.globalhealingseminars.com/article_bmr_intro.html . Шизомби (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Cellular memory

Is there any significant difference between this subject and Cellular memory? The Interior (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is. Perhaps the two pages of pseudoscience and wishful thinking should be merged! MatthewTStone (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a significant difference. --Pod3CD (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If there is a difference, I'd like to know what it is based on some kind of scientific methodology. As things stand, I don't see much of any substance in either 'Cellular' or 'Body' memories. The pages should be merged and tagged as 'Pseudoscience'. MatthewTStone (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Layer is different. Body memory for body or parts of body -organ- layer. Cellular memory for sub-cellular layer, in the original sense of the word. --Pod3CD (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I know what is FMS and its complicated problems. I understand Susan Smith's anger and I apreciate her efforts in the field of FMS. But dispute in the psychological field remains dispute in the psychological field.

I know also that body memory hypothesis still remains a hypothesis. I am neutral. I'm not a believer. I am skeptic, in a true sense of the word.

But, we have to be careful. The idea that "the human neural system is a simple centralized system" is really a dogma, wrong idea.

Please remember what happened in the biology. The idea that "the cellular only decode DNA's information and stores no information" - central dogma- , was very widely believed by almost of scientists. But this really was a dogma and was wrong. Cellular stores some kind of information itself. Now, many scientists are trying day and night to discover epigenetics process and writing so many papers on it.

Body memory hypothesis has variations, has many aspects. Not only psychologists' field. It can be treated in biology and medical field, can be estimated as a possible option to give better explications to this multi-layered biological complicated system - human body-. We don't have to attack this hyphothesis in a hysteric way. We'd better be neutral, watch carefully scientists' recent papers and future experimental activities. Maybe scientist's really discover the mechanism this hypothesis. Maybe they find the stored memory is so small, so low leveled, to judge body memory hypothesis is almost wrong.

Anyway, we'd better be neutral. --Pod3CD (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's fine, I'll admit this subject is somewhat outside my area of expertise and knowledge. However, I think the way forward for this WP page is to include some solid references based on scientific research. MatthewTStone (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I disagree with Pod3CD. Reading both articles I don't see a difference between the two ('Cellular' vs. 'Body'). Additionally I don't believe that Pod3CD is correct both in the choice of edits made and the claims of neutrality. The statements "the human neural system is a simple centralized system” is really a dogma, wrong idea." and "the cellular only decode DNA's information and stores no information" - central dogma- , was very widely believed by almost of scientists. But this really was a dogma and was wrong." are the most blatantly obvious POV statement I have read on Wikipedia. Even the use of the term "dogma" is POVish.

Sometimes science dose get it right and the "dogma" is correct. Doctors and scientists have studied the body for centuries, and this so called "hypothesis" flies in the face of that science, and no one has even come close to any proof that the the human neural system is anything but a simple centralized system and that the cellular does anything but decode DNA's information.

However, I agree that we'd better be neutral, which is why I have refrained from editing this page for quite some time, since I cannot seem to find anything neutral to back any part of its claims.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscience Category

Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status. Body memory fits that definition, so it belongs in the Pseudoscience category. If something meets the definition of a category is it not POV to include it in that category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ARTEST4ECHO (talk • contribs) 13:20, September 20, 2010

I'm not sure this is even pseudoscience. The only positive reference given doesn't seem to relate to the subject as described in the introduction. Without more relevant and verifiable references it doesn't seem worth including in Wikipedia. I'd say if it can't be improved it should be deleted.AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Do agree that this page lacks "relevant and verifiable references". Unfortunately, I don't agree that it should be deleted. People do believe in this idea and it is used by some "Councilors", so I think it should be included in Wikipedia, but it needs great improvement. My issue was that all references to this being "Pseudoscience" have been removed, despite it fitting that definition and being referred to by scientists as being Pseudoscience, a term that by definition means "does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology", which is dosn't. By removing all these references that article is no longer neutral and become POVish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ARTEST4ECHO (talk • contribs) 13:45, September 20, 2010

We'd better be neutral. It seems someone got hysteric and wants to put a label to this theme in a hysteric way. We don't have to do the witch-hunt. We don't have to repeat such thing.

