Memory transplant claimed in snails

You can see two images that fight each other for a unified perception.

Bingo!

...  I submit that the more specific and measurable elemental mental process is understanding.

...

I am sure this will not be satisfactory, but at least help you get that my view is like an M. C. Escher drawing.  You can see two images that fight each other for a unified perception.  Instructions can be specific code hardwired - or they can be instinct, without a basis in anything more than ambient meaning in the virtual environment.

OK, so this is one of those times when I know what all the words mean - in a dictionary sense - but I understand none of it. Perhaps I am a non-starter because I can't yet grasp what you mean, exactly, when you use the word "information". Information, to me, is something about a thing - not the thing itself. Are you saying that there is no difference between the two? If so, I'm having a really hard time conceptualising that.

With respect, when you write these explanations I'm getting the impression that you have assumed a level of understanding in the reader. That may well be true for some here but, right now, not for me. I guess that, if I were as devoted to the subject as you are, I would have read and digested a lot more information about information but I have yet to find a good enough reason to delve into the science to any significant extent.

Sorry - having looked at the paper now, I see that what the authors refer to as controls is the untrained donors. What I had meant by controls was the donees who received RNA from the untrained donors. So perhaps we were talking at cross purposes.

What I'm saying is that if the effect is coming from morphic resonance instead of directly from the injected RNA, then (assuming the assignment of snails to the two groups of donees was adequately randomised) the donees who received RNA from untrained snails should still have felt the same morphic resonance effect as the donees who received RNA from trained snails.

I know exactly what you meant... and my response is the same...

OK, so this is one of those times when I know what all the words mean - in a dictionary sense - but I understand none of it. Perhaps I am a non-starter because I can't yet grasp what you mean, exactly, when you use the word "information". Information, to me, is something about a thing - not the thing itself. Are you saying that there is no difference between the two? If so, I'm having a really hard time conceptualising that.

With respect, when you write these explanations I'm getting the impression that you have assumed a level of understanding in the reader. That may well be true for some here but, right now, not for me. I guess that, if I were as devoted to the subject as you are, I would have read and digested a lot more information about information but I have yet to find a good enough reason to delve into the science to any significant extent.

I don’t know what Stephen is explaining here either... it appears more confusing than his earlier stuff... it’s just gobbledygook to me.

I know exactly what you meant... and my response is the same...

In that case I have to say I'm baffled. Is there some difference between the two groups of donees that I've missed - other than that the RNA they were injected with came from different groups of donors?

In that case I have to say I'm baffled. Is there some difference between the two groups of donees that I've missed - other than that the RNA they were injected with came from different groups of donors?

There are some things you're not understanding properly here I guess... but I don't know what they are...

You seem to think that the difference between the behavior of adult snails injected with RNA from other trained adult snails, compared to the behavior of adult snails injected with RNA from other untrained adult snails rules out any morpic-type-field effect... I don't know why/how you have come to that understanding?

You seem to think that the difference between the behavior of adult snails injected with RNA from other trained adult snails, compared to the behavior of adult snails injected with RNA from other untrained adult snails rules out any morpic-type-field effect... I don't know why/how you have come to that understanding?

Simply because the first group of donees shows the response, and the second group of donees doesn't. Unless there's some reason why morphic resonance should affect the first group and not the second, then it doesn't appear to be an effect of morphic resonance.

Obviously the idea of a control group is that it's identical with the experimental group in every respect except the one being tested - in this case, the injection of RNA from trained, rather than untrained, snails. Unless morphic resonance is somehow linked to the type of RNA that's injected, then the lack of response in the control group appears to rule out morphic resonance - or any other mechanism which would be equally effective for the control group and the experimental group.

Unless, as I said, there's some other difference between the control group and the experimental group that I've missed.

Simply because the first group of donees shows the response, and the second group of donees doesn't. Unless there's some reason why morphic resonance should affect the first group and not the second, then it doesn't appear to be an effect of morphic resonance.

I don't know what it is that you are misunderstanding, but something is wrong for you to have come up with that...

I don't know what it is that you are misunderstanding, but something is wrong for you to have come up with that...

So long as you don't see anything wrong with it yourself, I'm happy. 

I don't know what it is that you are misunderstanding, but something is wrong for you to have come up with that...

Chris is being entirely clear and you’re not addressing his point.