Memory transplant claimed in snails

Thanks Kam for attempting to expand on what I wrote previously.

Sorry if it seemed like hijacking your point. What you said raised a similar point in my mind so I tried to make a connection. I agree with what you say in both posts.

I thought science was about observation amongst other things. 

I sometimes get the impression people want to rush to explanation without proper observation.

Sorry if it seemed like hijacking your point.

Not at all, I welcome your input.

What you said raised a similar point in my mind so I tried to make a connection. I agree with what you say in both posts.

Thanks. Sometimes I feel as though I have a sense of disquiet, unease about a topic, but it isn't always easy to put that into words, maybe it comes across more as heat than light at times. That's why I welcome additional comment.

I thought science was about observation amongst other things. 

I sometimes get the impression people want to rush to explanation without proper observation.

Nothing wrong with what you say here, though I'm not sure if it was intended as a response to something specific or just a general comment.

Nothing wrong with what you say here, though I'm not sure if it was intended as a response to something specific or just a general comment.

Ha yes good spot.it was meant to be a thought following on from Kamarling’s comment about science.

Like most lay people, I only have a superficial understanding of science and less so of information science. But from Stephenw's comments in this thread and others I'm inclined to think that all science has a tendency to be reductionist. There seems to be an obsession with measurement and breaking things down into units. As Stephenw says, Information Theory measures bits and bytes. But it seems to me that there's a kind of quantum mechanical dilemma with all measurement: you gain knowledge by measuring something but in doing so you lose understanding in another way.

By measuring, you are able to quantify but that tells you nothing about quality. I think that's what Typoz is saying by talking about experiencing.  Scientists find it useful and productive to measure because events can be quantified and reduced to mathematical formulae but looking at a sunset, one can imagine that image being reduced to bits and bytes - as in a Jpeg - but the jpeg cannot reproduce the feeling, the experience at that moment.

You are absolutely right about science and logic looking to the the mathematical patterns that underlie reality.  I think it highly profitable to enhance our worldview.  I am motivated to present counterfactual evidence and logical explanation to limit fundamaterialism and magical views that impede getting to the bottom of the natural basis of how psi works.  And why psi is influential in our spiritual development.  Seeing what are termed paranormal events as a natural and observable part of reality - kills off the Dawkins, Dennett and Pinker - meat robots (as Alex would say).  

I am all-about the reality of objective meaning and that deep-meanings reflect the bedrock of reality.  Experiencing deep-meaning is emotional and the quality of these emotions reflect how bed-rock the meaning is.  

I have complete respect for the experiential component of qualia.  That respect is rooted in the deeper meanings found in visionary experience.  I am in the no-doubt category of the reality of visionary experience; and am fairly well-read in its history.  And - to peg my woo ideas - I think that the process that is happening when spiritual leaders and true mystics share their experiences can be understood by us by-standers!  And while I am open to deep-meaning being a category beyond the reach of reduction, we only see "the deep" because there is a normative surface.

Clinical Psychologist Wilson Van Dusen would be one of my heroes.

  Van Dusen concluded that the "natural depth in man" (after which he titled the book under discussion) was the path to spiritual experience.

In a mystical experience the limited self is opened up, revealing a beyond with a host of new meanings. In mystical experience is the ultimate that the individual can discover. Though it has a considerable range of depths, there is no higher, no deeper, no greater experience than what is found in the surprising union of the individual with his fundamental source.

http://reflight.blogspot.com/2012/04/wil...ality.html

I am motivated to present counterfactual evidence and logical explanation to limit fundamaterialism and magical views that impede getting to the bottom of the natural basis of how psi works.

So spot on and well put!

The Daily Grail spotted this sceptical comment on the snail work, to which the author of the paper replied in the comments section - discussing, among other things, whether this really counts as a memory:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuros...wKGA_kvzIX

The Daily Grail spotted this sceptical comment on the snail work, to which the author of the paper replied in the comments section - discussing, among other things, whether this really counts as a memory:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuros...wKGA_kvzIX

The author of the study defends himself from the critical reviewer, neuroskeptic  Both address that "memory" -  as experience (as term is commonly used) - is not what is being claimed.  I have high praise for Glanzman, the author for responding, while disagreeing with his analysis.

neuroskeptic:  Because while it is possible to imagine how RNA or another factor could increase the excitability of genetically-determined cell types (e.g. sensory neurons), I do not see any way that they could encode a 'vector' of information such that they could selectively encode connectivity between particular neurons. And if they can't do that then it's hard to see how they could encode associative memories. So when we talk about "memory" I think we are mostly talking about something that would be hard to encode in this way. I agree that you didn't claim that complex memories would work the same as Aplysia sensitization but, at the least, a lot of the media coverage implied it."

underline my emphasis

Glanzman:  As to your objection that you cannot see any way that an RNA-induced epigenetic mechanism can encode associative memories, I refer you to the writings of Randy Gallistel (for example, Gallistel, Trends Cog. Sci. 21:498-508, 2017), who has cogently argued for years that a synaptic mechanism cannot possibly encode associative memory.

Also, I’m afraid I’m not responsible for the more extravagant claims about our findings by the media. Clearly, our study has powerfully tapped into the cultural zeitgeist. For the record, however, I would like to state unequivocally, here and now, that we are not on the threshold of transferring human memory. The real Westworld will have to wait.

dang -- go Maeve