Mind Control/Thought Reading IS Officially Real. Brain scan can read people’s thoughts: researche

Well, aside from my other HAARP thread going on now where people have speculated on HAARP's ability to read and control minds, this bit of information crossed my lap.

Snippet from source:

WASHINGTON -- A scan of brain activity can effectively read a person's mind, researchers said Thursday.

British scientists from University College London found they could differentiate brain activity linked to different memories and thereby identify thought patterns by using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

The evidence suggests researchers can tell which memory of a past event a person is recalling from the pattern of their brain activity alone.

"We've been able to look at brain activity for a specific episodic memory -- to look at actual memory traces," said senior author of the study, Eleanor Maguire.

I checked to see if a thread has already been forged out of this. So far so good.

source:
rawstory.com...

And with our computing power nowadays it won't take long before those signals can be translated to images perhaps.

Next step, make it wireless for longer range...

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


There needs to be some understanding here, based on the article:

Nobody can zap you while you are anywhere to read your mind. They can't know anything about your memories without already scanning your brain while you're thinking about them.

So, in order for them to know what you're thinking, they have to actually see it themselves. (Or, it could be blind, where the people scanning you know which one you were thinking without actually knowing what the image or movie contained.)

The scans are picking of patterns in your brain, but they're not reading its contents at all. What they read is just a reading. Only by pairing a reading with a given image or memory known by both people (thus revealed to the person scanning you before it's ever predicted what is on your mind).

I wouldn't say this is mind reading at all. Unless you divulge details to the scanners (people doing the scanning), then the scans are useless, like maps to some unknown destination. For it to work, you have to tell them about the specific memory they're looking for before they can detect whether or not you're thinking of it.

I'd say this is more like recognizing whether you are thinking of a certain, given, already-known bit of information. In the sense I'm sure most people would gather - learning new information unknown to the people scanning your brain - this is entirely different. I'd say it's more "remember that red balloon we showed you earlier? you thought of it just now." Like a memory matching game, where it only works if you tell them whatever memories the 'game' is played with.

Also, I thought I'd add that this works with very large, expensive machines that require you to hold your head very still.

Nobody will know all the awful things you did last summer based on this study.

was just reading about this research here:

Science Daily article

I think it will provide more info related to the OP....

reply to post by glitchinmymatrix


I have some understanding about mind control, and I will tell you about it. Keep an open mind, this is a rabbit hole.

By the term "mind control," we do not mean reading your thoughts. Even a telepathic cannot do that. The term means, beaming a low frequency electronic beam towards you, as in towards a crowd of people. The beam has a frequency akin to your brain's frequency. Here are some good links. Read them all for a full measure of the subject matter.

The Philadelphia Project, U.S.S. Eldridge and Project Rainbow

Project Superman

Project HAARP, Expansion of the Montauk Project

ORION TECHNOLOGY AND OTHER SECRET PROJECTS

NSA Mind Control and Psyops

The OMEGA File

This is old news. Emotive and MyZeo had demos of consumer market BCI technology at this year's CES. Emotive's product was a PC/Game interface which allowed you to operate a computer or play a game using only your thoughts. MyZeo's product (which I think is already on shelves) monitors your brainwave states as you sleep and records them so that you can get an idea of your sleep cycles rhythms and tips on how to optimize your sleep states.

Here's a more detailed post I made in a similar thread regarding BCI technology. Some video, some demo shots, some miscellanea.


In any case, they're a far cry from being able to read thoughts on the level that most people envision. Most BCI interfaces (at least, non-invasive methods) tend to rely on motor cordiality - the thinking of moving your arms or body to correlate to computer function. The Asimo BCI android demo and many BCI prosthesis use this method... and it's fairly more developed and compact now than other methods. fMRI scanning can indeed differentiate whether your thinking of a face, a place, an item, or a whatnot. However, while more sophisticated non-invasive BCI methods have allowed for letter/number recognition... it's a far cry from "mind reading". It's useful for disabled or "locked in" patients who cannot otherwise communicate by allowing them to construct sentences letter by letter (much like Stephen Hawking does with facial twitches)... but it's still very early, and requires training and focused concentration. It's not passive by any means just yet.

Further, we don't think in words and phrases... Mental imagery and internal dictation are focused efforts and are very much "after the fact" complete perceptual constructions which wouldn't exist if they weren't formed by the unconscious lower level mental functions. Conscious perception is more like a PC Desktop where different windows of ideas can be compared, integrated, innovated, simulated, prioritized, etc. Your decisions are made before you're even consciously aware that you've made them, and your mind (specifically your right hemisphere) makes excuses for why you made that decision.

(Look into Split Brain patients, Left/Right brain Lateralization, and the work of Mike Gazzaniga who was one of the pioneers of cognitive neuroscience.)

At any rate, we can map the areas associated with various perceptual and cognitive processes and in what order they typically occur... but passively reading mines in the popular sense isn't anywhere close our capabilities. When you talk to a close friend on the phone, you don't "look" at the "mental script" you prepared and read from it... you just say what comes to your mind. We can't read that in a useful manner yet, and concepts & impressions have to associated with their representative vocalization patterns (words)... so passively reading minds in easily recordable/understandable language format isn't possible on a conscious level prior to speech in most cases. It'd be more meaningful, though harder to describe, the flow of memories, impressions, sensations which invoke those associative descriptive correlations and arranged into a framework of language.

