Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA27464 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Fri, 8 Feb 2002 01:48:28 GMT Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 17:42:46 -0800 Message-Id: <200202080142.g181gkD23893@mail13.bigmailbox.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.116) X-Originating-Ip: [18.104.22.168] From: "Joe Dees" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: ality Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 13:16:12 -0500
> email@example.com Keith Henson <firstname.lastname@example.org> Re: alityReply-To: email@example.com
>At 12:56 AM 07/02/02 -0800, "Joe Dees" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> >Sorry, this is an Urban myth kind of meme. Poor poor controls had the
>> >flatworms following slime trails.
>> >Shame too, because I once helped write a humor story about university
>> >course content being broken down into such small pieces it could be taught
>> >to flatworms.
>> >Then knowledge in the form of ground up flatworms was fed--like liver pate
>> >on crackers--to the students.
>>How did the slime trails elevate?
We're talking about two different experiments; I'm not talking about the one where the cannibal flatworms were able to immediately solve a maze previously solved by their dined-on compatriots (slime trails would suffice to explain this one rather well), but about an experiment where flatworms were taught to jump in response to a flashing light, by running current through their cage just after the flash. The jump separated their bodies from the cage floor, so they avoided the shock, and the light was a signal that a negative stimulus was immediately forthcoming, in response to which evasive action was eventually learned. Then their bodies were ground and fed to other flatworms, who jumped almost immediately upon seeing a light flash (no long learning curve). Obviously, slime trails cannot explain these experimental results.
>Krister is correct in that the original theory that RNA is the code for
>memory storage was eventually discredited after being viewed as an
>If anyone's interested, I have a citation for the original article (I
>don't have the article itself, but this comes from Schneider & Tarshis,
>2/e, 1980, one of my old Physio. Psych textbooks ):
>McConnell, JV. 1962. Memory transfer through cannibalism in planarians.
>Journal of Neuropsychiatry 3 (Supplement no. 1): 542-548.
>I like the notion that the slime track was responsible for the putative
>"memory enhancement," but don't have a reference for it. Perhaps
>Krister or another NG reader would?
>Also, did they ever use a new T-maze for the memory test? Some might
>argue that this presents different environmental cues and would confound
>the results, but this could be easily controlled.
>S&T mention (p.451) that Hartry's group (published in Science, see
>below) used two groups of "donor" planaria: one group trained to avoid
>shock, the other group was just randomly shocked. RNA from both donor
>types produced the transfer effect in the recipient planaria, suggesting
>that shock itself, rather than learning/memory, changed the performance.
>Hartry, AL et al. 1964. Planaria: memory transfer through cannibalism
>re-examined. Science 146: 274-275.
>This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
>Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
>For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 08 2002 - 02:00:33 GMT