E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Nicolelis lab / Duke University
If you're a lab rat, life is full of choices.
Two rats — one in North Carolina, the other in Brazil — worked together on a task by communicating telepathically, thanks to implants in their brain.
Electrical signals from a "leader" rat’s brain were collected, encoded and then zapped into the "follower" rat’s cortex in the form of an electrical signal. The follower rat then pressed one of two levers based on a light visible only to the leader rat. The Duke University experiment is the first time two animals have collaborated through such an artificial link, and shows that the mammal brain can be trained to act on electrical signals from another animal.
Miguel Nicolelis, the Duke neuroscientist who led the team from Duke and the International Institute for Neuroscience of Natal in Brazil, believes that information transfer could extend to other senses, too. “You could think about taste, vision — I don’t see any problem doing this,” he told NBC News.
He says his wired rat duo show that the linking of mammalian brains is possible, but why stop at just two? "I could see a swarm of rats be informed by one rat," he says, "Most of them driving to the source based on information from another individual," a concept he calls a "Brain Net."
Nicolelis and crew published their findings in Scientific Reports Thursday.
“I still think it's wild that he made it possible,” Ron Frostig, a neurobiologist at the University of Irvine who was not involved with the experiments told NBC News.
This experiment is in many ways extension of brain-machine tech that has been on slow boil at the Nicolelis lab for over a decade. Earlier in February, the Nicolelis lab showed that rats could be trained to act on infrared cues. Rats, like people, can’t naturally sense infrared light — an infrared sensor activated a implant in the rats' brains. Eventually they learned to follow that signal, approached the right hole, and received a reward.
In the latest "mind-reading" experiment, both lead and follow rats went through a series of training phases. The leader rat was trained to use a lit light bulb to choose which of two levers to press. The second rat was trained to receive and act on gentle zaps of electrical stimulation in its brain. Once the two were wired up together, the second rat received signals from the leader rat's brain indicating which lever to choose. When the follower pressed the right lever, it was rewarded with water, and the leader was rewarded as well.
The leader rat eventually figured out that the clearer he was with his “instructions,” the better his chances of getting a double reward. Frostig pointed out that this training was crucial to the success of this series of demonstrations.
While the link between the rats seems telepathic to casual observer, the rats don't necessarily know the other exists, Nicolelis explains. The follower rat feels a tingle in its brain and discovers that interpreting it one way rather than another leads to a reward. Marshall Shuler — a neuroscientist at Johns Hopkins University who was Nicolelis’ student in the late 1990s — describes it as a "special and powerful case of conditioning." "What's unique about this is that one animal is getting information that has nothing to do with it environment," he told NBC News.
How about human telepathy?
The researchers are years away from testing this kind of electronic telepathy in people. Still, based on what is known about how people respond to brain stimulation and implants, Shuler says we might be better than the rats at interpreting intracranial cues.
"I would think that humans would be able to exploit this information even more efficiently," Shuler says.
Nicolelis says they are “perfecting the experiment” in monkeys, training them to collaborate in a virtual game. In the past, the Nicolelis lab has trained brain-implanted monkeys to control a cursor on a screen using only their thoughts. In another computer game, a monkey pawed at virtual discs of different simulated textures, and was trained to pick one texture over the other, demonstrating one way information about touch could be fed back into the brain.
Shuler says that this line of research isn't just about person-to-person telepathy, but may very well help computers talk back to human brains. “We’re quite comfortable with patterns arising from our own sensory mechanisms,” he explained, “What’s less intuitive to us is that, as experimentalists and engineers impose artificial patterns, the brain is able to render that information useful.”
Take the field of prosthetics, a zone the Nicolelis lab is at home in. Ultimately, Shuler says, the goal is to get prosthetics to send touch data back to the user. A number of labs have shown that the brain or residual nerves can move a prosthetic limb. What many of those smart body parts lack is a way of relaying sophisticated feedback back to the brain. The Nicolelis lab may well provide the answer.
Related posts:
Leave a Comment:
Interesting, but creepy.
Ya, kind of gives you the willards.. er, willies
What I'm curious about is what the legal implications are for this technology when it goes mainstream.
Imagine your brain as a Wifi hotspot.
Do you break a DMCA code if you share a movie that you just saw with your friends because you all interface together and you share your experience watching the movie?
How about taking a test? What is learning all about if everyone in class can interface with both the teacher and the most well-informed student(s)?
