One rat brain 'talks' to another using electronic link

The future we could only see in science fiction is slowly becoming our reality, one small step at a time.

Something similar to this here... If you don't think, they don't know...

I think that animals already have telepathic skills, maybe not with every other creature, but at least some of the time , with some creatures. I read a book, written back in the 1940s, by an Englishman named Henry Blake. It is called Talking With Horses, and he describes how each horse could communicate breakfast arriving to another horse that it was linked to, even though the second horse was no where near the first one. They passed the breakfast news along to each other, but if one horse was "out of the loop", then the rest of the horses didn't get the message. He also talks about dogs that knew just when the owner was on her way home, even though she worked odd shifts. One time, a horse got stuck in the mud bog, and telepathically woke Blake up to come find him, and save his life.
After reading it, I tried linking with animals I have had, and some seemed to be able to understand, some didn't care.
I don't think I would want my brain connected to someone, it seems to me that it would open you up to be controlled, like some of the other posters have commented. If I can learn it on my own, it seems safer .

wonder what would happen if they wired a rat brain to a cat brain?? what would be the result?

reply to post by gr9g9997


lol

Originally posted by Phage
Do any of you actually understand the experiment?

There was no communication of any sort involved. It was a variation on Pavlov's experiments with conditioned responses. The only difference being that the bell that Pavlov used was replaced by an electrical signal from the "leader" rat's brain. The leader was taught that it would get a reward by producing a certain "signal" from its brain (the "bell"). The "follower" rat was taught that it would get a reward if it performed a certain behavior after the "leader" rat rang the "bell". The leader had no intent, it acquired a conditioned response which elicited another conditioned response in the follower.

It's a really interesting behavioral conditioning experiment, but telepathy? No.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by Phage
Do any of you actually understand the experiment?

There was no communication of any sort involved. It was a variation on Pavlov's experiments with conditioned responses. The only difference being that the bell that Pavlov used was replaced by an electrical signal from the "leader" rat's brain. The leader was taught that it would get a reward by producing a certain "signal" from its brain (the "bell"). The "follower" rat was taught that it would get a reward if it performed a certain behavior after the "leader" rat rang the "bell". The leader had no intent, it acquired a conditioned response which elicited another conditioned response in the follower.

It's a really interesting behavioral conditioning experiment, but telepathy? No.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I will post a really great reply courtesy of user "that972" on reddit, which has implications that dismiss your premise above. Add to that, the fact that this tech is brand new and still crude. One can only imagine where it will be a decade from now.

"It could be argued that the results reported here could have been obtained if prerecorded signals from encoder rats had been used to guide the behavior of the decoder rats. Qualitative and quantitative observation of the behavior of the animals reveals that this is not at all the case. In both motor and tactile BTBI sessions we observed drastic changes in the behavior of encoder and decoder rats as soon as they started to work as part of a dyad. Both encoder and decoder animals either made quick attempts to respond earlier or, conversely, they reduced their response rate or even stopped performing according to the dyad behavior."

"These overall changes in the dyad behavior, irrespective of their direction (e.g. increased or decreased latency), are a clear indicator that a fundamentally more complex system emerged from the operation of the BTBI; one which required considerable adaptation from the participant animals so that they could jointly perform the sensorimotor tasks."

"Fourth, our results showed that both encoder and decoder rats changed their behavior according to the dyad performance. This observation suggests that operation of a BTBI induces the establishment of a highly complex system, formed by a pair of interconnected brains. As such, this brain dyad behaved in a way that could not be predicted if only pre-recorded neural signals had been used for encoding purposes. We speculate that the description of the complex system generated by the dyad transferring information and collaborating in real time, will reveal fundamental properties about the neural basis of communication and social interactions"

So it seems that there is at least some evidence that the introduction of the feedback loop between the encoder and decoder animals causes a response that can be considered significantly different from a response that would be provoked by an "internet connected red light" if I am understanding your meaning correctly.

reply to post by dominicus

All that says, in vague terms, is the results were inconsistent. There is no indication of any form of telepathy, only that a difference in behavior was seen. Rats were conditioned to respond to signals produced by another rat's brain. Once researchers start getting into subjective observations you start running into problems with their interpretations of those same subjective observations.

reply to post by Phage


Like I said, the tech is still crude. We'll get to highly precise working models within the next decade. I'd bet a million bucks on it

reply to post by dominicus

Sorry.
I don't have a million bucks or I'd take the bet.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by dominicus

 

Sorry.
I don't have a million bucks or I'd take the bet.

