Scientists Transmit Thoughts from one Brain to Another

[IDemo]

Source: ABC News

Sep 7, 2014, 6:27 AM ET

An international team of scientists has succeeded in transmitting the thoughts of one individual into the brain of a second person, located thousands of miles away, combining some of the latest technological marvels with the long arm of the Internet.

This is thought to be the first time that two brains have communicated with each other directly over a long distance without the sender having to utter a single word.

Two greetings -- "hola" and "ciao" -- made the historic trip from India to France, where they were received and spoken by a researcher who was blindfolded and equipped with earplugs. The scientists wanted to ensure that the receiver knew what his colleague 5,000 miles away was thinking because of the brain-to-brain transmission, not because of some other cue.

The research, published in PLOS One, was conducted by scientists in Spain, India, France and the United States.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/scientists-transmit-thoughts-brain/story?id=25319813

[BumRushDaShow]

1. I don't want to pronounce this as "woo"

but I really don't think scientists are "there" yet to do something like this...

[IDemo]

5. It's a study conducted by the Harvard Medical School, among others

I will tend to give them the benefit of a doubt. There was a study done in 2013 at the University of Washington in which a participant's finger was remotely activated by another playing an imaginary video game. If Electroencephalography is able to record with a fine degree of accuracy the speech center of the brain, there's no reason to believe a similar result could not be effected.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/08/27/researcher-controls-colleagues-motions-in-1st-human-brain-to-brain-interface/

[BumRushDaShow]

14. It doesn't matter who did it

The issue is the mechanical "transmission" steps that could introduce a high rate of error, let alone the issue of "trained" participants. I.e.,

"...the feat required the conscious cooperation of both participants, who had to be trained for the task."

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/scientists-transmit-thoughts-brain/story?id=25319813

...which introduces "suggestibility".

I have also seen the studies over the years regarding "conscious" control of imagery on computer screens, and the whole "science" of biofeedback has been around for decades.... But IMHO, the brain is so complex that one would need to assume that almost identical processes occur within 2 different brains in the same way (outside of some ability of the brain to do complex "correction" to any signal input from artificial constructs).

I'm not saying that they shouldn't continue to pursue this but the result will definitely need to be validated by many other entities before declaring "success" (although I expect the M$M likes to exaggerate beyond what really happens in such a story in order to get eyeballs).

[Baitball Blogger]

17. Because, who knew that the first word that would be transmitted through the

phone would be, "hello." Never saw that coming.

I predict that in the future, tin foil hat fashion will be the rage.

[rickford66]

29. The phone was invented before the word "hello"

ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL invented the telephone. But Thomas Alva Edison coined the greeting.

The word "hello," it appears, came straight from the fertile brain of the wizard of Menlo Park, N.J., who concocted the sonorous syllables to resolve one of the first crises of techno-etiquette: What do you say to start a telephone conversation?

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/05/garden/great-hello-mystery-is-solved.html

[BumRushDaShow]

37. But it might not surprise that the NY Times may have preferred to perpetuate

the old myths....

From 1833 -

Sketches and eccentricities of Col. David Crockett, of West Tennessee

Said I, 'Hello, stranger! if you don't take keer your boat will run away with you'—and he looked up; and said he, 'I don't value you.' He looked up at me slantendicler, and I looked down upon him slantendicler;

http://books.google.com/books?id=NVsZAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA803&dq=hello&lr=lang_en&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=1400&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1838&num=100&as_brr=0&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html

Love the word "slantendicler" (modern spelling - "slantindicular&quot .

They could have used "greetings" or "salutations".

[Neoma]

30. The word was Hullo!

Like, "Hullo! What's this?"

[dickthegrouch]

58. I once spent an inordinate amount of time

trying to login to a customer's machine which he'd specially set the password to Hullo for me.
I spent an hour trying to figure out why neither Hello nor Hallo would work
Finally called him back and we both roared over the problem.

[bvf]

25. Right!

It's critical to be skeptical of this in the absence of a load of peer review and replication of results.

Especially agree with your take on the MSM's priorities wrt eyeballs.

[IDemo]

32. Earlier studies have already indicated the viability of this

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3772685/

Decoding Vowels and Consonants in Spoken and Imagined Words Using Electrocorticographic Signals in Humans

Abstract

Several stories in the popular media have speculated that it may be possible to infer from the brain which word a person is speaking or even thinking. While recent studies have demonstrated that brain signals can give detailed information about actual and imagined actions, such as different types of limb movements or spoken words, concrete experimental evidence for the possibility to “read the mind,” i.e., to interpret internally-generated speech, has been scarce. In this study, we found that it is possible to use signals recorded from the surface of the brain (electrocorticography (ECoG)) to discriminate the vowels and consonants embedded in spoken and in imagined words, and we defined the cortical areas that held the most information about discrimination of the vowels and consonants. The results shed light on the distinct mechanisms associated with production of vowels and consonants, and could provide the basis for brainbased communication using imagined speech.

