Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Saru

Does telepathy conflict with science ?

59 posts in this topic

getting close... Telepathy machine reconstructs speech from brainwaves

http://howsyourrobot.com/telepathy-machine-reconstructs-speech-from-brainwaves/

When you read this sentence to yourself, it’s likely that you hear the words in your head. Now, in what amounts to technological telepathy, others are on the verge of being able to hear your inner dialogue too. By peering inside the brain, it is possible to reconstruct speech from the activity that takes place when we hear someone talking.

Because this brain activity is thought to be similar whether we hear a sentence or think the same sentence, the discovery brings us a step closer to broadcasting our inner thoughts to the world without speaking. The implications are enormous – people made mute through paralysis or locked-in syndrome could regain their voice. It might even be possible to read someone’s mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... and closer.. NeuroVigil’s Research Aims to Allow Dr. Stephen Hawking Communicate by Thinking

http://neurogadget.com/2012/04/03/neurovigils-research-aims-to-allow-dr-stephen-hawking-communicate-by-thinking/3963

Science Student Aims to Win with Computer-Aided Telepathic Communications

>>> http://neurogadget.com/2011/04/28/science-student-aims-to-win-with-computer-aided-telepathic-communications/2016

and... Nick won the gold medal for his project.. http://www.sd36.bc.ca/general/news/2011/semi-johnston.html

His project won a gold medal at the South Fraser Regional Science Fair and earned Nick a spot on Team Canada at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair last spring. Now the soft-spoken 16-year-old Grade 11 student has been invited to present his findings at the National Association of the Academies of Science/American Junior Academy of Science annual conference Feb. 15 to 19 in Vancouver.

"If a person has no ability for sensory output, this device would help them communicate – a person with a neurological illness could potentially speak," explains Nick.

Beyond the medical applications for his research, Nick sees his computer-assisted telepathic communication system having endless potential for the military as well as significant commercial value for anyone needing to communicate efficiently, accurately and wordlessly.

"I wanted to do something monumental," says Nick.

Nick's field of research is called neurotechnology. Already, he's spent countless hours reducing the more than 500,000 words that make up the English language into 40 distinct phonemes or basic sounds. Then with help from nine human subjects, he measured their brain activity as they thought of these basic sounds and used mathematical equations to create averages that were then programmed into his system.

When someone wears the device – essentially a plastic toolbox with a circuit board hooked up to a series of electrodes insulated by foam and recycled Gatorade caps – their brainwaves are translated into syllables and, ultimately, words.

"It's not perfect yet – it's about 70 per cent accurate," says Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with your assessment of the brain.

The brain, as an organ and how it works, is very well understood. I accept that how our consciousness is expressed via the brain is incompletely understood - but there is nothing that would suggest any part of that expression happens due to activity at the quantum level of physics.

Activity arising out of a flow of electrons, as you suggest some aspect of consciousness is believed to be, is not 'quantum activity'. Electricity is a classical (Newtonian) phenomenon and arises completely from the flow of electrons.

Fair enough. I am not trying to go against what is already proven and understood as a matter of fact.

But I sincerly think that there is more to consciousness as a whole that electric activity in the sense that consciousness is more than simply physical awarness. But you are right, science, as far as it is involved, can't prove this. But many scientists are thinking about it. As long as we haven't figured out how the hell electricity generates consciousness, I will not fully agree that it is purely the work of matter. Just that the brain does play a very evident, established and understood role in our perception of this physical universe.

One of the issues involved in my beleifs is free will. If there is such a thing as free will, how can you describe that with only classic physics? Just by the way the brain is configured? Wouldn't it mean that free will is only an illusion purely driven by causual physics? If it is the case, shouldn't it theorically be possible (at least one day) to fully predict what anybody will do/say/think or live a specific emotion facing a given situation just by knowing how his/her brain is "programmed" for instance (and perhaps other factors)?

