Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Connect the Brains of Three People, Allowing Thought-Sharing (sciencealert.com)

An anonymous reader quotes ScienceAlert: Neuroscientists have successfully hooked up a three-way brain connection to allow three people share their thoughts -- and in this case, play a Tetris-style game. The team thinks this wild experiment could be scaled up to connect whole networks of people, and yes, it's as weird as it sounds. It works through a combination of electroencephalograms (EEGs), for recording the electrical impulses that indicate brain activity, and transcranial magnetic stimulation, where neurons are stimulated using magnetic fields.

The researchers behind the new system have dubbed it BrainNet, and say it could eventually be used to connect many different minds together, even across the web.... For now it's very slow and not fully reliable, and this work has yet to be peer-reviewed by the neuroscience community, but it's a glimpse at some fanciful ways we could be getting our thoughts across to each other in the future -- maybe even pooling mental resources to try and tackle major problems. "Our results raise the possibility of future brain-to-brain interfaces that enable cooperative problem solving by humans using a 'social network' of connected brains," writes the team.

136 comments

  1. Necessary Jeagar tech by tangent3 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The last piece of the puzzle has fallen into place. We now have the technology against the impending Kaiju attacks.

    Wait, how does a nuclear reactor get used as a nuclear bomb again?

    1. Re:Necessary Jeagar tech by ckatko · · Score: 1

      More like, finally the government can directly control our brains to save us from ourselves.

    2. Re:Necessary Jeagar tech by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      Some level of brain control has long been possible, both chemically and surgically. _Thought_ control can even be done by controlling speech and other behavior. _Reading_ thoughts is a far more subtle task. EEG's, for example, average the electrical impulses from quite a wide area of the brain, so the transmission is not subtle.

    3. Re:Necessary Jeagar tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last piece of the puzzle has fallen into place. We now have the technology against the impending Kaiju attacks.

      Wait, how does a nuclear reactor get used as a nuclear bomb again?

      Enriched fuel could make for a more compact design while allowing a Little Boy style gun tube in a binary reactor.

    4. Re:Necessary Jeagar tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The yield from these designs is very poor.

    5. Re:Necessary Jeagar tech by magarity · · Score: 1

      Wait, how does a nuclear reactor get used as a nuclear bomb again?

      When it gets dropped from an airplane.

    6. Re:Necessary Jeagar tech by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      The last piece of the puzzle has fallen into place. We now have the technology against the impending Kaiju attacks.
      Wait, how does a nuclear reactor get used as a nuclear bomb again?

      Because writers are dumb and audiences will hoot for anything that goes boom. Or... very, very bad nuclear engineers.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    7. Re:Necessary Jeagar tech by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Wait, how does a nuclear reactor get used as a nuclear bomb again?

      When it gets dropped from an airplane.

      If you could even drop a nuclear reactor from an airplane, all you would get is a radioactive mess. Certainly bad, but almost certainly no catastrophic mushroom cloud.

      Nuclear bombs are carefully designed to put fissile material into a critical-mass state very rapidly, to release a great amount of power over a short time-period. Nuclear reactors are designed to do it very slowly, to release a moderate amount of power over a time-scale of months or years.

      If you dropped fissile material from an airplane, it would have to hit the ground just so for it to go critical, and even then, it's more likely to just 'go splat' sideways. You need to contain the material from all sides as it compresses. I think that's implausible.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    8. Re: Necessary Jeagar tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, even worst and more likely, another more efficient way for companies to force their products on you.

    9. Re: Necessary Jeagar tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuclear bombs were based on uranium-238 which is a fast fuel requiring fast neutrons to reach critical mass. Reactors disperse their fuel and used uranium-235 to absorb thermal neutrons moving at relative ambient speeds. It cannot detonate like a bomb. All you get is a meltdown and a dirty bomb.