The line at the top of the page is a combination of two phrases.This combination is a Original Research. It seems someone invented this combination to put a label on this theme in a hysteric way. This is far from neutrality.

"For memories about how to move, see implicit memory." ??? Why, in this context, this phrase??? Who mentioned "implicit memory" talking about body memory ??? Citation needed.

I don't belive in the body memory hypothesis. I really am not a believer. A hypothesis is only a hypothesis. But I know Wikipedia must not be a crazy witch-hunt field. --Pod3CD (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I have cited the statement. Body memory is pseudoscience. I copied the original statement found before you started making your changes. By removing those statements you are giving the hypothesis an implied scientific creditably that it shouldn't have. You are creating the very POV problem you claim to be removing.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 15:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Psychologists' view is already well shown in the article with a neutrality. The readers of this article can find easily the word 'pseudo-science' and can pay attention to the credibility of the notion. We don't have to put a label in a hysteric way using a ORIGINAL RESEARCH, any more. We'd better stop a witch-hunt. You have to show the citation for the combination of the two phrases including both body memory and implicit memory. --Pod3CD (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have cited the statement twice. How many times does it take to no longer be "ORINNAL RESEARCH" and not to be a witch-hunt. Two, three, four?? Almost all your edit have been to remove statements in order to give body memory an implied scientific vitality that doesn’t exist. Your edits are an attempt to changed this into a POV article supporting Body Memmory, not creating neutrality as claimed.

Additionally, I don't have to cite a connection between the two. The statement in there in order to prevents someone from confusing body memory and implicit memory, which are very similar in description. One is unconscious memory in the mind the other is unconscious memory in the body, and nothing more.

I have now asked for a third opinon since you and I cannot find an agreement. --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 15:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

3O Request

Response to third opinion request:

Let me first review your comments above, the article, and pertinent WP:POLICY before expressing my opinion on this issue.—WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think this article belongs in Category:Pseudoscience. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that the article belongs in Category:Pseudoscience. Unfortunately, that was not the issue that lead to the third opinion request. The issue was the commenting out the following at the top of the page.

This article is about pseudoscientific notion of extra-cerebral memories. For unconscious memory, see implicit memory.

I was not the one who added this statement, but I did adjust it by adding the references and trying to change the words to clarify it to show a need for the statement, in order to make user:Pod3CD happy.

I feel that it belongs since the two are similar is concept. One is the idea of unconscious memory in the mind (which is why Unconscious memory redirect implicit memory). The other is the idea of unconscious memory in the body or cells depending on your view. Not wanting to put word into user:Pod3CD I will only say that he commented out the item by saying "{{citation}}citation for the combination of two phrases -including implicit memory- is needed.". What I understand his argument is that the two need to be shown to be linked somehow before the statement should be include. However, it is my opinion that the point of all {{about}} templates is to separate two thing that DON'T have anything to do with each other, but are simalar in name or idea. However, again, I will admit that I may have gotten his argument wrong, so I will leave it to user:Pod3CD to better explain his view point, since I obviously don't agree.

However, I am willing to make a compromise. Perhaps the inclusion of the following instead:

This article is about the hypothesis of unconscious extra-cerebral memories. For unconscious cerebral memories, see implicit memory.

So that there is no scientific "dogma", as user:Pod3CD likes to say.

References

--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent "about" statement for this article, and have already added it. Regards, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Skepticism section

I find it strange that in the "Skepticism" section the quote by "Susan E. Smith" mentions nothing about the fact that she finds Body memory an "unfounded "dysfunctionality" theories" see here. This article is so extremely POV in favor of Body memory that the Skepticism section itself mentions nothing about the skeptic’s dislike of the subject.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 21:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It's better now. The way it was written before "Susan E. Smith" seemed to be a supporter of the idea.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 12:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge "Cellular Memory hypothesis" into "Body Memory"

I would like to re-address the above "Cellular memory" discussion. I propose that we spit the two definitions, "Epigenetics" vs. "Cellular Memory hypothesis", by moving the "Cellular Memory hypothesis" into this page.