I'm waiting to see what you have to say about it. Like I said, I'm not against science at all. I just think that by it's current methodology, it might be self-restricted in some areas. But understanding more about current neurophysics knowledge will help me having a better picture of the whole thing and adjust my beleifs accordingly.

My thoughts. I have more to add but will go step-by-step.

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. I am not trying to go against what is already proven and understood as a matter of fact.

But I sincerly think that there is more to consciousness as a whole that electric activity in the sense that consciousness is more than simply physical awarness. But you are right, science, as far as it is involved, can't prove this. But many scientists are thinking about it. As long as we haven't figured out how the hell electricity generates consciousness, I will not fully agree that it is purely the work of matter. Just that the brain does play a very evident, established and understood role in our perception of this physical universe.

One of the issues involved in my beleifs is free will. If there is such a thing as free will, how can you describe that with only classic physics? Just by the way the brain is configured? Wouldn't it mean that free will is only an illusion purely driven by causual physics? If it is the case, shouldn't it theorically be possible (at least one day) to fully predict what anybody will do/say/think or live a specific emotion facing a given situation just by knowing how his/her brain is "programmed" for instance (and perhaps other factors)?

I'm waiting to see what you have to say about it. Like I said, I'm not against science at all. I just think that by it's current methodology, it might be self-restricted in some areas. But understanding more about current neurophysics knowledge will help me having a better picture of the whole thing and adjust my beleifs accordingly.

My thoughts. I have more to add but will go step-by-step.

Peace.

This is getting off-topic a bit, but 'free will' may simply be the product of a decision randomiser. None of us have unlimited choice in anything, so that dispenses with the broadest meaning of 'free-will', but take this hypothetical situation.

It is a hot day, and you want to buy something cool. You have enough money to buy either an ice-cream or a soda - but not enough to buy both. This is a 'free-will' choice. Some of the time, your choice will be prejudiced by a prior choice. For example, it may have been hot yesterday, and you bought a soda, so today you buy an ice-cream to have variation. But that is not an example of free will.

Assuming nothing prejudices your choice (and this is probably very rarely the case), the same result as can be made from 'free-will', can be made using a computer program run through a randomiser. This 'decision randomiser' operating in your brain does not have to be a quantum object, it would be just as effective if it was chemically-based.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is getting off-topic a bit, but 'free will' may simply be the product of a decision randomiser. None of us have unlimited choice in anything, so that dispenses with the broadest meaning of 'free-will', but take this hypothetical situation.

It is a hot day, and you want to buy something cool. You have enough money to buy either an ice-cream or a soda - but not enough to buy both. This is a 'free-will' choice. Some of the time, your choice will be prejudiced by a prior choice. For example, it may have been hot yesterday, and you bought a soda, so today you buy an ice-cream to have variation. But that is not an example of free will.

Assuming nothing prejudices your choice (and this is probably very rarely the case), the same result as can be made from 'free-will', can be made using a computer program run through a randomiser. This 'decision randomiser' operating in your brain does not have to be a quantum object, it would be just as effective if it was chemically-based.

Fair enough. I haven't looked at this "decision randomizer" matter but I surely will. It does not interfere with the very essence of my beleifs but might help me to adapt it to more causual situations like this physical universe.

I think our free will in this universe is mainly limited by our awarness, by physical/material constraints and can also be affected by other people's free will as well. So you can't make a choise that you are not aware of (like you can't choose to buy ice cream if you don't know it exists) and you can't go against the laws of physics (like I can't throw a tennis ball into space from my yard with bare arms simply because I want to). Of cousre, this also implies other material constraints (like I can't choose to buy a MKIV Toyota Supra Turbo, put a 3.4L stroker kit and put a GT 47-88 turbo on it with only $100) and the other people's choise (like I can't go shopping if another person decided to put me in jail).