BCI, or "Brain Computer Interface", has seen a wealth of activity, particularly over the past decade.

[BumRushDaShow]

44. I'm not saying it's not "viable"

I'm saying that the biochemical and bio-electric processes of the brain related to the chemical interactions that generate "language", let alone recreating that for transmission, still needs more work before declaring "success". There have been recent papers out about how the brain "indexes" memory using variables such as "emotion" that would be added as a "tag" to what would be "saved". I.e., I would expect that had a long descriptive phrase or sentence been "transmitted", there may have been a couple "words" (or "thoughts" or "images&quot that could have passed muster enough to be teased out by the recipient assuming all the "tags" to these "words", "images", "thoughts" were also transmitted. But a single "word" that was apparently "known" in advance, cannot fit that criteria and "prove" that the result was due to their experimental setup.

[ashling]

24. 1876 woo:

"Mr. Watson, come here - I want you!"

[Heather MC]

47. this is a bad idea, Imagine advertisers shooting thoughts directly into our brains to by shit

We don't want, or worse Religious organizations forcing people to believe.

This is scary actually.

[BumRushDaShow]

53. This type of thing has already been done in the past via sensory input

where any one or a combination of the 5 "traditional senses" have been exposed to "subliminal" messages consumed by study participants. However the effectiveness of doing this continues to point to the receptiveness of the individual and desire (whether conscious or unconscious) to act on the stimuli. You don't need to zap a brain to do this. Simple "Pavlov conditioning" can suffice when introducing reward/punishment to the equation.

[dixiegrrrrl]

75. Don't Fox and Limbaugh do that already?

[RKP5637]

2. Interesting! Thanks for posting this! I think in the not too far future

we will see something like this for the masses, as a next phase of the internet. I have often considered posting the poll to DU, would you consider being wired cybernetically/synaptically to the Internet if given an option. I would pass. Of course the dark side of me says something like this would be exploited heavily by authoritarians, control freaks and governments to eventually control the minds of the populace as cyborgs emerge.

[Heather MC]

48. Agreed, I think the Batman movie with Jim Carey covered this topic pretty well

I pass.

[BlueJazz]

3. 50,000,000 volunteers* needed for scientific study. You can be at the front line of brain research!

You'll be able to "read minds" and also make money!!

(Research master and thought sender will be Barney Frank)

*Republicans only

[RKP5637]

4. Perfect! n/t

[IDemo]

6. I think you meant 99 Percenters, only

Participation is mandatory.

[livingonearth]

7. I hope I am dead before something like this is ever perfected or practiced on a wide scale.

Talk about losing privacy, I can only see this type of thing being used for bad.

[RKP5637]

9. Yep, same here. It would be the ultimate tool for suppression and control of the masses to

whatever ideology was vogue. I also see it being used for "bad" as are, sadly, many advances in technology, often funded by the MIC.

[DFW]

38. This was accurately predicted in a 1966 film that was a big hit at the time

It was called "The President's Analyst."

Trouble is, the film was meant to be a comedy.

Evil agents of TPC (The Phone Company) kidnapped the president's shrink to try to force him to talk the president into ordering a communications chip be implanted in the brain of every newborn, and billing for the "calls" would be automatic.

It was a hilariously funny film.

At the time, anyway.

[freshwest]

85. Posted that scene on a thread about Chuck Todd saying PBO didn't say 'Syria':

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5502533

Immortalized by EarlG's Pic of the Moment thread:



http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017213835

But I don't call it dumb, Chuck Todd intentionally trolled the President to misrepresent him and keep his masters happy.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

8. Technically, I'm doing the same thing now

As you read my post, the thoughts from my brain are being transmitted to yours. And I used the internet to do it.

[Botany]

10. yup!

[EvolveOrConvolve]

11. Damn, you should get a research grant!

That contraption looks VERY cutting edge.

[PADemD]

23. I have a phone like the one pictured.

It's made of oak and VERY heavy.

[whathehell]

12. Mental Telepathy.

Like countless others, I've been experiencing it for years, though such experiences

until now were declared "fraudulent" and "impossible" by Science.

As has been said before, Science sometimes "lags behind".

It's good to see they're finally catching up.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

13. By what mechanism were you able to perform telepathy?

And can you reproduce those results in a double blind study?

[PADemD]

31. Telepathy usually works when there is an emotional connection.

There is no emotional connection between strangers in a double blind study performed under laboratory conditions.

Haven't you ever called someone and heard, "I was just thinking about you?"
It happens to me all the time.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

34. If it's not reproducible, it's not telepathy, it's coincidence

I was thinking of your response before you posted it, but I'm not telepathic; just a human with experiences that color my expectations.

