Memories may be stored on your DNA
newscientist.com
Memories may be stored on your DNA
1–10 of 19 posts
Re: Memories may be stored on your DNA
#2If true, doesn't this mean that you might possibly pass on memories to your children?
Re: Memories may be stored on your DNA
#3[deleted]
Re: Memories may be stored on your DNA
#4If true, doesn't this mean that you might possibly pass on memories to your children?
I have a hunch that Lamarck will eventually be rehabilitated.
Re: Memories may be stored on your DNA
#5If true, doesn't this mean that you might possibly pass on memories to your children?
No, your not storing your memories in the cells that you use to have children. They are suggesting nerons are using their DNA like a message board to store information, but it's specific to each cell. I suspect like most processes in our cells DNA is involved, but what's changing is the wrapper around the DNA not the DNA's code.
Edit: think of DNA as program code, and what's wrapped around it as RAM.
Re: Memories may be stored on your DNA
#6So the game Assassin's Creed was correct..
Re: Memories may be stored on your DNA
#7So the game Assassin's Creed was correct..
Frank Herbert's Dune saga was correct much before that...
Re: Memories may be stored on your DNA
#8If true, doesn't this mean that you might possibly pass on memories to your children?
I have a hunch that Lamarck will eventually be rehabilitated.
Does any one know of work that suggests that advantageous experience during life can be encoded in DNA and passed on? That would be Lamarckian. What would not be Lamarckian: (1) the example of this story; (2) environmental factors increasing mutation rate; (3) viral infection inserting new DNA. Others that would not count?
Re: Memories may be stored on your DNA
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a hunch that Lamarck will eventually be rehabilitated.
Does any one know of work that suggests that advantageous experience during life can be encoded in DNA and passed on? That would be Lamarckian. What would not be Lamarckian: (1) the example of this story; (2) environmental factors increasing mutation rate; (3) viral infection inserting new DNA. Others that would not count?
Right, if Retric's comment is correct, then the example of this story certainly isn't a vindication of Lamarck. But it might be a step in that direction.
I'm just an ignorant outsider, but the absolute dismissal of Lamarck always felt like a dogmatism to me. I'm suspicious whenever I hear words like "can't" or "never" repeated in a slightly too loud and rigid way. Remember when everyone "knew" that brain cells could "never" regenerate?