I think the combination of the two definitions is inappropriate. It gives the second a POVish implied scientific backing. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. One is a scientific field the other is Pseudoscience. They should not be on the same page.

I think that "Cellular Memory hypothesis" should be incorporated into body memory. I do agree there is a difference, but that difference is insignificant, and can be easily addressed and the two hypotheses merged. The "layer" issue user:Pod3CD had can be addressed by opening a new ==Cellular Memory== subsection and starting it out with the following:

"Cellular Memory is an addational hypothesis that memories can be stored outside the brain. However, unlike Body memory, the Cellular Memory hypothesizes that these memories are stored in all the cells of human bodies, not in the bodies’ organs."

Then the Cellular memory page can become a disambiguation page saying:

Cellular Memory can refer to:

• A term used in the field of epigenetics.
• The "Cellular Memory" hypothesis that memories can be stored in the cells of human bodies.
• A data storage devices used in cellular phones

Then any additional information can be included here. I also think this will actually help Body memory because there are several "Further Reading" and "references" that can help support this page, which is seriously lacking in source information. Several actually refer to the "organ layer” (transplants) not the "Cell layer" that user:Pod3CD refers to, so if there is a difference, the documentation for "cellular layer” is actually incorrect anyway.

References

--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 14:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this merge. While ignorant of a lot of the psychological subtleties in these concepts, I do feel they are similar enough to be merged. The two articles as they previously existed were short on detail and confusing to the casual reader. I would avoid a adjective-laden hatnote, though. It's a confusing way to start an article. On another note, I am removing the "Books" section, as Body memory doesn't write books (although, if one received a hand transplant from an author....). I believe we should go ahead. The Interior (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I second the merge suggestion as these ideas overlap quite closely. MatthewTStone (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

All done, I think. I'm not 100% sure of what the issues that The Interior wanted me to avoid were, so if I did mess up, please fix them. I removed any broken links and broken references (of which there were many) and me. Lastly, I archived the talk page since all the talk page information now no longer apples to that page, now being a disambiguation page.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on the split or dab page, but the notion should clearly be labelled pseudoscience, news stories should not be part of the external links or further reading, the "organ transplant" template shouldn't be here since it's a fringe theory that organs transplant memories, and the idea should be briefly described and the mainstream position given. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring?

Perhaps I've not reviewed the history enough, but page protection seems to be overkill. But discussion is always good. My current issue with the page:

1. If cellular memory is a DAB link to this page, it should appear in the lead, in bold. The two are essentially indistinguishable - one involves memories stored in organs except the brain, the other in cells. Both are totally unsupported. Also note the changes I've made to cellular memory are to bring the page in line with MOS:DAB, not something based on my personal taste.
2. Body memory is not a serious scientific hypothesis - the brain is the only biological structure known to retain memories
3. The section on Body memory#Proposed mechanism, hypothesis cites two references. Kresh & Armour, 1997 seems to be about very conventional discussion of the maintenance of blood circulation. Does it mention memories at all? Mechanical and electrical properties, even with a self-regulating circuit, does not mean the heart "remembers" anything like an episodic memory. References should be explicit in their relation to the page they are cited on - innocently mentioning that the heart has a self-regulating electrical network should not be mentioned here unless the article explicitly states that the network can generate "body memories" in the sense used on this page - that's original research. The second reference, The Heart's Code, probably isn't a reliable source, particularly for the strong fringe claim that the body can remember. Broadway books appears to be part of RandomHouse/Crown Publishing Group, but is not a medical publisher (it's "about" section discusses memoire, health and fitness - not medicine, spirituality, etc.) and this is at best a popular discussion of an unsubstantiated hypothesis. At best only the Pearsall reference should be used, and it should be juxtaposed immediately with a contextualization that this idea is pretty much considered bunk.
4. Skepdic is retained, it's a good source for pop nonsense like this - but it's used twice and should be a single <ref name = skepdic> citation.
5. The false memory/recovered memory/survivor's movement information should probably be trimmed - FM/RM/SM are all themselves fringe hypotheses and shouldn't be given much weight here; Issues in Child Abuse Accusations is a reasonable parity source but it needs work in my opinon. I'd rather a more reliable source with a better context.
6. Per WP:EL and WP:GTL, the further reading and external links sections should be removed. News articles should be either embedded as citations (not a good choice in my mind) or removed outright. These sections are for relatively lengthy discussions of the topic at hand, not a holding place for sources or to point to short articles of dubious reliability. The Nature article should also be removed as it is not about the same topic. Body memory/cellular memory is about humans who believe they store memories outside of the brain. That news article is about the learning ability of multicellular life. At best it should go in the slime mold article. The EL section also shouldn't include duplicates of references

