The worm that regrows its head, and memories, when decapitated

The keyword here is "your," as in what kind of organism we're talking about, and what kind of nervous system we're talking about. In organisms like worms, what we'd think of as a brain is obviously a few orders of magnitude less centralized and less specialized than ours. The nervous system plays a much larger role. Ditto starfish, the organisms famous for being brainless (literally). Starfish run entirely on distributed nervous systems, having nothing that passes for a brain.

It's very tough to draw comparisons between what happens in the nervous system of a worm and what happens in the nervous system of a human. Even rats, which we've been using for decades as neurological proxies in drug trials, are proving to be less than ideal as analogues for the human nervous system. It turns out that we're so much more advanced than other animals that there's a lot less common ground than traditionally assumed.

However, psychology (generalize it as much as you will), hardly allows such approach. The psyche is capable of intentional behavior, which by its nature, is not deterministic. Thus you can not make predictions. Thus you can not falsify statements about it in the same way one does with statements in physics.

That's why many find the idea of soul (a imaterial substance responsible for our psychological features) repulsive. But this is only because they put forward, as an axiom, the need and the ability to make science with everything and anything. Including with my writing this comment.

(http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1013009425905)

tldr; "Sensitive transplant patients may evidence personal changes that parallel the history of their donors ... We suggest that cellular memory, possibly systemic memory, is a plausible explanation for these parallels."

This is known here because soccer fanatism is common, and some of the "victims" would never changed their team normally.

But still, as far as I can tell, the "antenna" hypothesis was considered and rejected, because right now we can pin-point different processes within a brain using fMRIs, we can read out what an animal imagines out of its brain directly... and basically "brain as a computer" is a simpler and better fitting the data model than "brain as an antenna".

The message as well is common to other posters: https://www.google.co.in/search?q="мy+coυѕιɴ+ιѕ+мαĸιɴɢ+%2451...

The text doesn't seem machine generated in any of the comments I checked but this is certainly something organized. As other posters have said, perhaps malware.