    10. Re: Necessary Jeagar tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hiroshima definitely used uranium-235. That was the bomb they used without testing it first.
      As for uranium-238, that's a material you can use as radiation shielding, I'm sure you meant plutonium which is what practical bombs use.

    11. Re:Necessary Jeagar tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like, finally the government can directly control our brains to save us from ourselves.

      Oh, Futurama?

  2. They are the Borg by hackwrench · · Score: 3, Funny

    We will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

    1. Re: They are the Borg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you donâ(TM)t

    2. Re: They are the Borg by Quake1v1 · · Score: 1

      I bet you're fun at parties.

    3. Re:They are the Borg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

      No, but Mark Z is likely excited... this gives data mining a whole new level

  3. Strange Boosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just think of the ways this could enhance our sex lives. I mean for those who have one of those these days.

    1. Re: Strange Boosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re: Strange Boosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As demonstrated in the movie Demolition Man at least 20 years ago, when Sylvester Stallone became the first post-cryogenic hero to experience the full climactic joys of non-physical sensory sex.

    3. Re: Strange Boosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And two years later the Strange Days took it a step further, with the feedback, recording and playback. Of course the feedback use was limited in that movie, probably due to our "values."

  4. Pre-Cogs by AlexanKulbashian · · Score: 1

    Like the 3 pre-cogs in Minority Report https://fsmedia.imgix.net/cb/0...

  5. long tail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's been about 6 decades or the average human life expectancy, since the first experiments trying this were done. Here we have a glimmer that it might actually be possible in the next 2-3 decades.

    When you compare it to how long it took humans to achieve stable flight, it's not so bad.

  6. Humans can do this without the machinery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did I just say telepathy is real? Yes, yes it is and I know this from first-hand experience. Extremely weak and untrained experience, just barely enough to know it is indeed possible, but yes, it's first-hand. So if these eggheads managed to make brain-to-brain communication happen through machinery, I wouldn't be surprised if eventually people will find they'll no longer need the machinery. Some sooner than others, of course.

    More troubling is that this also means influencing one's brain from machinery is possible and indeed workable. So you can have your computer talk directly to your brain, but so can other people, possibly people organised into large groups like governments or corporations, including people whose agenda might not be quite amendable to yours. So yes, these wonderfully talented and accomplished science people just opened a large can of ethics worms. Fun times ahead for everyone.

    1. Re: Humans can do this without the machinery by ccady · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let me think of a way to say this gently... you're an idiot. I think I failed. Sorry. Telepathy as generally defined by people is Not Real. Nor is homeopathy. Nor god. You can come up with a vague general sort of something that might pass for telepathy that you could claim was real, but the thing the common man calls telepathy does not exist. Thank you for your attention.

      --
      J'aime mieux les méchants que les imbéciles, parce qu'ils se reposent. -- Alexandre Dumas
    2. Re: Humans can do this without the machinery by SethJohnson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I do not post often because I am paralyzed.

      Typing is a multi-hour exercise in eyebrow twitches.

      Most people do not have the patience to hold a conversation with me. I wish I could shorten that word to 'talk' as it would mean fewer eyebrow twitches.

      I would give all of my mod points to be able to mind-meld with other paralyzed people and 'talk' at a normal rate. Please support this research.

    3. Re: Humans can do this without the machinery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The research is good. The idiot above who claims Personal Experience with telepathy despite all scientific efforts to prove it exists... well... he is just an idiot.

    4. Re: Humans can do this without the machinery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me think of a way to say this gently... you're an idiot. I think I failed. Sorry.

      You didn't even try. No telepathy was needed to know that, and that the only thing talking here is your preconceived notions.

      Do kindly shut up, there's a good little fellow idiot.

      Telepathy as generally defined by people is Not Real. Nor is homeopathy. Nor god. You can come up with a vague general sort of something that might pass for telepathy that you could claim was real, but the thing the common man calls telepathy does not exist. Thank you for your attention.