At any rate... Most BCI technology works by associations with activity in the motor and visual cortexs (IIRC) These are some of the largest systems of processing of your brain and draw the most energy, which makes them easier to map and work with. For instance, the letter recognition BCIs capable of determining whether your thinking of the letter B or X or Y require you to visualize the letter you want the computer to display. I.E., we're not even into the language or auditory regions... we're still mapping this stuff to the visual cortex (which is responsible for both mental imagery and optical perception) and pulling it from there.

So unless you, as said before, are reciting your internal monologues from a mental image of a dialog script before articulating the words into speech... the capabilities of this technology are far more "beta" and exploratory than they're often promoted/hyped to be; nor are they what people tend to expect based on sci-fi and paranormal hoodoo. The real amazing breakthroughs and benefits are, momentarily, lost in confusion between function and expectation for most people.

As has already been said we've had similar technology for a while now. However, as it progresses it should certainly provide some new choices for people suffering from ALS and similar conditions. What's really interesting though is the work of Michael Persinger who is the one that discovered that there is a part of the brain, that when stimulated produces religious experiences. He has also used his "God Helmet" to demonstrate "telepathy" under laboratory conditions.

"God Helmet" Inventor, Dr. Michael Persinger Discovers Telepathy Link in Lab Experiments

Originally posted by Grey Magic
And with our computing power nowadays it won't take long before those signals can be translated to images perhaps.

Next step, make it wireless for longer range...

Agreed. Should be interesting to see what they can come up with.

reply to post by glitchinmymatrix


I'm not sure anyone made those claims, including the people in the article. I just presented the information to let you forge your own opinion.

Originally posted by Anamnesis
was just reading about this research here:

Science Daily article

I think it will provide more info related to the OP....

Excellent. Thank you for the added info.

reply to post by Lasheic

Yes, I am sure that it is old news...however, the story appeared last night at roughly 4am. I can't do anything about them not being updated on some of the earlier stuff. So, for all intensive purposes, to the general public, this is brand new.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Does he have anything peer reviewed? Telepathy seems like quite a claim, and regardless of how "group minded" he thinks scientists are getting... demonstrable evidence is not going to be ignored. Usually when that claim is made, it means their hand is worthless and they're trying to bluff. Elane Morgan pulled the same schtick at a TED talk in regards to her Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. I love the idea, and she's a wonderful and intelligent old lady who could quite possibly be on to something... and I hope she's right... but there's just no good evidence to support it. God bless her, but unless she can substantiate her claims better... she's got nothing.

In regards to the "God Spot", it's really more like a network of various regions responsible for a variety of social functions. The idea being that in order to operate in a society (especially when exposed to a new environment where cooperation and social cohesion are vital to compensating for physical deficits as a means to promote survival) we needed a theory of mind, the understanding that other members of your group display similar emotional ranges and desires which are comparable to your own. Most social animals, specifically mammals, have a basic ToM which allows them to gauge the intent of other members in anticipation of interaction.

In humans and chimpanzees (as well as other Apes), we've become quite good at intuitive psychology as a useful means by which to explain and interact with the behavior of others. Too good, perhaps. It's little wonder that we assign human characteristics and motivations to phenomena and places and things to which they don't apply. Ever have a piece of electronics which you can't get to work, so you physically assault it out of frustration? Ever try to reason or plead with it to work? Beg, or bellow in anger? Why treat it as such when you know it isn't alive or sapient? Would it seem out of the ordinary for a prehistoric man to plead into the growing darkness to turn the predators away from his tribe's camp? Or for an early farmer to beg the Sun to be kind to his crops, his only source of wealth and food? When tragedy befalls us, and we are ignorant as to it's purpose, do you suppose it's likely that we assign meaning and motivation to it, so as to placate and repent for whatever we did to deserve such pain? What if such assumptions were reinforced by concurrent phenomena observed as though there was a relation, suggesting correlation indicates causation? B.F. Skinner showed that even pigeons are superstitious - and that false correlations can cause a shift in behavior to accommodate those false correlations. Does this not also apply to us?

I think a penchant for religion isn't something we evolved as a beneficial trait, but is a byproduct of beneficial traits. Once it emerged, religion itself was modified and adapted to serve various social functions.

Government experimenting with Mind control

ever hear of the movie called PATIENT 14 aka eavesdropper

i am not positive if it based on truth but i would not be surprised
about a woman that realize what she has and learn to control it
the ability to read minds and used as a pawn for the government

sort of like , bionic woman and minority report merged together

thinking bionic woman jamie summers hearing

channeling to the right frequencies ? well a few Animals Mammals, Reptile Birds Fish Insect might have that ability ? could it be possible i would say so

ATS thread of the Subject www.abovetopsecret.com...

a little info about the movie
www.showcaseentertainment.com...