5 ms·

Related-- Would you call instinct a memory? Instinct does not have physical attributes that completely and directly explain it, so the described behavior here

Related-- Would you call instinct a memory? Instinct does not have physical attributes that completely and directly explain it, so the described behavior here is less of a memory than much of (the rest of) instict is.

Sniffnoy 13y ago
No, I wouldn't call instinct a memory, but I really think you're focusing on the wrong thing here. The relevant distinction here is not how "completely and directly" something is "explained by physical attributes"; to be honest, I'm not even really sure what that means. All behavior comes down to physical phenomena, after all; whether or not we can currently make that reduction explicitly is more a property of our current state of knowledge, than a property of the physical system itself. The relevant distinction here is the fact that this behavior, like a memory proper, was acquired during the mouse's lifetime, not inherited, and yet passed on to offspring anyway. And yes, as you've noted, instances of that had already been observed -- this wasn't something revolutionary -- but still this wasn't a case where people expected to see that.
- hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
  Maybe the term "imprint" could serve well. I wouldn't be surprised if more instances of that experiment get discovered and reproduced, after all this is describing a feedback loop leaving patterns on the next iteration (parent -> genetics -> expression on descendant), and feedback loops are to be expected in all natural systems.
- computer 13y ago
  I don't have a problem with the research itself, I love that. But the presentation in this article is extremely sensationalist, using the word "memory" to make it seem like memories (in the human interpretation) are actually being transfered. I have a big issue with using sensationalism in such a way that the average reader will read it in a way that's just completely wrong.

Sniffnoy 13y ago

No, I wouldn't call instinct a memory, but I really think you're focusing on the wrong thing here. The relevant distinction here is not how "completely and directly" something is "explained by physical attributes"; to be honest, I'm not even really sure what that means. All behavior comes down to physical phenomena, after all; whether or not we can currently make that reduction explicitly is more a property of our current state of knowledge, than a property of the physical system itself. The relevant distinction here is the fact that this behavior, like a memory proper, was acquired during the mouse's lifetime, not inherited, and yet passed on to offspring anyway. And yes, as you've noted, instances of that had already been observed -- this wasn't something revolutionary -- but still this wasn't a case where people expected to see that.

hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
Maybe the term "imprint" could serve well. I wouldn't be surprised if more instances of that experiment get discovered and reproduced, after all this is describing a feedback loop leaving patterns on the next iteration (parent -> genetics -> expression on descendant), and feedback loops are to be expected in all natural systems.
computer 13y ago
I don't have a problem with the research itself, I love that. But the presentation in this article is extremely sensationalist, using the word "memory" to make it seem like memories (in the human interpretation) are actually being transfered. I have a big issue with using sensationalism in such a way that the average reader will read it in a way that's just completely wrong.