      At least science says so. The thing is, science managed to first shut itself out of the room before doing its thing and concluding the thing it's looking for isn't there. The other things you mention apparently for your own benefit but weren't part of the discussion so I will leave you your comfy blankie. I say there's a lot of things that science cannot know and even doesn't want to know. Witness the tenured academic professors that declare themselves "post fact". What sort fo scientist is that? Yet they get to play the professor not just on the telly, but for real. Witness the treatment dissenters get for spouting something other than the party line. Even in the hard sciences, if it's not already established it gets labeled "pseudoscience" saving everyone the bother of looking at it, and that's no way to learn anything truly new. So I say it's science that's the culprit here.

      So if there's something here, then science is going to have to be more open minded than it's been in the last decades by several orders of magnitude before it'll have half a chance to discover the thing. Unless it gets flat-out forced into some new reality, of course, but those happenings are rare. Proper application of the scientific method can do it, iff you know where to look. "Science" as we currently conceive the notion, cannot, because it doesn't even try to look.

    5. Re: Humans can do this without the machinery by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Research into linking paralyzed people to speech synthesizers and robot arms has already achieved some success. Humans can do both and patients have had limited speech and limited mobility restored by this technology.

      I hope the research continues, progresses and becomes affordable to those who need it.

      We have long passed the point where suffering from such conditions is inevitable and are at the point where it's now a matter of degree and of economics.

      Some day, even those limitations may be overcome.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    6. Re:Humans can do this without the machinery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you describe the nature of your telepathic experience? I too have first-hand experience of this.

    7. Re:Humans can do this without the machinery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can follow along with live shows, saying words at exactly the same time as they are spoken.

    8. Re: Humans can do this without the machinery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice story bro

    9. Re: Humans can do this without the machinery by Shaitan · · Score: 0

      I do, I actually had what amounts to the same idea (but not implementation) years ago and I've been stymied by my lack of an EEG. As a consequence the idea has evolved, previously my thought was to marry EEG with TCDS. At this point I have another system in mind.

    10. Re: Humans can do this without the machinery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That must really interfere with the cycling you do. Does the total paralysis come and go, or do you just think it's funny to make false claims of disability?

    11. Re:Humans can do this without the machinery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure. Concentrate really hard, am sending telepathically.

    12. Re:Humans can do this without the machinery by mrvan · · Score: 2

      Humans can do this without the machinery

      Sure they can. We have a clever built-in biologic mechanism to transform brain activity into almost unnoticeable air vibrations, and another clever mechanism to transform minute air vibrations back into brain activity.

      Problem is of course, most people are not really aware of this mechanism and aren't properly attuned to it, so they emit mostly nonsense and often also fail to properly pick up the thoughts other people try to share with them. It is said that the ancients were much better at it, which is why their world was so much less violent. It would be great if we could train young people to get better at using these mechanisms, but I guess that's why too fruity for most politicians.

      The weirdest thing is, you can even use a clever device (called a tele-phone, from fter the greek for remote + air vibrations) to then transform these air vibrations into electric pulses, send them all across the world, and (in)directly connect the brains of people half a world apart!. It's magic! (Or at least indistinguishable from it!)

    13. Re: Humans can do this without the machinery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm, I can often do the same, just from the context and the lip movement. No telepathy needed.

      Did you even take a transmission lag into account? :P

    14. Re: Humans can do this without the machinery by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Because of course it's completely impossible for someone who is paralysed to have not been paralysed in the past...

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    15. Re: Humans can do this without the machinery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya, me as well, it was back in college and involved large doses of LSD.

      As for the story, this is still nowhere close to telepathy. Reading the trigger impulses which get sent to the muscles is not telepathy. Neither is stimulating receptors to mimic feedback from nerves.
      Even taking it a step further and making predictions of Intent based on large scale brain patterns is not telepathy. We are still a very, very long way from being able to "read" thoughts, feelings, emotions, or visualizations... if it's even possible, let alone transmitting them.

