That's just a bullshit experiment. Take it from someone who, 16 years ago, was doing VEPs (visual evoked potentials) and TMS (transcranial magnetic stimulation). Consciousness only comes into it insofar as the conscious processing of the question and the decision to look at the (presumably faster flashing) YES light.
Boffins make brain-to-brain direct communication breakthrough
University of Washington (UW) researchers have entered the realm of sci-fi (sort of), and achieved brain-to-brain direct communication. Sadly, these mind-reading superpowers are limited to responding to 'yes' or 'no' questions. Researchers hooked one person up to an electroencephalography (EEG) machine that records electrical …
-
-
-
-
-
Thursday 24th September 2015 20:36 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: I disagree
Shirley anyone sufficiently concious and responsive to understand and obey "I'm gonna torment you with some moronic questions: look at that slowly blinking light to answer 'no' and look at this annoyingly rapidly flashing light to answer 'yes'" could just as readily "look at her to answer 'no' and look at him to answer 'yes'" and thus dispense with a crapload of complicated unreliable and pointless rigmarole?
-
-
-
-
-
-
Friday 25th September 2015 08:31 GMT Sir Runcible Spoon
Re: ADHD?
Whilst I had the same reaction when the author lumped ADHD into this list I have to object to your 'modern-excuse' dismissal.
ADHD is a combination of 'traits' that impair a persons ability to function in a normal* manner. All of the traits that ADHD suffers have are suffered by everyone on the planet to one degree or another. The difference is that ADHD sufferers do not get them 'sometimes' - they get them *all* the time - there is no escape.
There are a number of traits that are measured. In the UK there are some guidelines on identifying them - 9 traits in each category of 'Inattentive' or 'Hyperactive/Impulsive' so 18 in total.
If you exhibit 6 or more traits on a constant basis from either category you have ADHD. So you can be ADHD- Primarily Inattentive, ADHD- Primarily Hyperactive/Impulsive or ADHD - Combined (if you score 6 or more in both categories).
I can absolutely guarantee that this is not a made up thing. I suffered for 42 years without a diagnosis, repeating the same mistakes and having the same problems seemingly being unable to learn from my 'mistakes'. I was called lazy (even though when I'm focussed I can work anyone under a table) and all sorts of other things which didn't do me a lot of good.
Once I was diagnosed a huge number of problems in my life suddenly became understandable, and all the coping mechanisms I developed became obvious and allowed me to take some control of my life back.
Once I started medication for it, whilst not a complete cure-all, it improved so many things in my life that I couldn't even begin to list them.
Whilst ADHD is not a completely known thing yet, the exact cause and diagnosis is still a 'work in progress' - but to say it doesn't exist is insulting to everyone who suffers from this shit on a daily basis.
For the record I scored 9/9 in both categories. The only reason I can function at all is because I have a respectable IQ and a stubborn streak a mile wide. Most people with severe ADHD end up in prison (I nearly ended up going down that path when I was younger, despite all my advantages).
TL;DR : It exists, stop commenting on something until you know a bit more about it.
*Ok, this is hard to explain exactly but I think you know what I mean
-
-
-
-
Thursday 24th September 2015 15:31 GMT TRT
Re: Just "yes" and "no" can go a long way
Not to mention that the TMS pulse on the bonce in order to generate a phosphene is like being kicked in the back of the head by a small child wearing clogs. By the time you got half way through the message it would have changed to "Oh, just Feck off!"
-
-
-
-
Thursday 24th September 2015 16:29 GMT Gordan
18%? Shouldn't baseline be 50% on a binary yes/no spread?
"Participants were able to guess the correct object in 72 per cent of the real games, compared with just 18 per cent of the control rounds."
18%? Shouldn't control set baseline be 50% on a binary yes/no spread, based on random chance?
-
Thursday 24th September 2015 17:06 GMT TRT
Re: 18%? Shouldn't baseline be 50% on a binary yes/no spread?
Not really. It depends on how many different objects they had to choose from. It's like 20 questions with a restricted dataset. If it was 20 questions with an unrestricted dataset, the chances of being right in the control must be one in a million.
-
-
Thursday 24th September 2015 17:15 GMT eesiginfo
Do we all experience this regularly?
Within very close knit groups, such as families, we constantly experience weird communication at a 'word for word' level.
The assumption has always been that this is 'shared interpretation of events' due to tight knit groups thinking similarly - even though this also happens between different sexes!
I am not convinced one way or the other, but the 'exactness of thought' does raise questions.
However, other related events also occur, that get one wondering whether we fully understand these processes. eg.
In the beginning, my son's face book page was setup with my email account.
Therefore his entire feed passes through my account, directly into junk.
I scan through the junk, and keep it manageable.
I never read his feed ( I obviously am not in touch with my feminine side :) )
On this one occasion, I read a message from a friend, that related to a very important family incident that I was not aware of (and needed to be aware of).
The header was not unusual at all.
Why did I choose to do that with this one message out of thousands?
I can't offer any rational explanation.... I'm just relating a fact.
Obviously, because we can't repeat the experiment, it cannot be classed as science.
However, I am very open to the fact that we have barely scratched the surface re. understanding the brain.
-
Thursday 24th September 2015 19:17 GMT John H Woods
Re: Do we all experience this regularly?
"On this one occasion, I read a message from a friend, that related to a very important family incident that I was not aware of (and needed to be aware of).
The header was not unusual at all.
Why did I choose to do that with this one message out of thousands?"
Here's a possible rational explanation: in scanning the junk (a lot) more processing is happening than you think --- you are just not conscious of it. Something in the content jarred and the unconscious scan poked your consciousness and said, hey, read this one.
No telepathy involved; and none in the reported experiment either --- one makes ones brain do something distinct by deliberately focusing on a different stimulus, the signal is transmitted, and a stimulus is presented to the recipient, where the two stimuli that are possible are easily distinguished.
-
-
-
Friday 25th September 2015 03:49 GMT mIRCat
Your results may vary
"Pretty sure experiments like this have been done before, but the real breakthrough is...
using the internet. " - Triboolean
If they could find a way to package it all into a mobile phone, I'm sure that they would be granted a patent on the novelty of the idea.
Mine is the one with a device that allows direct communication with other people and still fits in a pocket.
-
Biting the hand that feeds IT