These are changes to reach a NPOV page that respects WP:UNDUE, WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE; we shouldn't be pretending the heart could actually "remember" and that there's some sort of biological justification for it - it's one guy's opinion and a very, very fringe one at that. At best, it should be attributed to the person and I'm guessing any reasonable review of the book will point out how specious this idea is.

I appreciate that the current version of the page is actually pretty close to NPOV, and also that my changes were substantially integrated. But we shouldn't mistake "neutrality" as used in popular culture to equate to the neutrality required by NPOV. We have to be proportionate to the representation and understanding within the scientific mainstream and the scientific mainstream considers this bunk with no reasonable support beyond untested speculation. We aren't required to "tell both sides" as if both sides had equal merit. They don't. One side is quack nonsense, the other is the scientific mainstream opinion that the brain and only the brain stores memories. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

First, I am sorry. I have come to realize that I made an incorrect assumption that lead to the block. You got caught up in the edit war between user:Pod3CD and several editors, including myself. It is important that you understand that I agree with you that “body memory” is a joke, but this page keeps going back and forth between “Pro” and “Con” versions so fast that after much discussion above, your changes threatened to destroy a very tenuous consensus that was reached, starting the war all over again. So when you made such drastice changed I though you were a sockpuppet of someone else, which I have decided is wrong. I would however, suggest that for a short time, changes should be made slowly and after discussion in order to avoid another the all out “Edit War” we have been having.

To address your issues.

1. You have to understand according to the “pro” side, there is a difference. (Not that I agree mind you) It had to do with the layer the memory is storied in. Body memory is the organ lay and cellular memory is in each cell. Or Heart vs. Heart Cell, if you see what they mean. When we first tried to merge the two this was the sticking point (see talk:Cellular_memory). When a consensus was reach on how to how to merge the two, this idea was incorporated into splitting it into a “sub- heading” and making that difference notiable. If you merge the two as you had planed, we are right back to where we started when “Cellular memory” was split into a separate page creating the need to merge them back again.
2. Amen. It isn’t a serious scientific hypothesis. That is the argument I made for inclusion in the Pseudoscience Category. The issue is the more this idea is incorporated into this article the more the “pro” side starts yelling “scientific dogma”. In one since they are correct. This article is about the idea of “Body memory” and the constant saying that “this isn’t serious science”, is very POV against Body memory. In an attempt to get a consensus the inclusion of the words “By physicists” was added and the inclusion on the “Pseudoscience Category” to try and keep some NPOV. I did include some of the wording you had since I thought it sounded better.
3. I didn’t understand what you meant hear. I now do, and agree. Once it is unblocked, you or I can make the change.
4. The problem I see is that this entire page is about a “fringe hypotheses”. If you remove all the other “fringe hypotheses” you end up giving “Body Memory” an implied scientific validity that isn’t there. The inclusion of the “Skepticism” section was attempts to show that psychologist view this as pseudoscientific nonsense, while allowing this page to exist at all.
5. To be honest I’m not sure what you mean here. However, if you’re saying that these should be included as reference instead as external links and further reading, I don’t mind. However, I do think they are relevant and should be included somehow.

I agree that this entire article is about a fringe idea and that scientific mainstream should have it due inclusion in this page. WP:PSCI should applie to this page. "Pseudoscientific views should be proportionate, and the scientific view and the pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." and "An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included.' The big problem is that this entire page is all about a "fringe idea" and if you give the scientific mainstream the due that you and I both believe should be given, then the page becomes POVish in the option of other "Pro" editors. Do you see the problem?

