science

Sounds like utter bullshit to be honest with you.

At the bottom of that article you linked:
"Research data for this article Data not available / No data was used for the research described in the article"

If I read the cited sources and they turn out to be a bunch of untested hypotheses based on poorly conducted studies… I'll be mad.

Just skimming through it makes a bad first impression.

…I'm not even trying to be derisive. I'm just really angry at how much "there's a study" has become "there's proof". And I shouldn't even be mad because communicating that difference should be the authors' job.

If you value your time, don't read any further because I'm just going to vent a little:

So I lack any formal education (apart from ficking school). The best thing I can say about myself is that I can hold and mostly understand a conversation with people who are actually educated in their field.

But some studies are bad. Like bad-bad. So bad that I think, most people who can read should be able to recognize their flaws if they actually read them.

For example:

I read a study a while back about genetic (as opposed to learned) prepositions of monkeys in relation to their biological sex and preference for toys.

The methodology was bad, but here's the shittiest part imo: At the end of the study, the researchers found that of the 130 or so monkeys, only about half showed any preference for any kind toy. So the researchers excluded the unbiased monkeys from the test. Of the remaining monkeys, still only the males showed any preference for the "male" toys. So the females were also excluded. In the end, only 30 monkeys actually counted, because they showed the hypothesized difference in their preferences. And even those only showed a delta of 10-30% in the time they spent with the toys.

The study should have concluded that most monkeys don't give a shit if a toy has wheels (like a shopping cart, which apparently makes it a "male" toy) or if it's soft, like a plush (which is "female" because boys would never touch a plushy, of course).

Instead, they found that their hypothesis turned out to be correct, after disregarding anything that invalidated their hypothesis.

Where did I get this study from? From social media, of course. Where a bunch of meat heads "proved" that all women genetically want to be tradwives and trans people don't exist or some shit.

Fuck everything about this.

I'm all for implications but I think a little higher level of standards should be practiced since this is c/science.

The title is "misleading" because they're not talking about visual/conscious mind memory as you're doing here.

These non-brain cells also switched on a “memory gene” – the same gene that brain cells activate when they detect information patterns and reorganize their connections to form memories.... "it suggests that in the future, we will need to treat our body more like the brain — for example, consider what our pancreas remembers about the pattern of our past meals to maintain healthy levels of blood glucose or consider what a cancer cell remembers about the pattern of chemotherapy.”

Furthermore, you've jumped onto anecdotal evidence and have declared it Empirical with your linked study

A literature review was performed to explore accounts of personality changes following heart transplantation ... Further research is recommended.

That level of evidence would mean anyone claiming body transfers, alien abductions, past lives memories, etc etc would all be empirical data we must now scientifically accept.

I don't see how you're linking the two studies with the implied "It's more than that". The original study from OP is declaring nothing about actual memories that we're "consciously using" being stored in other parts of the body. It's stating they believe cells have "memory mechanisms" to better function, like a processor getting it's own memory cache (that data storage is used for it's processing purpose and isn't included with your harddrive access).

They are a little deceiving/misleading with the article as well,

The goal of the research was straightforward — to investigate if non-brain cells contribute to memory..... They ingeniously engineered the non-brain cells to generate a glowing protein, which indicated whether the memory gene was active or dormant.... Not only does this research on non-brain cells introduce fresh perspectives to study memory, but it also holds promise for potential health-related benefits.

They tested a gene by bombarding cells with chemical cocktails, showing the gene can be activated. It's a giant leap to then say we have empirical data that we store memories throughout our bodies.