It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Thought Reading

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 03:03 AM
link   
This topic seems to be something that is creeping up on me more and more. Has anyone else on here ever felt like when near someone even a stranger that their thoughts were more susceptible to being read or vice versa, that someone near you it seemed like you knew exactly what they were thinking. The reason I ask this is not because of general situations but because it seems around certain people I get this fear that my thouhts could be read and I should be careful what I am saying inside my head. And this varies from person to person little old ladies to an average dude. As well I have been around numerous people who I seem to have felt like I knew what they were thinking even if it was not what they were saying. More so than something that owuld seem obvious.




posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 03:09 AM
link   
I did read somewhere, that as we get closer to the year 2012, that we
will be coming more spiritually aware. Now I don't know how much
truth is in that mind you, but it's just a thought as to what may be
happening to you.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by CanadianConspirator
Has anyone else on here ever felt like when near someone even a stranger that their thoughts were more susceptible to being read or vice versa, that someone near you it seemed like you knew exactly what they were thinking. The reason I ask this is not because of general situations but because it seems around certain people I get this fear that my thouhts could be read and I should be careful what I am saying inside my head.


I'm always into it...! I can read another person's mind, and he can also read mine. It won't make any difference if you "say" things in your mind or not, they are there in means of feelings. Even if you don't say those things, you can feel what not to say, therefore you already thought about that particular thing.

Still, I wonder how is it possible, that a stranger very far away can actually read your mind? Isn't that interesting? There was never recordrd such event in the time of mind reading, I guess it's either fake, or something extremely powerful. What do you think?



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Personally i believe that it is a fine line between mind reading,telepathy and pure concidence.There is a very interesting article on the internet,regarding how mind reading can be possible.Below is the link.


www.geocities.com...


Site is down...i will post the content here.


Mind Control
Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Mind Reading Machines


Note: This is not as strange as it sounds. I saw machines at Teller AF Base that were on peoples heads, (A highly restricted area) and when I ask, I was told they were being programed. The time to do this I was told, took only 30 minutes. This area was where men and women were trained to be assasins, prostitutes, etc. circa 1982.......Col.

Skywatchers,

In response to Lingenfelter's thoughtful article on Mind Control experiments, I would like to submit to you this article I wrote 17 years ago on the mind-reading machines (just think of how much progress we may have made in that time):

COMING - THE MIND READING MACHINES (excerpts)
by William Hamilton ?1980

The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) has spent over $1 million a year under agency contracts at the University of Illinois, UCLA, Stanford, MIT, and the University of Rochester to interpret an individual's brain waves. At UCLA they are working on the use of the EEG to control machines. It may be only a matter of time before the machines will be able to read a person's brain waves and determine just what that person is thinking.

At this time it is necessary to use electrodes placed on a person's head. A small special-purpose computer scans the peaks and valleys of the EEG to determine what the person is concentrating on and what he is ignoring. The computer makes a brain-wave graph which is interpreted by scientists. At MIT, however, scientists are studying magnetic brain waes that can produce graphs much like the electrical brain waves now being measured. Magnetic brain waves can be picked up over a foot away from the subject and amplified as if the brain were a radio transmitter. By the 21st century it may be possible to detect and amplify brain waves over several miles. It is not beyond the imagination to picture globe-encircling satellites that carry on-board mind-reading machines that scan the earth.

Psychologist Dr. Adam V. Reed of Rockefeller University seems to be one man who thinks implanting a computer in the human brain would be a good idea. This, he contends, would make it possible to read other people's minds. He says, "Once the neural language of human thought and memory has been decoded, it will be possible to program a computer in it and to transfer programs directly to the computer from the appropriate neurons of the human brain. Ideally the computer of the future should be an electronic extension of the natural brain...it should share with the brain the implementation of the informational processes which we think of as our minds. It should also cease to be an external, consciously manipulated artifact and become no different, from the user's viewpoint than any natural part of his brain. The limiting factor in the development of directly linked computers is likely to be our knowledge of the location of relevant neurons and of the internal code of our minds."

It is rumored that the Soviets have deciphered "the internal code of our minds." We know the Soviets have experimented with mind-altering microwaves. A Pentagon agency report said, "Sounds and possibly even words which appear to be originating intracranially can be induced by signal modulation at very low average power densities", and added that "combinations of frequencies and other signal characteristics to produce other neurological effects may be feasible in several years." The report said that along with microwave hearing, the Soviets have also studied various changes in body chemistry and functioning of the brain resulting from exposure to microwaves and other frequencies of electromagnetic radiation.