      There's a good chance that what compromises thought and memory requires a nearly identical replica of a specific brain's neural network in order to decode or understand it.

    16. Re: Humans can do this without the machinery by Q-Hack! · · Score: 1

      Are you aware of the challenge put forth by James Randy for $1 million to prove the viability of such a claim? It does require you to pass a double blind test to prove it works.

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    17. Re: Humans can do this without the machinery by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      The James Randi prize is no longer on offer, unfortunately.

    18. Re: Humans can do this without the machinery by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      This was not "connecting" brains, they used EEGs. If that's connecting brains, then so would touching fingertips, using a mobile phone to call someone, etc.

    19. Re:Humans can do this without the machinery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you're not. You just think you are. The brain fucks with perceptions of synchronicity to confabulate it has agency over everything you do.

    20. Re: Humans can do this without the machinery by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      I say there's a lot of things that science cannot know and even doesn't want to know.

      IAAS, and I will be the first to admit that science does not, and cannot, know everything.

      However, science is indisputably the best tool that humans have developed to understand the universe.

      Even in the hard sciences, if it's not already established it gets labeled "pseudoscience" saving everyone the bother of looking at it, and that's no way to learn anything truly new. So I say it's science that's the culprit here.

      To challenge 'established' science, you need only provide evidence. What gets labeled 'pseudoscience' is sloppy, dishonest work that doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny. Science is not the culprit that stands in the way of new knowledge. Ignorance is.

      Scientists are humans, and humans have a finite time on this earth. Yes, they endeavor to be open-minded, but they are not obliged to suffer fools who spout nonsense.

      So if there's something here, then science is going to have to be more open minded than it's been in the last decades by several orders of magnitude before it'll have half a chance to discover the thing. Unless it gets flat-out forced into some new reality, of course, but those happenings are rare. Proper application of the scientific method can do it, iff you know where to look. "Science" as we currently conceive the notion, cannot, because it doesn't even try to look.

      Wow. Just about everything in this paragraph is wrong.

      Science is open-minded. All you need to make your case is evidence and a rational analysis of it. Can scientists be stubborn? Of course. They're human. But eventually evidence-based truth wins. Scientific revolutions can take time to happen. To quote physicist Max Planck: "Science advances one funeral at a time." And in the broad arc of its history, it never stops looking.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    21. Re: Humans can do this without the machinery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typing is a multi-hour exercise in eyebrow twitches.

      How buff are your eyebrows?

    22. Re: Humans can do this without the machinery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be kind. The poster may be an otherwise-intelligent person who suffers from mental disease.

      It is also possible that drugs were involved. The mind-warping effect of some drugs can leave a person believing that their experience was real, even when they know that they took drugs to get it. It takes a while for reality to sink back in.

      In any event, people running around claiming to have supernatural powers won't change reality. If they can provide independently-verifiable evidence and repeatability, then they can rock the world. Until then, they will just be more insignificant voices lost in the noise.

    23. Re: Humans can do this without the machinery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generally speaking, that's quite possible. But in this particular case it's just an outright lie and you know it.

    24. Re: Humans can do this without the machinery by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You seen to have misapplied the magnets.

    25. Re: Humans can do this without the machinery by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "Telepathy as generally defined by people is Not Real. Nor is homeopathy. Nor god."

      Proof?

      For homeopathy, it seems there is proof. For telepathy, I doubt anyone practicing it dare let it be known.

      But, for God, you have proof God does not exist?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    26. Re: Humans can do this without the machinery by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Well, I think the first person to come up with a consistent and viable use for telepathy will make millions, regardless. They don't need Randi to justify going public.

    27. Re:Humans can do this without the machinery by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      which is why their world was so much less violent

      lol-fucking-what?

  7. That’s surprising by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    I doubt most of the scientists I’ve met would even know what a three-way is.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:That’s surprising by ls671 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Easy! A three way is a switching device with 3 connectors instead of 2. You typically use 2 of those devices to be able to turn on the light downstairs and turn it off once you get upstairs. 4 way switches exist as well although they are rarer.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    2. Re: That’s surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about threesome?

