Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #499517 > unrolled thread

[OT] BrainNet: A Multi-Person Brain-to-Brain Interface for Direct Collaboration Between Brains

Back to article view | Back to rec.arts.sf.written

Contents

  [OT] BrainNet: A Multi-Person Brain-to-Brain Interface for Direct Collaboration Between Brains Joe Bernstein <Kdeurama@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 17:09 +0000
    Re: [OT] BrainNet: A Multi-Person Brain-to-Brain Interface for Direct Collaboration Between Brains D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-10-09 06:26 +0000

#499517 — [OT] BrainNet: A Multi-Person Brain-to-Brain Interface for Direct Collaboration Between Brains

Apparently this story is actually local to me, probably within easy 
walking distance of the computer I'm posting from.

Apparatus has been demonstrated that enables single-bit transmissions 
from two sending brains at once to one recipient brain, none of these 
in the same room.

The paper appears to be at 
<https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.08632>
but I don't know whether that's paywalled.

A discussion from the <MIT Technology Review>:
<https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612212/the-first-social-network-of-brains-lets-three-people-transmit-thoughts-to-each-others-heads/>

The Lensman series has taken a step closer to hard science fiction.  
Not so much, admittedly, Pern - we still don't have examples of 
*biological* telepathy - 

but maybe the "psionics are always fantasy" people could give that 
argument a rest for today anyhow, in honour of the technological 
advance?

-- JLB

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#499897

Joe Bernstein <Kdeurama@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apparently this story is actually local to me, probably within easy
> walking distance of the computer I'm posting from.
>
> Apparatus has been demonstrated that enables single-bit transmissions
> from two sending brains at once to one recipient brain, none of these
> in the same room.
>
> The paper appears to be at
> <https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.08632>
> but I don't know whether that's paywalled.
>
> A discussion from the <MIT Technology Review>:
> <https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612212/the-first-social-network-of-brains-lets-three-people-transmit-thoughts-to-each-others-heads/>
>
> The Lensman series has taken a step closer to hard science fiction.
> Not so much, admittedly, Pern - we still don't have examples of
> *biological* telepathy -
>
> but maybe the "psionics are always fantasy" people could give that
> argument a rest for today anyhow, in honour of the technological
> advance?

Although "psionics" does not appear in my _Dorlands Medical Dictionary_,
telekinesis and telepathy do. Paranormals who possess those powers are 
also found in the ranks of _Perry Rhodan_'s Mutant Corps, along with 
televisionaries (xray vision), a financial genius with an eidetic 
memory, and a teletemporator named Ernst Ellert.
    Ellert's gift enables him to "take a walk anywhere along the time
track." Ellert's able to see a multitude of possible futures, one at a
time. It's a multitude because a future only gets "locked down" after 
it's experienced.
    If you think about it, intelligent people possess rudimentary 
teletemporation. They can partially visualize at least four possible 
futures depending upon whether they lock their front door at night and 
whether a house breaker comes along later that night to test the door.
    In regards to they paper that you cited, no, it's not paywalled.
Cornell's arXiv is also not refereed. In some ways it reminds me of
usenet's free-for-all. It's probably best to have a bullet-proof ego if
you want to publish on arXiv.
    AFAIK, Russian Grigori Yakovlevich Perelman published proof of the
Poincaré conjecture on arXiv in 2006. At the time, Perelman's behavior 
seemed a big single finger salute to the powers-that-be. They received
an an even bigger salute when Perelman declined the Fields Medal along 
with a prize of one million bucks. That's the type of attitude that
finds itself a home on arXiv. Geniuses. LOL.
    The methodology in the paper that you cite reminds me of television.
Because vision transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) stimulates the
visual cortex, just like television. Parnormalcy's contribution to the
process seems minimal, in other words.



✍

Thank you,

-- 
Don

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | rec.arts.sf.written

csiph-web