Dr. Jacques Vidal, head of the Brain Computer Interface Project at UCLA is experimenting with man/machine interfaces which can provide a motor link between a person and his surroundings. Noting that some people were becoming concerned with the implications of his experiments, he stated, "One application directly in mind is in the case of cerebral palsy victims, where there is no motor control, but eye control."

Vidal stressed that the mind-machine link he was talking about was from human to computer and not the other way around.

Dr. Lawrence Pinneo of the Stanford Research Institute has had success with a computer that read his mind. "Basically, the computer works on the principle that thoughts are simply silent words," he said. The computer relies on brain wave tracings that show distinctive patterns which correlate to individual words, whether spoken or thought.

Pinneo has been conducting experiments in which the subject dons an aviator-type helmet equipped with wires that record brain waves. The thoughts show up on a television screen. If the machine recognizes the word "up" in the subject's thoughts, it moves a dot up. It moves accordingly for the words down, left, right, slow, fast, stop, and others. The top score for the computer on a single silent word is 75%. The computer is currently very limited in the words it can interpret and Pinneo hopes to bypass the need for filing the whole dictionary in the machine's memory system by the use of "phonemes". Phonemes are the smallest units of speech and there are only 46.

The possibilities of the machine's use "are limited only by imagination." Because the project is funded by the Pentagon, Pinneo is often asked if the computer might someday be used to control the thoughts of citizens. "The Department of Defense is the only agency in such funding", he said, "It's up to the people to be vigilant against misuse."

Dr. Anlinker with Ames Reseaarch Center in California said research is angled toward "how to tune in on the brain's secrets" and how to "read the mind". Dr. Anlinker added: "Could these thought-control processes and mind reading generate a police state? Of course, its possible. But those are things we must live with. Science must progress."

Dr. J.E. Zimmerman, a physicist at the government's Bureau of Standards in Boulder, Colorado says that he picks up brain waves without being physically connected to the subject. "A very sensitive meter, placed near the head, detects magnetic emissions from the brain, and this information is fed into computers which analyze the brain wave patterns. It's quite feasible that this machine can be developed to such a level that it can be used over a distance - without the subject knowing it."

Despite the good intentions of the various scientists working on these mind-reading experiments, time and again, each have stated that these machines could be misused. Its exciting to think that machines could do our bidding by merely thinking a thought, but then it is somewhat terrifying to think that someone could read our thoughts without our knowledge. Could a computer not only read brain waves, but control brain waves in a neurocybernetic loop? A computer could be programmed to program human behavior and who, ultimately, does that programming?

This article was written from source articles published in the L.A. Times and Computerworld sometime in 1979.

Bill Hamilton
Executive Director
SKYWATCH INTERNATIONAL

Back To Top Secret Projects



[edit on 6-1-2005 by Kronn]



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 05:27 PM
link   
I'm sorry to bring a little reality back into this thread, BUT, the fact that the article is over 20 yrs old should preclude -any- conclusions being drawn, vis a vis, it's relevence to the original question. How did we go from empathy and possible telepathy, to 20yr old research that had nothing to do with mind control, and everything too do with the Air Force's hope to someday have a plane partially controlled by the pilot's thoughts, since in a dogfight, the difference of 10ths of a second (brain to computer VS brain to muscles) can hypothetically be the "edge" needed to out fly your opponent.
So please, let's stay on-topic, ok, Kron? The subject of mindreading is difficult enough to discuss without bringing in dated, unsuccessful experiments in a totally different area of study.
C.C., in my opinion, yes, there -is- evidence of mind-to-mind communication, but the evidence as such has not reached the level of significance to persuade skeptics of its existence. After 50yrs of increasingly sophisticated scientific methodologies and analysis of every microscopic possibility within the realm of statistical manipulation, not ONE experiment stands out as definitive...sorry to say, since I was one of those researchers slaving away in a lab for thousands of hours.
However, there are still generalities and relationships that -approached- scientific levels of "proof" and one of those is the relationship between the Sender and the Receiver in standard telepaty experiments. Using sophisticated personality inventories as well as comparing tests using strangers as opposed to using Subjects closly related to eachother, it can be generally stated that individuals closely related to eachother, either through blood or marriage, did marginally better than pairs of Subjects who were either complete strangers or their personalities were on either end of the personality inventories' classifications of "type".
Ok, I've done my duty as an ex-parapsychologist to use the language of science to answer your question, C.C., so now I'll just talk as bubbabak, a dude living in northern california and a relatively new member of this board.
Yeah, dude, I can dig what you're sayin'....it IS weird how we can sometimes sense a simpatico person when in their presence...happened to me just the other day when I was shopping. Nothing weird there....just part of the complex tools that the Beautiful Black Lady in the Sky gave us all in order to relate and survive in this wonder place we live in.
Suggestion: start making notes, a diary, if you will, documenting these instances and, I guaran-dang-tee you that a year from now, not only will you have a better handle on this subject, you'll be posting specific relationships and patterns that showed up and would otherwise have gone unnoticed had you not taken the trouble to turn a general "feeling" into an actual personal ability or talent. And, yes, it has been my experience that going this extra step, documenting unusual perceptions in detail, does indeed allow you to increase your sensitivity and control over same. A poor-man's Class on Psychic Development, eh?