Again, I am open to any idea that may fix this page. It also think the bock was not necessary any more. I personally would love to see it deleted as patent nonsense, since this idea has caused so much harm to the families of those who believe it. However, there are those who believe this "idea" and as such I do think it disserves to have a page, or I would suggest myself to delete it. I would be more then willing to second a nomination aince this is "a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" and as such "does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not". --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 19:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries about the mix-up, now we're talking. It was pretty clear based on your discussion that you're operating on good faith, which I greatly appreciate.

The distinction between two types of pseudoscience is hardly worth noting; in my opinion it's adequate to note that there is a cellular-level versus organ-level version but since both are pseudoscience all that is really required is a simple statement that body refers to organ-level(ref) while cellular is at a cellular level(ref) and move on. Since this page is, and will always be a stub (since there's no real research) then there's no reason to include a separate section - a single sentence is adequate. I would suggest something like "Body memory is the belief that memories can be stored in organs other than the brain; a variation called cellular memory believes that memories can be stored at a cellular level."

Consensus can change, particularly with input from new, experienced editors. I'm perfectly willing to revert someone who restores a POV version that gives undue weight to nonsense.

Scientific dogma isn't a problem. We give due weight to the "scientific dogma". Policies and guidelines like WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI, WP:REDFLAG and WP:UNDUE all exist to ensure we give due weight to "scientific dogma". In this case, I would point to WP:UNDUE - this is such a fringe hypothesis, with no mainstream support, we shouldn't be giving a loving discussion of the possibilities of the hypothesis and how it could hypothetically work - we should simply include a brief description and note it's bunk. This isn't AIDS denialism, creationism or alien abduction where there is considerable popular and scientific interest - this is just garbage. So if someone says we're giving too much weight to "scientific dogma", that means we're probably doing it right. Think of it this way - would Encyclopedia Brittanica have a long, detailed page on this? Nope. Nor should we. NPOV doesn't mean "tell both sides", it means "neutral within the appropriate scholarly community". If someone doesn't like that, it's up to them to demonstrate the page is giving inappropriate weight through a citation of the appropriate sources with reference to policies, guidelines and community mores. If we're really stuck, we can always go to the fringe noticeboard. NPOV doesn't mean everyone leaves here happy, we deliberately have policies to discourage cranks and nutjobs from using us as a soapbox for advocacy. So yeah, I call bullshit on much of this and still plan on deleting and rewriting most. So I don't see a policy, guideline or source-based problem with giving the scientific mainstream prominence and in fact they all seem to support it.

If you want to request the protection be removed, we/I can start editing again. I'll be sure to cite the appropriate guidelines in my edit summaries.

If what you're confused about is the false memory stuff, basically I think we need better sources to indicate this was a spurious belief of the recovered memory crowd, and that it's not considered a real form of memory. Pretty much as above - only a small minority gave it any weight, and they never published much in the scientific literature. We get to apply WP:PARITY here - there is a deliberate bias against fringe sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I have been sick the last few days, so I didn't get online to read this until now. I did request that the protection be removed.

I do like the statement "Body memory is the belief that memories can be stored in organs other than the brain; a variation called cellular memory believes that memories can be stored at a cellular level."

I’m not so sure about the removal of the "Skepticism" section. Ironically I think it explains better than anything what this idea is all about. That is why I tagged it as POV until the inclusion of the section quote. I would hate to see it lost.

I’m all for moving the Further reading stuff to references. I am now however not so sure about removing the “False memory syndrome" link. After all it has been used in court cases. It has plenty of references and I do think the "See also" applies. After all it is the rebuttal against Body Memory, so I don’t see why a link to that page doesn’t belong on this page as a see also.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It usedt o be we were supposed to avoid criticism sections and integrate criticisms where appropriate. That has apparently changed and now there is no generally accepted "best practice". I think we're best to have a section or statement describing what body memory is supposed to be, immediately followed by the criticisms - it avoids "ghettoizing" criticisms into sections that attract trolls and POV-pushers. The difficult problem is finding a reasonable source that describes body memory - since it's a fringe topic, most of the "pro" sources are credulous and nearly worthless. We can also use skeptical sources as a reliable source for a description of the item itself, and the criticisms. I am not advocating for a removal of the information - just a reworking into a more integrated and flowing version of the page.

