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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   
out of an article I was reading. It says that we are on so many different waves that it would be impossible to read another persons mind. Yet, having some experience with this phenomina myself, I find it hard to not believe in telepathy. It does pose a question as to how telepathy would work. I, myself, believe in it, but still search for reasons as to how it can occur.

A big problem with psychic phenomena is that they just don't fit the way that neural networks and the brain function. The transfer of information due to telepathy or clairvoyance would be perplexing to say the least. Not that information can't be transmitted through space--it happens all the time in the form of electromagnetic waves (Krauss 1998)--but how would the information get coded and decoded by the brain?
It's currently believed that knowledge and memories are stored in synapses, which are junctions where one neuron communicates with another. Neurons make a lot of synapses, forming complex "circuits" known as neural networks which process information. The computations necessary for various perceptual and motor tasks are thus performed by neurons working together and communicating via synapses. Changes in the synapses alter this process, of course, and that's how a person or an animal learns and remembers. Synaptic changes, if relatively long-lasting, represent knowledge gained by experience.
The problem for wannabe psychics is that people have widely varying experience, and thus different neural networks. Individual differences can include even the location of the neural network; the speech centers of the human brain, for example, can be found in either the left or the right hemisphere. And regardless of location differences, neural networks evidently don't work exactly the same way in every person. This is particularly clear from the imaging studies, which show that there's a lot of variance in how brains work. Variability is also prominent in animal studies.

Just food for thought,
B56




posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 04:11 AM
link   
Hi Memory shock:
Of course I know the point to which you speak, below: would you have bothered to respond, had I said..."there is no one SERIES of experiments that definitively shows...."
of course, you could have pointed out "why mention a series when there is no one INDIVIDUAL experiment..."
so, I'm not sure why you bothered to comment, seeing as how my original response was technically correct. The point I was making is that the science of parapsychology is in a state of flux...all the highly touted, earlier successful (statistically) have been shown to be flawed, one way or another, and the series of definitive experiments conducted in multiple labs, using identical methodology, and supposedly correcting all the methodological mistakes from all the previous decades of work, turned out to be just as inconclusive (statistically).
That's all.
I still don't have a handle on just how technical a'forum this is, so you'll have to excuse my hesitation to get more specific on some points that I otherwise would include, if this was a dedicated forum of scientists who we can assume have a certain minimum knowledge of the Scientific Method and the history of parapsychological research, ok?

On your second point: I was addressing the subject of monitoring equipment that could "read", at a distance, any individual's thoughts so well as to have a TV-like flow of that ideation, not the issue of all forms of mind control.
Thanks for the comments, I appreciate the feedback.
bubbabak

Originally posted by MemoryShock


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, 10 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bubbabak
so, I'm not sure why you bothered to comment, seeing as how my original response was technically correct. The point I was making is that the science of parapsychology is in a state of flux...all the highly touted, earlier successful (statistically) have been shown to be flawed, one way or another, and the series of definitive experiments conducted in multiple labs, using identical methodology, and supposedly correcting all the methodological mistakes from all the previous decades of work, turned out to be just as inconclusive (statistically).
That's all.
I




I reread the thread, Bubbabak, and yes indeed my original reference was flawed in that it was unnecassary. Oops. I have more thoughts on this subject but not enough time right now........BTW I would hope that you would be as specific as possible in your posts; I don't know how technically literate this site is, but I speak for at least a few of ATS's when I say that I can understand anything you want to toss out there..



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by CanadianConspirator
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.


Telepathy is a known fact and happens with certain individuals. A friend of mine is able to read minds but it's blockable and hers is very broad most of the time. But this one time we were just walking and I was for some weird reason thinking of the Coca Cola Bear Cub and all I hear from her is "OH MY GOD THAT'S SO CUTE!" Confused I asked her what she was talking about and she told me the little bear, and I said "the little white polar bear on ice?" She's like "YEAH!"

It doesn't happen to her often but it's possible. More things are possible than people give things credit for, just things are often depicted way different in myths legends and story than they are in reality.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
iv always noticed how i can read peoples feelings even wen they are hidng it... i havnt really nown the importence of it but now i might think of improving it!



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Machines in existence so far afaik cannot read minds in the way you and I would imagine it (like telepathy and similar things)

The primitive device that knows if you know about something is based on certain patterns that occur in your brain when you *remember* something.
Basically it is a ''reality vs fantasy'' detector as opposed to the famous ''lies vs truth'' lie detector.

The monkey-machine experiments were based on a monkey controlling a joystick, and the machine monitoring the patterns in his brain that happened when he moved the stick.

This is more likely to be a pattern for moving his arm / thinking to move the dot rather than actual thoughts, but it worked. The monkey moved the joystick to the right, he had certain brain-patterns about it, a dot on the screen would go right.

The scientists then linked that ''brain-pattern'' to the dot going right, and disconnected the joystick. The monkey had already used the joystick to make the dot go right so it had a set of ''brainpatterns'' that were linked to moving his arm -> moving the dot.

The computer would recognize this and act upon it by moving the dot.

Not so much as mind-reading as it is mimicking a situation under different circumstances.

[edit on 12/5/09 by -0mega-]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
well doesnt each person think uniquley?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join