3 ms·
Eh, I mean what other explaination is there for "instinct". You have genetic and epigenetic factors that give something a predisposition to respond to stimuli i
by giantg2 2y ago
Eh, I mean what other explaination is there for "instinct". You have genetic and epigenetic factors that give something a predisposition to respond to stimuli in a specific way. Makes sense to me, but it's just a theory (as most things are) and we have a lot more to learn.
- ch4s3 2y agoThere’s a big difference between DNA methylation on gametes leading to behavioral predispositions in offspring and the claim that memories and experiences are inherited.
- giantg2 2y agoIt depends on what you mean by memories. I'm not a fan of the Guardian as I've seen stuff editorialized to the point it conveys misinformation. This article is poorly written to the point the writer doesn't seem to understand the topic. "Epigenetic memories" is different than colloquial "memories". The article seems to completely miss this. And of course people who haven't been exposed to that domain specific concept are likely to misinterpret it.
- everdrive 2y agoIt's intentionally misleading given that "memory" has a common understanding. If they simply wanted to keep the article approachable, they could even just simply write "they're analogous to memories, but don't work like memory as most people understand it."
- ch4s3 2y agoMemory is the wrong word to use even like that. To the extent that there is DNA methylation in gametes, it will up or down regulate the expression of existing genes in the DNA. Nothing is created de-novo as in memory, you can’t look at the resultant gene regulation and look backwards to a cause.
- giantg2 2y agoThen please go tell all the publications and researcher that they are wrong for using the term "Epigenetic memory" in thier domain. Or are you a domain expert (in the minority if you are)?
- ch4s3 2y agoThe study[1] mentioned in the guardian does not contain the phrase "epigenetic memory", and only contains the word memory twice, and both uses are of the conventional definition. The author in the guardian is misrepresenting the science. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3923835/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3923835/
- giantg2 2y agoI agree that the article is garage. The point of contention is around epigenetic memory being a thing or not. It is a common term used in the domain, such as in this paper and others. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7225062/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7225062/
- ch4s3 2y agoYou could probably replace the word memory in that paper with maguffin and not change the meaning. It's totally unconnected to the common definition or the use in neurology. I guess what I'm getting at is that this kind of reporting obscures what's going on intentionally for the political aims of the guardian. Which I think is lousy.
- giantg2 2y agoYes, and that's true of computer "memory" as well.
- moralestapia 2y ago>what's going on intentionally for the political aims of the guardian Ok, now this is something! So, please enlighten me, what could be the political agenda being pushed by an article pondering around whether memories can be inherited or not?
- squidbeak 2y agoInstinct is totally different from memory.
- ch4s3 2y agoThat’s precisely the problem outside of the lack of any direct evidence of the underlying mechanism.
- conradolandia 2y agoHow do you know?
- giantg2 2y agoWhich "memory" are you talking about? "Epigenetic memory" is different, and it's related to, and influences, instinct.
- HarHarVeryFunny 2y agoWell, you've got brain wiring that causes you to respond to stimuli in a certain way. A small portion of that wiring is genetic (e.g. opposite sex attraction, fear of heights, disgust at certain smells), and the rest comes from prior sensory exposure (i.e. is learnt during your own lifetime).