Might want to do some research before taking that bet, particularly the strange anomaly found in the princeton random number generator experiments, which showed that thought affected the outcome, when according to standard models, it shouldn't

During the late 1970s, Prof Jahn decided to investigate whether the power of human thought alone could interfere in some way with the machine’s usual readings. He hauled strangers off the street and asked them to concentrate their minds on his number generator. In effect, he was asking them to try to make it flip more heads than tails.

It was a preposterous idea at the time. The results, however, were stunning and have never been satisfactorily explained.

Again and again, entirely ordinary people proved that their minds could influence the machine and produce significant fluctuations on the graph, ‘forcing it’ to produce unequal numbers of ‘heads’ or ‘tails’.

According to all of the known laws of science, this should not have happened – but it did. And it kept on happening.

Source

Some more other stories:

Mind-controlled robotic arm has skill and speed of human limb

Experts are calling it a remarkable step forward for prosthetics controlled directly by the brain. Other systems have already allowed paralyzed patients to type or write in freehand simply by thinking about the letters they want.

In the past month, researchers in Switzerland also used electrodes implanted directly on the retina to enable a blind patient to read.

The development of brain-machine interfaces is moving quickly and scientists predict the technology could eventually be used to bypass nerve damage and re-awaken a person's own paralyzed muscles.

I can provide many more. So it really confuses me why you'd be willing to take the bet when the writing's on the wall that brain to brain interfacing is pretty much here, albeit we're just starting to get our hands dirty

reply to post by dominicus

Using brain impulses to operate machinery is a far cry from brain to brain communication.
But perhaps I misunderstood your offer of a wager.


BTW, This statement is nonsense

According to all of the known laws of science, this should not have happened

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by dominicus

 

Using brain impulses to operate machinery is a far cry from brain to brain communication.
But perhaps I misunderstood your offer of a wager.


BTW, This statement is nonsense

According to all of the known laws of science, this should not have happened

edit on 3/2/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Aren't "brain impulses" part of the brain, or part of its communications system?

Either way, it'll start with impulses and end with consciousness, eventually. They're already looking at microtubules as the source of consciousness interfacing for neurons. Matter'a time.

How's the statement nonsense? Are you telling me it is widely known and excepted that thought influences a random number generator?

reply to post by dominicus

Aren't "brain impulses" part of the brain, or part of its communications system?

Yes. But one person's internal communication system is not the same as another's. Everyone's thoughts are produced by unique patterns of neuronal connections. Patterns of extremely complex coding.

They're already looking at microtubules as the source of consciousness interfacing for neurons.

Yeah, sure. How's that working out for them? I mean beyond speculation?

Are you telling me it is widely known and excepted that thought influences a random number generator?

No. At best I'm telling you the results are controversial. I'm telling you that the statistics for the experiments are hardly dramatic and when all things are considered do not show anything particularly impressive.

reply to post by Phage

Yes. But one person's internal communication system is not the same as another's. Everyone's thoughts are produced by unique patterns of neuronal connections. Patterns of extremely complex coding.

Doesn't matter if one person's is not the same as the others. If they are linked by a cable and can communicate via that cable, even if its using impulses at first,that's some ground breaking work and still by definition is brain to brain communicate.

This complex coding you speak of is in the process of being reverse engineered and completely understood allowing us to take advantage of it.

Yeah, sure. How's that working out for them? I mean beyond speculation?

Working out just fine. All scientific experiments start off as speculation. We're almost there, and when its official, i'll make sure to send you a u2u saying, " told ya so"

Text No. At best I'm telling you the results are controversial. I'm telling you that the statistics for the experiments are hardly dramatic and when all things are considered do not show anything particularly impressive.

Ha!!!!!! Seriously? Being able to manipulate a digital random number generator wirelessly by thought alone, "does not show anything particularly impressive?"

Yeah ok. Eat your heart out, cause that's revolutionary!!!!!!!! It was basically proving the wave collapse function that happens as a result of an observer, decades before the double slit experiment.

Our effin thoughts directly affect our surrounding reality. Its already factual in quantum physics, it will be this link that will give is mind links. Id bet bill gates money on it. Your current status quo bias will be crushed within the next 10-20 years.

reply to post by dominicus

If they are linked by a cable and can communicate via that cable, even if its using impulses at first,that's some ground breaking work and still by definition is brain to brain communicate.

Not really. Transferring electrical impulses is sort of trivial. Making any sense out of them is an entirely different proposition.

This complex coding you speak of is in the process of being reverse engineered and completely understood allowing us to take advantage of it.

Tricky. Because it would seem to be in a constant state of flux. Consider, for an extreme example, how brain damaged individuals are able to completely bypass damaged portions of the brain and create new pathways and patterns. This process occurs continually but not at that extreme level of course. The human brain is constantly rewiring and reprogramming itself.