Regards FMS, are you talking about the "See also" link to false memory syndrome? Per WP:ALSO we generally don't use see also links that are already in the page and don't immediately and obviously relate to the page topic. In other words, we shouldn't have a see also link to the FMS page unless on the FMS page it is immediately obvious that body memory is a relevant topic. Otherwise it's confusing to the reader. A better option is always to have a contextualized discussion of the topic that helps the reader see the relationship. In other words, rather than a free-floating false memory syndrome, we have a discussion that says "Body memory has been linked to the idea of false memories. Psychologist Susan Smith has stated that efforts to retrieve "body memories" have the potential to induce false memories by having patients focus on sensations and attempting to produce or retrieve memories related to them. The concept of false memory syndrome is controversial."

See the difference? One is a dangling link, the other helps the reader learn. What do you think? I still think we're agreeing, normally I would edit the page with all this in mind so you could see what I'm going for - much easier than trying to hash out a completed version on the talk page. I probably won't be able to do so by the time the page is unprotected, I'll be going on vacation in a couple days and won't be checking wikipedia for a good two weeks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't gotten back to you sooner. Don't get sick with this years cold. It's the worst I have ever seen in a cold. Trust me. It may be original research or my own but it's true.

I hadn't noticed the false memories link in the Skepticism section. I thought it was a link to some "False Memory Syndrome Conference" page. Since it is one the page, I'm happy with it being taken out, leaving the "See also" section as unneeded.

I fine with a "reworking into a more integrated and flowing version of the page." of the "Skepticism" section. Again, ironically ironically I think that section better explains this idea better then anything else on this page, so I don't think it needs to disappear. I think it also says alot that the best "Explanation" comes with a "this is a dumb idea" attached to it. So go ahead and make the changes.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 18:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Can I offer a lead to follow?

In the next 2 or 3 years I plan to train as a Somatic Movement Educator, and be eligible to register under ISMETA (International Somatic Movement Educator and Therapist Organisations). As part of this training I will be required to take diploma level Anatomy and Physiology, Kinesiology and Nutrition and if I continue training into being a Somatic Movement Therapist then I will also have to take qualifications in Counselling. ISMETA is an significant community of practitioners in the field of Somatics which includes the Rolf Institute, Alexander-Technique International, Laban Bartenieff Institute of Movement Studies and the School for Body-Mind Centering. In short this is a rigorous training which demands a strong head for "proper" science along with a sensitivity to be able to literally embody the material.

In the discipline I will be studying when we work, experientially, with the nervous system we treat it as the last to know - "The nervous system is the recording system of the body. It records our experiences and organizes them into patterns. It can then recall the experience and modify it by integrating it with patterns of other previous experiences. The nervous system is the last to know, but, once knowing, it becomes a major control center of psychophysical processes." (from http://www.moveus.de/coursecontent#nervous) A cell in the human body also records and recalls patterns - its very make up as a specialised cell is a display of its own living history. This is true of a cell in any tissue - be it in bone, in the nervous system, in an organ or a gland. If one cell in a tissue is capable of this, then it follows that an entire tissue can also be capable of this, and even an organ or an organism. Nothing I am saying, as far as I am aware, is particularly radical scientifically.

However to research and document the experience of this process is more problematic - to work with memory is to work with material that is by its nature subjective, and this is possibly where some of the mis-understanding has come about.

This is where my lead is - there is a vast body of work that has developed, predominately orally and experientially with a processes of exploring the subjective data that the body gives us. This is a learning process that has application to clinical practice, dance, and yes - dare I say it - to scientific research. Because this work has developed within a community in an oral way, dialogue outside of this community is relatively recent, but it is happening.

