Butterfly Memory Defies Materialism

[Laufmann]

I came across some more scientific evidence that points towards idealism. I hadn't come across this example in Bernardo's writings, so I thought I'd share it here for thought.

A caterpillar, after it forms a chrysalis, completely dissolves itself into a goo (aside from imaginal discs, tiny 50-cell structures, which grow into new body parts). Histoblasts, a specialized group of cells, then reconstruct the broken-down caterpillar body into that of a butterfly.

A research group at Georgetown University (led by Martha Weiss) trained caterpillars to avoid the odor of certain chemicals by using mild electric shocks. The adult moths developed from the trained caterpillars continued to show a strong aversion to the odor of the chemicals, suggesting that individual preferences survived metamorphosis.

Here is the materialistic bias part: "Scientists have now set aside the notion that a caterpillar is completely disintegrated into a blended soup while in its cocoon. Instead, they now agree that it is more likely that certain parts of the brain may remain intact during the transition. The retention of memory in adulthood could be due to the carryover of intact neural connections formed during larval stages."

If scientists had concluded that 'certain parts of the mind' may remain intact, their conclusion would be more accurate. Instead, they operate on the assumption that the brain contains memory despite not having any supporting evidence. Instead, I think this experiment points in the direction of idealism. After a caterpillar's brain is dissolved, it still remembers what it learned as a caterpillar after it has become a butterfly. To me, this seems to suggest that an intact brain is not necessary for retaining memory.

Thoughts?

[AshvinP]

If scientists had concluded that 'certain parts of the mind' may remain intact, their conclusion would be more accurate. Instead, they operate on the assumption that the brain contains memory despite not having any supporting evidence. Instead, I think this experiment points in the direction of idealism. After a caterpillar's brain is dissolved, it still remembers what it learned as a caterpillar after it has become a butterfly. To me, this seems to suggest that an intact brain is not necessary for retaining memory.

Thoughts?

That's very interesting. Do you have a link?

It definitely appears to flap its wings in the face of materialism. To me it could even suggest that animals have a 'self' which maintains through major transfiguration.

[Laufmann]

Here's an article describing the experiment.

Despite Metamorphosis, moths hold on to memories from their days as a caterpillar

[Matthew Brett]

I'm going to play the skeptic here, and say that we would need to know whether relevant parts of the brain do, in fact, maintain their structure through the metamorphosis, before we could even begin to hint at the inadequacy of materialist ideas about brain and memory based on the preservation of memory through metamorphosis. A quick google search shows that the notion is at least mainstream that at least in certain species significant parts of the nervous system are maintained through the process. As for the evidence for or against that being the case... well, I'm no entomologist.

[Laufmann]

In this case, they had previously thought that the brain was entirely dissolved along with the rest of the caterpillar body. They used the fact that memory persists as the evidence that pieces of the brain must remain intact.

Pieces of the brain certainly could remain intact throughout metamorphosis, but the persistence of memory can't be used as proof of that since there's no proof that the brain is responsible for memory. It's only an assumption of materialism.

It's sloppy to rely on this assumption when further analysis of the process might lead to either finding live brain cells that aren't dissolved by chrysalis enzymes (something that was previously thought not to exist) -- or confirm that memory is somehow retained by something other than brain cells.

[Eugene I]

It's sloppy to rely on this assumption when further analysis of the process might lead to either finding live brain cells that aren't dissolved by chrysalis enzymes

I'm not a biologist but I'm amazed that at the current stage of bioscience development it is still unknown whether the brain cells survive in the metamorphosis. It seems pretty easy to dissect a chrysalis and look for any remainders of neural structures using a simple microscope.

[Laufmann]

I too am a bit amazed, but I've heard microscope work can be more difficult than it sounds -- sifting through millions of cells looking for something specific. Usually it requires a dye that might set something apart from something else so you can find it. And then there's the difficultly of figuring out a chemical to deliver a dye to a specific structure.

Science is hard.

[Martin_]

From the article. Emphasis by me.

Our behavioral results are exciting not only because they
provoke new avenues of research into the fate of sensory neurons
during pupation, but also because they challenge a broadly-held
popular view of lepidopteran metamorphosis: that the caterpillar is
essentially broken down entirely, and its components reorganized
into a butterfly or moth. Further studies of neuronal fate in
holometablous organisms will yield greater insight into the process
of complete metamorphosis and move us closer to an integrated
understanding of organisms, providing links between complex
cognitive behaviors and the molecules and developmental
processes that give rise to them

[Laufmann]

I think these results suggest that neuronal structures don't store memory. Even if neurons survive the dissolution process, they wouldn't likely be ordered the same way they were in the caterpillar.

Current theory suggests that it's the links between synapses that create new avenues of cognition. If these links are broken down into a soup during metamorphosis and memory persists, then memory may not rely on synaptic linkages.

The article relies on the assumption that memory must arise from neurons to come to the conclusion that persistent memories in moths suggests that neuronal structures must not fully be dissolved during metamorphosis. It's an assumption that's never been proven.

The neuronal structures may persist, but the existence of memory doesn't prove that.

I think there are some interesting questions that are being missed by assuming that the memories were stored in neurons.

Like what if neurons do turn out to be fully dead and dissolved (as was thought)? How the heck did they retain the memories?

[Eugene I]

I think there are some interesting questions that are being missed by assuming that the memories were stored in neurons.

Well yes, the question is: can there be any mechanism for storing information in biological structures other than storing it in in the synaptic neural networks? In theory yes, perhaps it can be stored on the molecular level, we know that an enormous amount of information can be stored in DNAs and RNAs, so in principle the memory could work in a similar way, but there has been no evidence of such alternative mechanisms so far (as far as I know, but I'm poorly informed in this field).