All scientific experiments start off as speculation.

Not really. Most start out with observed phenomena which lead to a hypothesis which can be tested. Pure speculation has its limits.

Being able to manipulate a digital random number generator wirelessly by thought alone, "does not show anything particularly impressive?"

Oh, that would be impressive. The problem is showing that the results were statistically important. Just because I flip heads three times in a row doesn't mean I influenced the flip in any way. I know, there were more that three trials. Have you read the statistical analyses of those and other experiments? Here's one. It's not impressive.
www.ebo.de...
As I said the results are, at best, controversial.

It was basically proving the wave collapse function that happens as a result of an observer, decades before the double slit experiment.

No it wasn't. It was more likely showing a bias in the trials which were selected for publication. Oh, BTW. You need to read up on the history of the double slit experiment.

Its already factual in quantum physics

Ah. I see you buy into the "What the Bleep" nonsense. That explains a lot.

Your current status quo bias will be crushed within the next 10-20 years.

Wait. I thought your bet was "within the next decade."

Lost In Translation

Originally posted by Phage
There was no communication of any sort involved. It was a variation on Pavlov's experiments with conditioned responses. The only difference being that the bell that Pavlov used was replaced by an electrical signal from the "leader" rat's brain. The leader was taught that it would get a reward by producing a certain "signal" from its brain (the "bell"). The "follower" rat was taught that it would get a reward if it performed a certain behavior after the "leader" rat rang the "bell". The leader had no intent, it acquired a conditioned response which elicited another conditioned response in the follower.

It's incorrect to claim that no communication was involved. Information from the encoder rat was being sent to the decoder rat (and vice versa, as explained below), and that is most definitely communication. Not necessarily "telepathy", but genuine communication.

The classical conditioning aspects of the experiments were used because humans don't communicate fluently with rats, and the researchers needed some means of determining whether the decoder rats were actually receiving meaningful data from the encoder rats.

In experiment 1 (lights and levers), the decoder rats achieved statistically significant degrees of accuracy in their responses based solely on stimulation received from a "brain-to-brain interface" (BTBI) using intracortical microstimulation. The fact that the decoder rats had to press the correct lever, and not just any lever, was the indication that more information than just "press a lever" was received.

The researchers took things a step further by giving the encoder rats feedback from the decoder rats' performance, and it was shown that the encoder rats' behavior changed depending on the performance of the decoder rats, indicating two-way communication.

But they didn't stop there. As detailed in the Nature article A Brain-to-Brain Interface for Real-Time Sharing of Sensorimotor Information, the researchers also showed that more complex tactile data -- "virtual narrow" versus "virtual wide" -- could be used as a stimulus, rather than just LED indicator lights. The "whiskers" accuracy was similar to the results for the LED/lever tests and, as with those, the encoder rat's behavior was measurably influenced by the performance of the decoder rat.

The significance of these experiments is that they show not only that the behavior of one animal can affect the behavior of another animal via the BTBI, but that both animals can influence each other's behavior via the interface. The researchers claim to have demonstrated the "encoder rats" and "decoder rats" were working as "dyads" whose behavior would not have been the same if pre-recorded signals or one-way communication were used.

The scope of the study went far beyond classical conditioning, and to assert that's the only thing involved is to, well, misunderstand the experiments.

reply to post by Majic

Thanks for the link to the article. I did base my statements on the summary of the experiment, something I usually try to avoid.

The fact that the decoder rats had to press the correct lever, and not just any lever, was the indication that more information than just "press a lever" was received.

Ok, there was a "press this lever" signal and "press that lever" signal. Nothing too fancy.

The researchers took things a step further by giving the encoder rats feedback from the decoder rats' performance, and it was shown that the encoder rats' behavior changed depending on the performance of the decoder rats, indicating two-way communication.

I think using the term "communication" is going a bit far. The feedback was not direct. The encoder didn't know the decoder was there much less that it was performing any particular behavior. The encoder received a second reward when the decoder performed correctly and didn't when it did not. After a failure the encoded tried again with less latency than a successful attempt. I don't see why this cannot be interpreted as conditioning. The rat didn't know why it got rewarded a second time and it didn't know why it did. If it didn't get the second reward, it didn't wait around, it tried again.

As I said, it is a fascinating experiment but it is not a matter of one rat reading the mind of another. BTW, did you notice that the abstract carries some somewhat ominous undertones?

These results demonstrated that a complex system was formed by coupling the animals' brains, suggesting that BTBIs can enable dyads or networks of animal's brains to exchange, process, and store information and, hence, serve as the basis for studies of novel types of social interaction and for biological computing devices.

www.nature.com...