    3. Re: That’s surprising by ls671 · · Score: 1

      I just tried to search "threesome" on Google and it gives me a 403 error, sorry about that.

      It must be my father fooling around with his filters again. Some day, I will hack into his network!

      Anyway, please, can you explain to me what a "threesome" is?

      Thanks in advance!

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    4. Re: That’s surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      What about threesome?

      According to Brett Kavanaugh – a.k.a. The Crying Judge – it's a drinking game. And "boofing" has to do with farting.

    5. Re:That’s surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Descartes' Triangle!

    6. Re: That’s surprising by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      Anyway, please, can you explain to me what a "threesome" is?

      It's the same thing as a Devil's Triangle -- a drinking game.

      --

      Enigma

    7. Re: That’s surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, that's easy: A threesome is a group that is missing one person at a golf course.

    8. Re: That’s surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about threesome?

      Your mom and I would like to talk to you about that.

      Are you free Friday night?

    9. Re:That’s surprising by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You've never been to the Sociology department, have you?

  8. Who knew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Who knew the Borg were born from a communal game of Tetris?

    1. Re:Who knew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Everything starts from something simple

  9. Already exists by religionofpeas · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's called talking. We've been doing it for a long time.

    1. Re:Already exists by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's called talking. We've been doing it for a long time.

      Talking to my wife gives me little insight into what she is actually thinking.

      This new invention may save my marriage.

    2. Re:Already exists by mentil · · Score: 3

      Unless you have an arrangement, a 3-way is unlikely to save your marriage. Unless you mean that in a "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" kind of way.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    3. Re:Already exists by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Talking to my wife gives me little insight into what she is actually thinking.

      Adding a different communication channel is not likely to be helpful if the thinking process itself is incompatible.

    4. Re:Already exists by iggymanz · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm thinking of some worst case scenarios of the revelations of wife hooked into husband's mind.

      maybe find out she has two boyfriends.

      maybe find out she put a contract on her husband.

      maybe find out she's going in to have her gender changed next friday.

      etc.

    5. Re:Already exists by iggymanz · · Score: 0

      Calm down, Melania, and let them finish hooking you up

    6. Re:Already exists by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      Perhaps if you listened instead? It might be too late by now.

      Please excuse me, this was far too easy.

    7. Re:Already exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe find out she was actually wrong? That's usually death to any relationship with a Modern Woman(tm).

    8. Re: Already exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watch Trump and kushner at press conferences. Tech is already in play

    9. Re:Already exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes it is really better not to know what the other person really is thinking. Specially when you're married to her.

    10. Re: Already exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watch Trump and kushner at press conferences. Tech is already in play

      Connect the dots. If the what comes out of Twitler's mouth really comes from Kushner, then one can only wonder what we'd be getting without Kushner.
      /me shudders.

    11. Re:Already exists by gweihir · · Score: 1

      That's so old-school. And it is basically finished tech, so not room for great inventions that re-create things with technology....

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    12. Re:Already exists by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      This new invention may save my marriage.

      It could ruin mine.

    13. Re:Already exists by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      No, but you may find out who is really better at Tetris and who just has faster thumbs.

    14. Re:Already exists by SunTzuWarmaster · · Score: 1

      Just think about your thoughts...it will probably destroy more marriages than it creates.

    15. Re:Already exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That depends on if your wife is involved, or knows about it..

  10. Andreas Eschbach "out"-Trilogy by NoZart · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's a bit on the easy side, because it's aimed towards youth, but in those books people get connected via a small chip in the nose and it has interestingly bad effects the more people get connected.

    1. Re:Andreas Eschbach "out"-Trilogy by NoZart · · Score: 1

      not a native speaker, excuse the mumbo jumbo grammar :D

    2. Re:Andreas Eschbach "out"-Trilogy by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Your grammar's fine.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:Andreas Eschbach "out"-Trilogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should try the Nexus trilogy by Ramez Naam.