[PADemD]

45. We can agree to disagree.

In my opinion, telepathic experiences are real, unique, and not coincidental; and they cannot be forcibly reproduced under laboratory conditions.

[whathehell]

42. My experience as well. n/t

[whathehell]

46. My brain, LOL..

and since I experienced it, I never saw the need to 'prove' it,

and so never considered a need for "double blind" studies.

I could tell you about it, if you want -- Believe me, it's 'happening' was as

much a surprise to me, as to anyone else, as I wasn't seeking it, and had,

in fact, to that point, believed in the conventional wisdom of it being bs.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

51. So tell me about it

You may not have to prove it to yourself, but you do have to prove it to me. Without evidence of this being a naturally occurring phenomenon, I have no reason to take you at your word. I truly think that YOU believe that this supernatural phenomenon exists; I also truly think you're wrong, and until you can prove otherwise, I'll stick with an evidence-based outlook.

[whathehell]

60. "You may not have to prove it to yourself, but you do have to prove it to me"

I do?..Really?

Excuse me, bro, but where do you acquire this much gall?

Has someone recently died, and left you 'boss', LOL?

Last I looked, I didn't "have to" do a thing, for anyone,

and the fact that you've already decided you "truly think" I'm wrong

leaves me even MORE disinclined to even attempt it.

Your mind is obviously closed and your "interpersonal skills", if you will,

leave much to be desired.

Have a very fine day.

[cbayer]

64. Be very afraid.

You have encountered a mighty force.

[whathehell]

68. Indeed, LOL

Back at ya

[Codeine]

20. Oh good lord.

Don't we have an area for such silliness?

[whathehell]

40. Yes, dear...Right here on this page

as "Science" is now TELLING you, duh.

[Codeine]

55. The science is saying no such thing.

This is about computers transmitting brain activity over a network. You're talking airy-fairy nonsense about telepathic powers.

[whathehell]

61. Oh, excuse me..

The COMPUTERS are doing it.

Sorry, if I lacked a computer at the time, dear, but you can

take your "airy fairy" close-minded disdain and shove it.

Have a nice day.

[proReality]

27. Don't you love the nay sayers?!

Those who can't or won't open their minds will never understand. ESP is real.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

35. Can you prove it?

It's just common sense to disbelieve something for which no evidence exists. Doing so doesn't make one close-minded, just sensible.

[bvf]

65. Well said. Unfortunately, a lot of people confuse

evidence with coincidence--or worse--charlatanism.

If one is prone at the outset to unconditionally accept notions (or assertions) for which there is no proof, I think there can be a tendency to pay more attention to those events which seem to reinforce those notions, while disregarding all others that argue to the contrary.

Hucksters and snake oil vendors make big money off this by giving people what they want; hence astrology, palmistry, etc.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

67. Yep, the desire to believe sometimes overwhelms

the brain's ability to properly analyze a situation. I don't care much if someone's going to throw a little cash away on zen crystals or tarot readings; I think it's stupid, but it doesn't really affect me all that much. It's when charlatans are selling $10,000 milk jugs of "cancer cure" that I start to have a problem with it.

[whathehell]

81. Can you "prove" what

you are thinking of at any given moment and does an inability to "prove" it mean it's not

real?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

82. I'm not sure what that even means

But I suspect you don't understand how science works.

[whathehell]

83. You're "not sure what that even means"?

Suspect what you like, if you don't understand the concept of

personal thought, I'm not sure you're a human being.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

84. Despite your attempts at deflection, my original question still stands

Do you have any proof of your magical ability?

[whathehell]

87. Despite yours, mine stands as well.

Can you prove you are having a particular thought at any given time?

When you stop pretending to misunderstand that question, you'll have

the answer to your own, and an idea of the limits of empirical confirmation.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

88. Your question is silly

There are many ways to measure activity in the brain. In fact, the OP to which you replied demonstrates that thoughts are a tangible, physical thing. You know, I normally read the "you can't prove you have thoughts so nothing can ever be truly proven" canard on conspiracy theory and right-wing anti-science sites. Sort of refreshing to see that the same craziness has infected DU.

There isn't, however, any way to measure magical telepathic ability. And I have yet to see evidence beyond a "because I said so". Like I mentioned earlier, I'm not likely to take you at your word. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And I don't see a shred of evidence.

[whathehell]

89. Your answer is silly

Last edited Wed Sep 10, 2014, 02:11 PM - Edit history (1)

and since you accept that thoughts are a "tangible, physical' thing, I can't imagine why you think only computers can transmit them, or believe, unlike science, that the abilities of the human brain are now thoroughly understood.