Cylon hybrid?

reply to post by Phage

Not really. Transferring electrical impulses is sort of trivial. Making any sense out of them is an entirely different proposition.

trivial? trivial is a relative perspective with no absolutes. Trivial to you but a giant breakthrough to me. Who's right is relative.

Tricky. Because it would seem to be in a constant state of flux. Consider, for an extreme example, how brain damaged individuals are able to completely bypass damaged portions of the brain and create new pathways and patterns. This process occurs continually but not at that extreme level of course. The human brain is constantly rewiring and reprogramming itself.

Considering the "majority" of folks are without brain damage, there are universal factors involved with these impulses that occur location wise. Perhaps for brain damaged people, such an interface wouldn't work.

Not really. Most start out with observed phenomena which lead to a hypothesis which can be tested. Pure speculation has its limits.

Then the hypothesis would be that thought can effect a random numbers generator. Just because it doesn't do so for 100% of the time, doesn't mean we need to throw it out. Too many unseen/unknowable factors involved.

Some aspects of reality, by their very nature, will not be repeatable the way the scientific method demands. 1 example is you reading this sentence for the very first time. It happened, subjectively, and yet all we have is your word. We can't repeat it, and we barely understand subjectivity/consciousness itself. So there's a then line between speculation and hypothesis.

Oh, that would be impressive. The problem is showing that the results were statistically important. Just because I flip heads three times in a row doesn't mean I influenced the flip in any way. I know, there were more that three trials. Have you read the statistical analyses of those and other experiments? Here's one. It's not impressive. www.ebo.de... As I said the results are, at best, controversial.

the study is 84 pages ...I'm on 22 at the moment and cross referencing various sections across the net. bear with me on this one.

Ah. I see you buy into the "What the Bleep" nonsense. That explains a lot.

I don't buy into anything unless I can test it for myself, so your speculation on this behalf is wrong. At the same time, I'm off an age that "the secret" was around much longer prior to the actual "secret". Prior to that it was the law of attraction and was big in the 60's & 70's. Personally I tried it and gave it a shot and it has worked......

.....although I found to be more akin to, you become like the people you surround yourself with. So all of my goals using LOA wound up with me getting in touch with people who were in the industries or had something to with the goals I had set, which eventually set off a chain of events that made my goals come true.

I'll take up your speculation as well and say that it looks as though you buy into the strict realist/materialist science fundamentalism that makes atheistic nihilism the pop choice, and everything outside of the confines of what is currently known is considered a joke. That explains alot.

Wait. I thought your bet was "within the next decade."

with you skewing the definitions of "brain electronic link" because you don't consider brain impulses to be part of such interface, your making it difficult to come up with a time line that will satisfy your hard core skepticism.

By 10 years, we'll have functioning brain interfaces based on impulses used by people with a 60-70% accuracy rate or higher.

By 20-25 years, we'll have actual consciousness interfaces that will blow the former impulse interfaces out of the water. If I'm alive that long, it will be my pleasure to send you a u2u while wearing a robe of victory and chalice filled with my favorite chocolate stout to inform you, "I told you so" Then will connect via the interface and I'll show you some other cool things I've experienced outside the bounds of what science has yet to find out, but eventually will.

reply to post by dominicus

Considering the "majority" of folks are without brain damage, there are universal factors involved with these impulses that occur location wise.

For motor and sensory functions quite specific locations. Cognitive functions seem to be more widely dispersed and variable. Brains scans show that when a particular person thinks "apple" a particular region of the brain goes to work. Does the same effect happen with all people? The same region displaying the same pattern?

Some aspects of reality, by their very nature, will not be repeatable the way the scientific method demands. 1

You are the one who brought up scientific experimentation. Now you say it's not valid in this case? But without such experimentation, how do you suppose one would go about establishing that connection between microtubules and consciousness? Without repeatable experiments, how could any means of utilizing that connection be devised?

I don't buy into anything unless I can test it for myself, so your speculation on this behalf is wrong.

I stand corrected. Have you performed the double slit experiment yourself then?

although I found to be more akin to, you become like the people you surround yourself with.

I'm not sure I buy into that entirely. I'm not much like the people at my workplace and I am very unlike my friends in many ways.

with you skewing the definitions of "brain electronic link"

I didn't skew anything.

By 10 years, we'll have functioning brain interfaces based on impulses used by people with a 60-70% accuracy rate or higher.

What will these interfaces actually do?

Then will connect via the interface and I'll show you some other cool things I've experienced outside the bounds of what science has yet to find out, but eventually will.

Cool. I wonder what else could be done with it.