    4. Re: Andreas Eschbach "out"-Trilogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's plenty of better scifi out there which examines the ramifications of such technology.
      You don't need to Schill some dopey teenage dystopian pulp fiction.

  11. Privacy and security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you bet they're not building encryption and security protocols into the system while it's in its infancy? All the better for government and big business to more easily monitor and control us when the technology catches on.

  12. Already have group think working. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just watch the participants at the staged "Trump" rallies. No plugins or wire necessary there. If the adage "great minds think alike" is a truism then it is also true that people with shit for brains are equally capable of thinking alike.

  13. Borg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is how we start down the path of the Borg instead of the Federation. Do you want to be a drone? Because this is how you become a drone.

    1. Re: Borg by jd · · Score: 1

      Not really.

      First, wrong sort of data.

      Second, it is data, not a control signal.

      Third, brains don't work in a way that would support a Borg-like arrangement.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  14. Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some politician is probably thinking of a way to tax this new way to communicate.

    A FCC transmission fee.

  15. Your "wife" is a whore Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We know you rent liar.

  16. I heard creimer tried it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but the computer kept saying "waiting for third brain"

  17. Re: Walk Away from hate filled CoCs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your constant spamming of this post will drive people toward supporting codes of conduct and push them toward opposing your position.

  18. Bowel sharing by sirv · · Score: 0

    Why they not connect bowels of three people for feces sharing ?

    1. Re:Bowel sharing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No thanks, I already read creimer's ebooks.

  19. Re: Walk Away from hate filled CoCs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

    Don't you wish.

  20. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not quite as impressive once you read the details of what they actually did instead of the hyped up title and summary that makes it sounds like they are reading each other's minds.

    1. Re: Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say the slashdot summary is (prob intentionally) misleading.

      All this is is detection of a visual signal someone is looking at on one end, and causing a false triggering of a sensory perception on the other.

      So what? There is no way to improve those mechanisms into something more, pretty much a dead end.

    2. Re: Meh by jd · · Score: 1

      No, not really. It looked to me like they were sharing a basic set of signals.

      We already know you can upload and download high bandwidth data, but we also know sharing memories wouldn't work because they're not stored that way.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re: Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wha??? High bandwidth what?

      They interpreted EKG signals to determine which blinking LED the person was looking at. Then they bombarded the other person with a signal that caused a false perception of a 'light'. What are you talking about, I see nothing about high anything in the paper (yes, I read it).

    4. Re: Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you didn't read my post. Clearly, anyone referring to a "basic set of signals" cannot be referring to the same experiment if referring to "high bandwidth data". "We already know" means "prior experiment" and therefore not "this experiment" in any form of English I am aware of, as "already" is past tense.

      So, no, you may have read A paper, but you didn't read "the" paper as there is no "the" when referring to a plurality.

  21. I am wondering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you put three managers in this, do you get one brain or zero?

    1. Re:I am wondering... by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

      You get a division by zero error and the Pointy Haired Boss is created in actual meatspace.

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
  22. this can't end well by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    in 100 years or so when it actually works, some guy is going to get sued for sexual harassment because he forgot to turn it off when he started thinking about a coworker in an inappropriate way.

    1. Re:this can't end well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But then the coworker feels what this guy feels and the recursion gets its initial stage. The end condition is situation requiring a change for all involved, at the same time. The process cannot be stopped once started.

    2. Re: this can't end well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Indelible in the hypocampus is his thought of joy" she said, however the third person connected could bot corraborate the experience.

  23. Redundancy by Empiric · · Score: 1

    "Wretched is the body which depends on a body, and wretched is the soul which depends on these two."

    I'll be getting the optimal implementation from the Designer, long before this random kluge gets to beta with a pathetic subset of functionality.