Books to look for:

• Job's Body: A Handbook for Bodywork - Deane Juhan (especially the Essay by Thomas Hanna: What is Somatics?)
• Bone, Breathe, Gesture: Practices of Embodiment - ed. Don Hanlon Johnson
• Groundworks: Narratives of Embodiment - ed. Don Hanlon Johnson
• Sensing, Feeling and Action: The Experiential Anatomy of Body-Mind Centring - Bonnie Bainbridge Cohen
• Bodystories: A Practical Guide to Experiential Anatomy - Andrea Olson
• The Thinking Body: A Study of the Balancing Forces in Dynamic Man

This last quote from Thomas Hanna may help to illuminate some of the mis-understandings: "... two distinct viewpoints for observing a human being are built into the very nature of human observation which is equally capable of being internally self-aware as wel as externally aware. The soma [a human being percieve from within first-person perception], being internally percieved, is categorically distinct from a body [a human being observed from the outside, 3rd person viewpoint], not because the subject is different but because the mode of viewpoint is different: it is immediate proprioception - a sensory mode that provides unique data. Is it fundamental to recognize that the same individual is categorically different when viewed from a first-person perception than is the case when he is viewed from a third-person perception. The sensory acess is categorically different as are the resultant observations. Te categorical distinction between these two viewpoints establishes the ground rules for all studies of the human species. Failure to recognize the categorical difference between first-person observation and third person observation leads to fundamental misunderstandings in physiology, psychology, and medicine." (Emphasis mine) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.28.141 (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

To be 100% honest, I have read and re-read what you wrote a number of times but I'm not sure what you are asking for or getting at? Clearly you believe in alternative medicine. I would be more than happy to get a better idea of what you are discussing, since I’m honestly not sure. As with all Wikipedia pages everyone is encouraged to added verifiably information.

However, if you are saying that the Body memory has somehow moved beyond pseudoscience, something I believe you are trying to say, I would admittedly disagree with you there. The definition of Pseudoscience is "a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status." Body memory clearly fits that definition, so it is Pseudoscience.

Also all of the books you have listed are anything but book with a clear WP:CONFLICT of interest that are promoting anything but there view on alternative medicine. Deane Juhan is a professional "body worker" at Esalen Institute, Don Hanlon Johnson Ph.D. in Philosophy (completely unrelated to medicine) and a professor of “Somatics”, and Bonnie Bainbridge Cohen works at a “Somatics” center. I haven’t found anything on Andrea Olson. These people have a vested interest in promoting “Somatics” what ever it is? I haven’t figured out how this relates to this article, body memory, other then that they belive in body memory.--ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"Is it fundamental to recognize that the same individual is categorically different when viewed from a first-person perception than is the case when he is viewed from a third-person perception". What the hell does this actually mean? That I'm not the same person I think I am as other people do? The only way I can use the term 'categorically' in relation to this statement is that is categorically hogwash... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I partially seee what 80.177.28.141 was trying to say on that part of what he said in bold. How someone sees themselves is different than how someone else sees them. Yes, how I feel (in a both physically and mentally) isn't always what is observed by doctor. However, I agree with AndyTheGrump in that this doesn’t apply in anyway to this article. Just because what a scientist sees isn't what a test subject sees in himself, doesn’t make the scientist wrong. In fact the opposite can be true. Not being trained in medicine didn’t understand that my foot burning had anything to do with my back, that wasn’t hurting at all. My doctor, being a trained medical scientist, knew this was a symptom of nerve damage caused by with a ruptured disk. Using the scientific methodology, he proved my first-person perception was wrong. Had he gone by my observation, I would have had foot, not back surgery. This is a common error made by people who believe in alternative medicine. They see a result in themselves after the do something and assume that since they know themselves better then anyone else that what they think caused the change must be true. Just because someone sees something happen in themselves doesn’t mean it’s the cause of the cahgne and it is true. Lastly, correct scientific methodology is designed to weed out both incorrect observation by both the scientist and the subject, something the "research" done by all those listed in the book list above don't do. --ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"How someone sees themselves is different than how someone else sees them". Yes, absolutely, but the statement was not about 'being seen' different, it was actually about 'being' different. At least, I think that is what it is trying to argue. It doesn't make much sense, but then I'm not entirely sure it was intended too. Whatever, as you say, the scientific approach is the best way to find out what actually works, rather than what people 'see', or 'believe' as working. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"A cell in the human body also records and recalls patterns - its very make up as a specialised cell is a display of its own living history. This is true of a cell in any tissue - be it in bone, in the nervous system, in an organ or a gland." That's true only if you consider adaptations to the environment to be "living history" (i.e. bone remodelling in response to stress or breaks) but as far as science can tell, the only tissue with a capability of storing memory (of events, of movements, of sensations) is the brain through alterations in the synaptic connections of individual neural cells. That is the scientific consensus, and until there are secondary sources indicating this paradigm shift has occurred, it's not something to integrate here, irrespective the training this person is getting. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You are both correct. Please forgive me if I came across that I somehow agreed with 80.177.28.141. I don't. I only meant that I thought (and I use that term loosely) I understood what 80.177.28.141's bolded section was trying to say, but I disagreed with it when it was applied to this topic. I think we all agree that 80.177.28.141 "lead" is a direction that is very Unverifiable and full of conflicts of interests, so it should not be followed.--ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I was just adding to the consensus. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