anyway, that's my opinion and reaction to your question. Let's see what other's come up with...good question and observation!
cheers:
bubbabak



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bubbabak
Suggestion: start making notes, a diary, if you will, documenting these instances and, I guaran-dang-tee you that a year from now, not only will you have a better handle on this subject, you'll be posting specific relationships and patterns that showed up and would otherwise have gone unnoticed had you not taken the trouble to turn a general "feeling" into an actual personal ability or talent. And, yes, it has been my experience that going this extra step, documenting unusual perceptions in detail, does indeed allow you to increase your sensitivity and control over same.


Well, if it would be THAT easy, as you think... you just cannot imagine what it is, am I right? That text you just pasted in, comes from an expert. But that person is just far away from reality. But he doesn't know that.

Keep making notes, when a decade will pass by , remember: that's just the wrong path!!



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kronn
The Mind Reading Machines
[edit on 6-1-2005 by Kronn]


They do exist, and are currently used in criminalpsychology. Very primitive machines, but they are far better than a lie detector. And the law is accepting its results. This doesn't mean, that it really reads what's in your mind, only gives specific signals if you know of a particular event (eg: murder case).

Probably a primitive way of telepathy, but still very far to go!



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   
the machines virtue posted are real, and primitive as he mentioned. they have to show you pictures and then evaluate your brainwaves related to that picture to see if you know about it. im sure posing a certain scenario to a person would have the same effect.

as far as does it exist in general (telepathy) i can say for certain that it does. i cannot prove it but thats ok.

i can prove that there are valid psycics, there are many documented cases.

the earthquake that happened in japan a few months ago - i had a dream about and predicted its magnatude within .5 on the richter scale. I mentioned it before it happened to several people. i did not document it but we would all pass a polygraph (or newer) lie detector test.

i am not refering to that case as documented either, thats just personal experience. the reason that most people dont believe in things like that is coz most of the people who claim it are con artists trying to make a buck. but if you look in police files especially, you will find many cases where there were too many clues given by psycics to be co-incidence.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
as far as does it exist in general (telepathy) i can say for certain that it does. i cannot prove it but thats ok.

i can prove that there are valid psycics, there are many documented cases.

but if you look in police files especially, you will find many cases where there were too many clues given by psycics to be co-incidence.


Telepathy does exist, I am at the same point. Hard to prove it, there are just too many nutcases.

Psychics don't exist, those at the police are researchers and professionals regarding criminalpsychology. No mediums, predictions and rituals. Simply the research of raw useable evidence.

The fact that somebody can decrypt your feelings through your existance, is far beyond the knowledge of any human being. You don't need to keep supporting your fake thoughts, nobody will answer your questions, simply because they can't . Neither could I.

Better think about that, and don't buy into all those things like magic and inheritance.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 09:56 PM
link   
People vary in their telepathic abilities and openness of mind to being read. I can easily read the thoughts of some people, while others are a mystery to me. The very fact that people are noticing these abilities and are becoming more adept at them is supportive evidence of the 2012 hypothesis. I would be very careful with what you choose to think...every thought matters and feeds into the universal consciousness. Besides, you never know who is reading your thoughts (and it does not necessarily have to a physical person).



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Hi Vertu:


Originally posted by Vertu

Originally posted by Bubbabak
Suggestion: start making notes, a diary, if you will, documenting these instances and, I guaran-dang-tee you that a year from now, not only will you have a better handle on this subject, you'll be posting specific relationships and patterns that showed up and would otherwise have gone unnoticed had you not taken the trouble to turn a general "feeling" into an actual personal ability or talent. And, yes, it has been my experience that going this extra step, documenting unusual perceptions in detail, does indeed allow you to increase your sensitivity and control over same.


vertu said:
Well, if it would be THAT easy, as you think... you just cannot imagine what it is, am I right?