On the other hand, your thinking, like your reading skills, do appear limited. Whoever told you "Since thoughts can't be proven nothing can", It wasn't me -- My point, which I thought obvious, was that many things can be proven, but not all things, at least at this
point in time, a fact scientists readily admit.

By the way, despite your claims, there is still no way to "measure" or know the content of a thought.

"Like I mentioned earlier, I'm not likely to take you at your word".

And as I mentioned earlier, I couldn't care less.

Bye.

[whathehell]

39. Yep -- I try to tell them,

even in relation to the possible existence of God -- Science

just doesn't know everything yet, and "proof" is heavily dependent

on the correct technology.

[Codeine]

56. Your username is seems quite inappropriate. nt

[bvf]

28. Do you have any examples you can share? n/t

[whathehell]

41. I do indeed..

and I'll be glad to tell you about them in a bit, but I have to go

out for a couple of hours.

[PADemD]

57. Looking forward to reading them.

[whathehell]

62. Thank you, although I do

hope you are taking my offer in good faith and not simply as 'bait'

for a Search and Destroy mission.

Many here can get a tad negative, not to mention competitive,

when their long time beliefs (and non-beliefs) are challenged..

[PADemD]

69. You'll get no argument from me.

I'm a believer.

[whathehell]

71. Aww, thanks, bro..I just sent you a post which relayed

my realization of such.

[whathehell]

70. Uh oh

Just re-read your original post, and it seems there was no

reason for suspicion regarding your motives...That being said,

I may recount my experiences to you by pm, if you don't mind, because the

territory here is beginning to look a a tad hostile, if you get my drift.

[PADemD]

72. I will PM my experience, as well.

It was jaw dropping.

[dixiegrrrrl]

76. Yep...nothing is really "real" until science says it is. n/t

[whathehell]

78. Indeed -- Not even one's own personal experience, it seems,

even when it's repeated.

[whathehell]

80. Oh fuck, a beligerant, um, whatever

Two hides in 90 days -- that seems to be your usual situation,
doesn't it?...Looks like you don't play well with others.

FWIW, I don't HAVE any "fraudster circles", whatever the fuck they are.

Why don't you go peddle YOUR hostile bullshit somewhere else

[Baitball Blogger]

15. Just to attest to the legitimacy of the testing,

were there any goats harmed in the administration of the experiment?

[westerebus]

21. I understand six put up likes on FB.

Two went for a long walk on a beach.

None required medical attention.

[Marthe48]

16. Science could reassure us that humans can do this

But for me, I can accept that some people have special abilities. Probably if we turned off all the distractions, many more of us would develop our unused abilities, out of boredom, if nothing else.

[Cirque du So-What]

18. My wife has been intercepting my thoughts for years

Believe me, it's not something worth investigating further.

[FourScore]

36. LOL n/t

[valerief]

19. Shit, there goes the vote! nt

[cosmicone]

22. Bah ...

Teabaggers have been doing this for years. Anything goes wrong and they utter in unison, "It's Obama's fault"

Next experiment -- have the audience pre-determine with accuracy the content of any Faux show.

[BootinUp]

26. Walter Bishop still playing.

[eppur_se_muova]

33. Obviously, their test subject wasn't a Republican ... they are immune to thought transmission. nt

[Hoppy]

43. Its been done already but on a larger scale. I saw a documentary on Channel 4 in the '60s.

They called it a Mind Meld.

[AZ Progressive]

49. Many Scientists and Techies are lackeys of the ruling class

Unfortunately

[yurbud]

50. because talking is too much effort. The actual use for this would be paralyzed people or...

interrogating someone who doesn't want to talk.

On the one hand, it would be more intrusive.

On the other, it would be harder for cops to get false confessions.

[Trillo]

52. You will be assimilated.

Resistance is futile.

Seriously, it might not be all bad. No more lies, no more secrets.

[cate94]

54. It's all in your head,

but you knew that already, didn't you?

[Politicalboi]

59. And Faux has been doing it for

25 years.

[Helen Borg]

63. Guess what?

You all also transmitted the thoughts from your brain to my brain! That's what communication is.

[callous taoboy]

66. Will just simply gazing into another's eyes still be an option?

Call me old fashioned.

[PosterChild]

73. They no more transmitteed thoughts...

...than if the had used morse code. they seem to have used a code that relied on creating a sensation in either the hands or the feet. Hands = 1, feet = 0. dit dah dit dit, etc.

[Android3.14]

74. Scientists demonstrate expensive keyboard

Thought transmission? Ha!

[Kablooie]

77. One example does not a scientific study make.

If they can do this 1000 times in a row with 90% accuracy it might be worth looking at but random chance is just as likely at this stage. Even more likely based on human history.

[WovenGems]

86. A choice

Which is more likely Suggestibility or Magic? For those be the choices.