    --
    ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
  24. Did any of you read the article? by sheramil · · Score: 1

    They weren't sharing thoughts. They were sharing a signal. Specifically, an LED which, they were told before the experiment, represents a move in Tetris. They aren't communicating anything of great depth, the government can't use this to read your thoughts and find out that you ran a red light on the way home last night. The whole thing could literally have been replaced with two wires. Typical web jabber that sometimes pretends to be "journalism".

    1. Re: Did any of you read the article? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Indeed, merely looking I to someone's eyes will give you a stronger connection to their brain than this system.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Did any of you read the article? by WoOS · · Score: 1

      Plus, according to the article, the receiver would see the signal as "phantom phosphene flashes", meaning flashes of light which were induced into his brain by magnetic fields.
      If one really wanted to transmit "thoughts" that way, the receiver would at least have to be rather quick in morse code. Actually the receiver just learned to distinguish different frequency of flashes and to rotate a tetris block depening on it.

    3. Re: Did any of you read the article? by jd · · Score: 1

      Ok, so they have POSIX semaphores.

      And?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  25. I'd much rather share by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd much rather share orgasms. Thought sort of spoils it.

  26. This is what they call thoughts now? by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

    In the experiment set up by the scientists, two 'senders' were connected to EEG electrodes and asked to play a Tetris-style game involving falling blocks. They had to decide whether each block needed rotating or not.

    To do this, they were asked to stare at one of two flashing LEDs at either side of the screen – one flashing at 15 Hz and the other at 17 Hz – which produced different signals in the brain that the EEG could pick up on.

    How difficult could be to scale up such a setup? You can just keep adding LEDs for every existing concept/action/character, each of them flashing at a different frequency and there you have a perfect transmission of "thoughts". People using that system might have to be trained during some years and need some suicide-prevention help, but how could science evolve without some sacrifices? LOL. Seriously now, I think that calling all this "thought sharing" is at best being tremendously imprecise. Also expecting this approach to be eventually able to deal with complex (or better: actual) thoughts or actions seems impossible.

    One thing is measuring brain activity while performing very specific actions to see certain variations (= what is being done here); by bearing in mind that this doesn't imply understanding of what is going on, not even uniqueness of the given signal. A completely different story is getting any kind of tangible version of what might be considered thoughts and, for that, we would still need to know how the thinking process even happens. Long story short, all this kind of brain-activity measurement actions just try to find regular patterns within intrinsically meaningless signals.

    Reading articles of this sort makes me feel a bit of sorry for (a big proportion of) the scientific community. Firstly, they are systematically forced to mostly work on projects aiming to accomplish directly-marketable/apparently-appealing goals, perhaps only for pretty ignorant individuals whose "knowledge" is mostly formed by sci-fi movies and ideas like "scaling up can be easily applied everywhere", otherwise they don't get any funding. Then, they are pushed to quickly deliver tangible results, again under equivalently stupid conditions. Finally, all their efforts are usually undermined or put completely out of context via a tabloid-like promotion to keep/get more funding. On the other hand, everyone should accept the consequences of their (non-)actions. For example, my principles (honesty, fairness, integrity) are the most important thing to me and I know that nothing will ever change that (much less something with so little-value-to-me like money or generic, not-well-deserved recognition). So, I guess that it is a matter of what the goals of everyone are and what they are willing to do to accomplish them. In any case, it does seem kind of sad, at least this is how it looks from my external and quite comfortable position.

    --
    Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
  27. Old news? by jd · · Score: 2

    Wasn't this demoed on the unfinished Doctor Who episode Shada?

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=Bm...

    Bet Skagra was on the engineering team.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  28. Enormous understatement of brain complexity by Knutsi · · Score: 2

    The brain consists of incredibly sophisticated networks on neurons (and glia), that perform the information processing that probably leads to thoughts. The resolution of transcranial stimulation, and the knowledge of the targeted brain regions, are both too low to call this sharing thoughts. Tell me you can do multi-point m scale read/write transcranially, know the anatomy of the targets brain region in m scale in a non-destructive way, and we can talk about "thought sharing" (or even thought insertion).