I have to assume you're talking to me here, vertu, but truly, I'm not sure how to respond.
For example....I have no idea where you think I said anything was easy. It was a suggestion, that's all, and I gave my reasons for suggesting it. Ever keep a dream log?
Same idea.
It's simply a way of recognizing patterns over time that would otherwise go unnoticed.
Now, are you implying that I somehow suggested to our Canadian friend that this is the only thing he should do in response to his ever-increasing number of paranormal experiences.
If you are, I can only say that your reading comprehension needs improvement.
After all, at the time of my response, I didn't' see anyone else offering pragmatic suggestions...certainly you can't be criticizing my attempt to give him a slightly more comprehensive response than he'd received up to that point, are you?
No....you can't be saying that because it wouldn't make sense.
Speaking of which....

you said:
That text you just pasted in, comes from an expert. But that person is just far away from reality. But he doesn't know that.

Sorry but I pasted no text. What are you talking about here, Vertu?

Keep making notes, when a decade will pass by , remember: that's just the wrong path!!


A decade? I said a year.
There's that comprehension thingy again, dude.
Shrugging shoulders and moving on....
bubbabak



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Actually what interest me most in that article is the ablity of the machine to pick up the brain wave of the human mind and translate it into words that we can understand.

And from that article i understand that when the human mind "thinks" it actually generates specific brain waves which can be pick up by a machine,Or Another human brain which possess the same ablity of the machine.The human brain can actually be "Trained" to do what the machine is capable.Anyway the human brain is the one that created the machine so i dont see why the human brain cant achieve what the machine can.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 06:26 AM
link   
When I read those summaries of research and the scientist's comments, I have to chuckle, having been a grant-funding-whore myself for a number of years. Reading between the lines, what I see is innuendo and fanciful speculation. Having put several thousands of hours into EEG research, I must say, the idea that a machine or monitor, unbeknownst to you and at any distance further than an inch from the skull, could be used to "read" someone's mind, is so far in the hypothetical future remains science fiction.
---the electical potential of EEG-scanned brainwaves are in the order of MICRO-volts....millionths of a volt. The very thought that some kind of distant instrument could detect such small electrical potentials amongst the much stronger and ever-present background clutter of radio,TV,cell phones, static from electrical motors, etc etc etc ad infinitum, simply isn't possible now, or in the forseeable future.
----each individual develops their memories and associative concepts in the real world at a different time, a woven a billion different ways in the neural pathways. Scientists will continue to limit their research to brain-machine interactions to very basic, spatial-related reactions, because any thought more complicated than up, down, left, right, etc, produces different electrical potentials in different areas of the brain, so, again, this basic research has to be in a laboratory environment, conducted with the person's knowledge and cooperation and with the monitoring equipment either directly in contact with the skull, or very close to it.
----there has been no scientific experiment that I'm aware of that has shown a strong, positive relationship between surface recorded EEG activity and positive results in ESP experiments. There is no "broadcasting" of electrical activity from one brain to another....since there have been successfully conducted individual experimental sessions testing, using standard forced choice ESP results, at extreme distances and while the subjects were in electically shielded faraday-cage like rooms. The only conclusion one can come to is that the medium that carries ESP information is something other than our current knowledge of teh electromagnetic spectrum, if one gives any credence at all, to such experiments.
----complicated "thought" processes produce electical activity that is very dynamic and at varying levels of the brain, and may not have any relationship to those electrical potentials measured by EEG at the surface level ot the brain.
For these and numerous other reasons, I will continue to be skeptical about claims of there being machines that can, at a distance, so perfectly monitor and interpret a person's thoughts to such a degree as to even conceivably called telepathic-like output of same.
Can a machine be "trained", through rigorous and repetitive sessions, to recognize a persons' intent to "move my leg forward" (as in bioelectronic artifical limbs, certainly. But the difference between that and what has been informally called "reading the persons' thoughts", no, we are no where near having that ability, imo.
Not to mention, I still don't see what any of these tangent issues have to do with Canadian Conspiritor's original questions about person-to-person telepathic perceptions and how one person's thoughts or emotions seem transparent, while the guy next to him produces no empathic feelings in the least.
Seems like apples and oranges to me, but I'll not continue with that opinion past this mention of it, lest I be accused of being a MOD or trying to steer a thread one way or another, contrary to the original posters intent.
Y'all have a good friday, m'k?
bubbabak
bubbabak



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bubbabak
Can a machine be "trained", through rigorous and repetitive sessions, to recognize a persons' intent to "move my leg forward" (as in bioelectronic artifical limbs, certainly. But the difference between that and what has been informally called "reading the persons' thoughts", no, we are no where near having that ability, imo.
Not to mention, I still don't see what any of these tangent issues have to do with Canadian Conspiritor's original questions about person-to-person telepathic perceptions and how one person's thoughts or emotions seem transparent, while the guy next to him produces no empathic feelings in the least.


