Soldiers, for instance, could use the technology on the battlefield , sending commands and warnings to one another. Civilians might benefit, as well; businesspeople could use it to send cues to partners during negotiations, or pitchers and catchers could avoid sign-stealing during baseball games.
Still, telepathic communication that works like a sort of futuristic walkie-talkie will involve major advances in sensing, emitting and receiving technologies—and perhaps even a slight retraining of the human brain. At the same time, Pascual-Leone cautions that scientists must also keep in mind the ethics of telepathy. Corinne Iozzio is a New York—based technology writer and editor.
Researchers have made an important first step towards engineering direct, brain-to-brain communication between humans. Grau, C. As for mind control, Ruffini said he has no idea how we could begin to achieve it. Despite what science fiction says, you cannot influence the minds of other people or exchange thoughts with them without both your senses and technology.
Cover Image: Two Yale students imagine the possibilities of telepathy. Photo by Aydin Aykol. Home Current Issue Science or Science Fiction? Telepathy and Mind Control. By Amanda Mei. November 4, Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. A study by researchers from Barcelona and Strasbourg found a noninvasive method to transmit conscious thoughts between one human brain and another. As this technology develops, the safety and security of the people who will eventually use it should be considered at every step.
We ask other scientists from our Consortium to respond to articles with commentary from their expert perspective. Moving from one-to-one communication toward group dynamics is really interesting. I like that they tested the reliability of each group member, though I wish that they had actually instructed one Sender to behave erratically, rather than scrambling the EEG signal they transmit.
This would be stronger evidence that the Receiver can learn to ignore bad information. One caveat from the paper not mentioned in your article is that there are actually two rounds of sending and receiving so that if the Receiver makes a mistake, they have a chance to correct it. Maybe I missed something and the authors only analyzed the first round? My impression is that every trial was composed of two rounds, so even if they were right the first round, they still had a chance to change their answer to the wrong one on the second round.
I would also add that I think you really hit the nail on the head with the last sentence of the second-to-last paragraph: " While their setup is technically a brain-to-brain interface BBI , it is also nothing like what is imagined when a lay person hears about BBI.
BUT: every round where you get additional information will amplify your performance. It is therefore sneaky to report only the results after 2 rounds, because you could be amplifying a quite weak signal to make it look like a big effect.
I agree they could use a better control, as well as more thorough analysis of the performance. I think they achieved above-chance performance, but a larger sample is probably warranted before more in-depth analyses are performed. Super Agers and their brains might reveal something about age-related cognitive decline. October 29, Alyssa Paparella , Baylor College of Medicine. October 12, Burcin Ikiz , Neuroscience. September 13, Julia A Licholai , Brown University. August 29, May 19, May 11, Lauren Granata , Northeastern University.
October 17, Irene Zhang , Massachusetts Institute of Technology. July 26, Abdullah Asad Iqbal , University of Leeds.
0コメント