    This *headline* oversells the results, and underestimates the complexity. It's nothing but bait.

    1. Re:Enormous understatement of brain complexity by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also, brains are only superficially alike in structure. Fine details differ from person to person, so you can't just copy a thought from one brain to another. The only way to do this is to set up a communication channel, and then the two brains practice to convert their thoughts into a mutually agreed upon signalling system and back.

      A few comments back I was saying that we already have this, and it's called "talking". It got moderated funny, but I was actually serious.

    2. Re:Enormous understatement of brain complexity by Knutsi · · Score: 2

      It's not funny, it's a very good point (: Language is a system to share throughs using rapid sequential air compression. We dont experience it like that of course, because our conciseness sits at some point(s) in an enormously complex processing system that masks the underlying machinery.

  29. Also does not allow sharing of actual thoughts.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But its good that they are messing about with it. Maybe one day thought sharing will be possible.

  30. Imagine a beowulf cluster of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $subject

  31. Awwwwww..... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    Those Borg babies...they're so cute when they're young.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  32. Three people, eh? by AJWM · · Score: 1

    So how long before precrime units start wiring up precogs this way?

    --
    -- Alastair
    1. Re:Three people, eh? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I dunno, but the local cops already started claiming that their job is to "prevent crime." So maybe too late.

  33. They work by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    "It works through a combination of electroencephalograms (EEGs), for recording the electrical impulses that indicate brain activity, and transcranial magnetic stimulation, where neurons are stimulated using magnetic fields."

    It's called a MAGA hat.

  34. We are ALREADY Borg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A human brain is a colony of billions of neurons. BILLIONS! The only reason you can function is a person is because these neurons are networked together, and don't act independently.

    These are the very two reasons that we are a higher form of life than simple molds, or single-celled organisms. We are BORG!

    The further direct networking of human brains is just a re-iteration of the same pattern. It isn't some horrible thing like how it was depicted in Star Trek. We fear it because we see it as a threat to our individuality, and we have instincts that drive us to fear that. But objectively there is nothing to fear. We all become part of a greater being, just as each cell in our brains is already a part of a greater being.

    It is the future. It only seems weird to those too dim to see.

  35. I couldn't deal with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There are enough voices in my head, thank you very much.

  36. Promiscuous Thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A real life analogy to Promiscuous Mode.

  37. The Borg by ubungy · · Score: 1

    So this it the first step in assimilating.

  38. MORE SURVEILLANCE by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Great. Next steps will be: refining this so that thoughts can be interpreted and documented, then being able to do it wirelessly, then wirelessly over distances of, say, a few hundred meters. Then nosy corporations and governments can spy on what you're thinking in your own home, closing off the 'last mile' of individual privacy. We'll have to get Faraday cages installed where we live to even keep our thoughts private. Then Amazon will come out with a 'digital assistant' that gets thoughts via just thinking at it, and all the morons of the world who want the NEW SHINY will buy them -- and no one anywhere will ever have privacy again.

    No, I'm not being funny. You know damned well that government intelligence services mouths are watering at the thought of being able to sift people's thoughts.

  39. What genders? by I_Wrote_This · · Score: 1

    Most women claim to have been doing this throughout human history.

    1. Re:What genders? by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Most women claim to have been doing this throughout human history.

      Tetris was created in June 1984. Fucking millennials.

  40. social network of connected brains by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    'social network' of connected brains

    That already exists, and is known as human societies. Media is speech, written text, and other non verbal signals.

  41. adverts by devlp0 · · Score: 1

    I can't wait until they start beaming adverts directly into your head whilst you are trying to get to sleep!

    --
    >/dev/null 2>&1
  42. Anyone else reminded of MTV? by sabbede · · Score: 1

    Specifically 1994's "Dead at 21"?