Right. Machines are not yet into mind reading, there is no way to manipulate your mind with today's technology. Therefore, you are free to think, and whatever you do, is right in your hands.

Person to person telepathy could be possible, but not yet proven. Anyway, the human mind evolved through millions of years, it can do fascinating and interesting things that are not yet explored. Humans rule the World upon animals, it is not a coincidence that we evolved into this fantastic creature.

There is nothing to think about: we are extremely advanced creatures with detailed brain capabilities!



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   
hmm, good points but from what i understand you have to be hooked up to the machine i am refering to like a poly graph. i totally agree that it is far fetched that they can just 'read my thoughts at will' or will ever be able to so.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Dido, I feel the same way. Its not that I can read peoples thoughts or anything, but sometime I can 'feel' their thoughts. Strange, huh?



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vertu
[
The fact that somebody can decrypt your feelings through your existance, is far beyond the knowledge of any human being. You don't need to keep supporting your fake thoughts, nobody will answer your questions, simply because they can't . Neither could I.

Better think about that, and don't buy into all those things like magic and inheritance.



You're telling me that it is impossible to "decrypt" someones feelings based on their existence?


I can tell if someone is going through a range of emotions merely by attenuating to their physical state, i.e. posture, energy exended to complete a task,(no matter how menial), facial expressions(muscle position - tense, relaxed, etc.), the point of visual and time spent(is their attention intent or lax?), use of speech(can also be used to discern a rough estimate as to their education and cultural background), the amount of speech, topic(s) of interest, etc. The list can go on, the amount of subtle clues that the human organism gives off is incredible. Handwriting analisys can communicate personality and if you understand personality types(how one communicates - aggressive, passive, knee-jerk, thoughtful, etc.) then to a reasonable extent you can begin to predict behaviour. So if the firdst sentence of Vertue's quote is correct, than I must be way beyond human knowledge because not only can I decrypt what a person is feeling but I can use that info to understand how they might react in certain situations, though it is by no means perfect.

An easier explanation is to say that Vertue is wrong
and realize that it is not only within our capabilities but is perpetually being refined, especially if our reference point is data picked up from a 1979 experiment. The fact that the info was being researched back then means they were probably doing much more(I'm positive more than one scientist had something to be proven or disproven). They have probably gone alot further; 20 years is a long time and more scientists had thoughts to put to a test.

To add a response to BubbaBac, one experiment does not stand out as definitive but there doesn't need to be. Every failed experiment shows that particular set of factors aren't condusive. With the experience you stated you had, you should know that, and on another point, the government isn't going to heavily fund failed experiments(You know they're pumping money into neurology, mind-control and mechanisms to merge the two if you know about the monkey controlling the cursor on the computer screen with thoughts measured and transmitted(a significant amount of research and computer programming to accomplish this). Thus, mind-control, thought manipulation/reading is higly probable.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vertu

Right. Machines are not yet into mind reading, there is no way to manipulate your mind with today's technology. Therefore, you are free to think, and whatever you do, is right in your hands.

There is nothing to think about: we are extremely advanced creatures with detailed brain capabilities!

"Machines are not yet into mind-reading...."

Refer again the monkey. A computer "read" the electrical pattern/signal corrolated with the intent of the monkey. The computer was taught how to "read" by many hours of inducing activity by the monkey and recording corresponding measurements. That's just one group of scientists on one aspect of the science......


"No way to manipulate the mind with today's technology."

Do I have to go into commercials, the likliehood a person will give attention to bright lights and excited voices, and basic human reactions to a consistent routine that defines their life with regards to the ongoing pursuit of convenience? Shall I even breathe a word about the education level of our popular medias and our reliance on them for information which we use to define our perspective on reality? Look up the word "connotation", read tomorrow's newspaper and try to find where the principle was used. And that's fairly low technology!


"There's nothing to think about...."

You're kidding right?



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   
from personal experience lately i believe we all have the ability to be monitored...
however what we think and what we actually DO are totally different things. Meaning just because we think about doing something or think about saying something dosnt mean that one will go through with these thought processes.
if we think positively we can live positively, releasing the inner negativity in other forms of mind excersises or physical exersises.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I think we all have the ability to read minds, or feel thoughts to be more specific, if we just listen.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join