ترجمة من العربية إلى الإنجليزية I would like to ask, is the book of "body memory"Myriam Bros in connection with this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.141.29.76 (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You can ask the question, but there's no guarantee someone will answer. I have no idea, perhaps you should read the book. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

"Debunking" agenda for this article

I've placed a cleanup tag on this article. The current debunking agenda of this article has led to a ridiculous explanation of body memory; of course that's not true, it's completely implausible. See west world's very sane critique above at #Pseudoscience_conflated_with_clinical_term. There are reasonable explanations for something akin to "body memory" based on understanding of trauma and the nervous system. Bessel Van der Kolk's book "The Body Keeps the Score" discusses this nicely, and references many studies. http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Body_Keeps_the_Score.html?id=3Q3UAgAAQBAJ

Additional problem: 4 of 5 sources are "pseudoscience"/Skeptic sources. More balanced sourcing needed to flesh out this article. But fundamentally, the description of body memory needs to be completely reconsidered. --Karinpower (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This page is certainly not neutral. At all.

Okay. First, let me just tell you that I am not some body memory fanboy. But this article does not even remotely explain what the current definition of body memory is.

The current definition of body memory is not very controversial, and perhaps this should page should be renamed to "Body Memory Hypothesis."

Body memory is just a term used by PTSD therapists and patients to describe the physiological reaction when we have flashback. "As Peter Levine has explained, body memories can be described as a physical reexperiencing of the traumatic event(s). In other words, your nervous system and your body experience the feelings and sensations you experienced during the original traumatic event." You are back in combat. You are being raped again. THAT'S what a body memory is. It is the physiological portion of a flashback. That is what we mean when we say body memories.

Not to mention that 4 out of the 5 sources are from a pseudoscience source. 1 is from a source about flatworms. This is not what survivors are looking for when we search for body memory.

I think that it would be particularly helpful for survivors that you rename and differentiate this, especially since this is not the common usage of the term. 47.153.29.247 (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have some notion of what sources (reliable sources) are, yet you haven't included any for your edit proposal or your points of view which remain unsubstantiated. If you create an account you'll be taken through a series of steps which will refer you to some links on policies, which you may find useful for putting forward proposals on talk pages next time! Edaham (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite research in progress

I think this topic could be covered a lot better. Currently in the process of making an attempt at that. I'm not opposed to collaborative research, in fact it's great and usually results in a far better product at the end. If you're interested please let me know. My editing is not done off site but it will be done in a sandbox. I'll be keeping tabs on the page so that any new edits between me starting to work and alerting the talk page that I'm complete.

If my research turns up significant material for that purpose I'll engage a full rewrite and paste in of all material. If I can't locate enought for that I'll just make some live changes and generally preserve the current, kind of sad and small, state of the page.

Please relay comments, concerns, and etc... to me. CheersRap Chart Mike (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I found enough to take this into a full rework. I preserved the useful parts of the article with some rewording and updated with more current information. Hopefully it spurs some attention and others improve further. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, Not super sure if this still qualifies as a pseudoscience article as written? Not going to remove the tag though. Something like that ought to be discussed first. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)