My profound spiritual views about this universe are at a much deeper level. Fundamentally, I beleive that consciousness is the source of matter and not the contrary. It implies that it is the source of everything, including the laws of physics and all the mechanisms we observe and understand. That can't be proved or disproved by physics because 1) physics does not consider counsciousness as being "entangled" to matter (but rather as being the fruit of it) and 2) physics generally implies that counsciousness is solely the result of matter.

So as I said, I do not wish to go against it (science). I think for instance that even the correlation between the brain and awarness is down right, only that this mechanism (as well as everything else) originates from counsciousness at a deep collective level which is greater than our physical awarness of this universe.

So yeah, it might be off-topic here so I have no problem ending the discussion here if you wish. I bet it'll be brought in another topic.

Those are strictly my beleifs.

Anyhow, I always enjoy those discussions. Thanks.

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My profound spiritual views about this universe are at a much deeper level. Fundamentally, I beleive that consciousness is the source of matter and not the contrary. It implies that it is the source of everything, including the laws of physics and all the mechanisms we observe and understand. That can't be proved or disproved by physics because 1) physics does not consider counsciousness as being "entangled" to matter (but rather as being the fruit of it) and 2) physics generally implies that counsciousness is solely the result of matter.

So as I said, I do not wish to go against it (science). I think for instance that even the correlation between the brain and awarness is down right, only that this mechanism (as well as everything else) originates from counsciousness at a deep collective level which is greater than our physical awarness of this universe.

Peace.

You might enjoy Dean Radin's work

http://deanradin.blogspot.com.au/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This writer reminds me of the historically pompous Lord Kelvin, who announced that "everything about science is already known...." Windbags are always plentiful. Those who make discoveries are the ones with an open mind. This person obviously knows everything in the universe, so why bother arguing. Just bow and worship his genius.

Ever occur to him that electrochemical (molecular) interactions set up fields? Fields interact on subtle levels?

Want an OPEN MINDED analysis? Check out:

http://www.mountpleasantpress.com/allbooks/FaithAndPhysics.html

The FACT is that modern physics DEMAND a believe in certain paranormal phenomena, except, of course, to those whose understanding is purely superficial.

For them, yes - -all the mysteries of science are already explained. Ignorance is bliss, so this must be a happy person indeed!

Any article or argument associating 'psi powers' with 'quantum physics' throws up an immediate red flag, imo, because what goes on in the human brain has nothing to do with physics on the quantum level.

Our neurology (like the rest of our central nervous system) is most clearly a molecular level phenomenon. So what goes on in there is still absolutely describable using Newtonian (classical) physics.

While it has been shown that the brain can exert control over objects external to our physical bodies, this is only possible through direct connectivity via implanted microcircuitry. We can 'tap our thoughts' - using electrodes - to put a message on a computer screen, but this is not telepathy. There is absolutely no evidence that stands up and shouts "our thoughts can exist independent of our brains", unlike a transmitter where the signal is not restricted to the device which transmits it. There is no evidence of a 'thought receiving device' in our neurological structure, which would be a necessary requirement for telepathic communication.

There is no evolutionary basis for 'psi powers', and no science that even suggests our existence extends beyond the physical limits of our bodies.

So, does telepathy conflict with science?

That would be a big, fat "Yes".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This writer reminds me of the historically pompous Lord Kelvin, who announced that "everything about science is already known...." Windbags are always plentiful. Those who make discoveries are the ones with an open mind. This person obviously knows everything in the universe, so why bother arguing. Just bow and worship his genius.

You remind me of someone gullible who rather believe the words of charlatans over actual evidence. Those who make discoveries also possess a degree of critical thinking, try it some time.
The FACT is that modern physics DEMAND a believe in certain paranormal phenomena, except, of course, to those whose understanding is purely superficial.
That's an uneducated opinion. Modern physics make no such demands. Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we truly understood how consciousness worked we would be able to replicate it artificially. You start looking at cell signaling, biochemistry, neuroscience, quantum mechanics, the whole teleportation experiment, and all of the new tech coming out well I wouldn't push it off the table just yet. I don't think it goes against science quite yet since we don't understand everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.