I think that this technology, made ubiquitous, could be a real game-changer for knowledge transfer and assimilation of new information.
Ghost in the Shell meets Matrix?
Potential mindless military soldiers who literally always do what they are told.....um zapped?
On a side note, it is somewhat pathetic what we are willing to do to other animals in the name of science. I think the researchers should have experimented on themselves first.
I imagine a school of sharks with friggen laser beams on their heads all programed to inflict death and destruction on our enemies.
Drones got nothing on that! Watch out terrorists!
Oh, also, to the rat, your brain is showing, and it's kind of sicking me out.
And I think that people who are so empathetic to eminently replaceable rodents that they think humans should be used as test subjects instead should volunteer themselves to have experimental junk installed in their brains. Humans use cows for food and rats for knowledge. Get over it.
The idea of mind-controlled soldiers is pretty silly and redundant, since no other organization excels so well at turning human beings into hardwired living weapons that always do as they're told. Making them literally mindless and incapable of thinking without orders would actually make them substantially worse soldiers in combat, since they'd be unable to adapt on their own.
An ACTUAL military application would be to allow squad leaders to give commands to squadmates and support robots via a wireless relay, without having to use a radio or actually speak and give away their position.
I do find this interesting; as more nanotechnology is combined with smaller power supplies for wireless communication (perhaps it will be dubbed the "Rat-Pack"), we might see some interesting developments with applicability to humans. Consider the situation where technology exists such that you allow your muscle memory to be trained for a particular task; e.g. dancing, playing the piano, self-defense, walking after a serious injury, etc.
The Borg is right around the corner.
.
Telepathy? Market share craving journalists stretching dictionary definitions for a headline, again. NBC, I expect better from you.
With billions of humans crowding and suffocating this planet, what makes you so eminently irreplaceable?
DingleB-Bro, I didn't even notice the brain popping out his melon. OMG. Not sure how I didn't see it before. Anyhow, thanks. That is gross and awesome.
Comparing the brain to a computer, and life having an electrical current flowing through it like a machine has never seemed so official. Ears will become the new electrical socket.
Wait, I think I saw this Sci-Fi thriller. Spoiler: it didn't turn out well for the humans. Really this wasn't an episode of outer limits? OK now I am scared.
Well, for one thing, it would be relatively difficult for people to catch me and get me in a cage to participate in their research against my will. That's the literal, physical difficulty with using human subjects. If you don't see any ethical problem with using humans for experimentation, well, I doubt I can convince you. But humans are hardly "crowding" or "suffocating" the planet, and I happen to think human life is far, far more valuable than that of rats. So I simply don't get all self-righteous about vermin being killed or manipulated for the sake of human science.
But if it makes you feel better about yourself, feel free to do so.
Oh really? Why do you think the world is in such turmoil? Lack of resources.
The rat would certainly disagree with you, and based on your blind/uneducated observation of the state of this world and valueless comment, I'd have to definitely take my chances with its limited intelligence and side with the rat.
Hey Dingle (2.4)...Sharks live in the ocean... :-)
I became a veterinarian because I believe that all life is equally valuable, and equally precious from an objective standpoint. From a subjective standpoint, we place whatever value we desire on a given species or a given individual. It is humbling, and worthwhile, to note that this value is absolutely arbitrary. And it is humbling, and worthwhile, to reflect upon the reasons that we attribute a given value to a given species, in relation to our own. Do not confuse the difference between objective and subjective value of life.
That said, I am not naive. I have myself performed research on mice, and I have deliberately caused them harm and suffering. I did it to help develop a cure for a disease which affects a diversity of species - both veterinary, and human. I didn't do it because I devalue the life of rodents - to the contrary, I respected their lives, and was grateful for their sacrifice. I did it for the greater good. It's called a necessary evil. Anyone that doesn't recognize that such a thing exists and is vital to continued scientific progress is deluded.
So, in closing, I think that framing the debate in terms of "humans are superior duh who cares about mice" is infantile and ignorant. We don't perform experiments on living things because we can or we want to, or because we are better and have the right to - we do it because we have to, and we regret that we have to. And we take the ethical ramifications of it very seriously. If we possessed a worldview of misguided anthropocentrism as many here seem to have, we might as well throw ethics out the window in favor of scientific advancement.
And that is something that should never be done.
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
― Mahatma Gandhi
For those who find the cruelty and pain caused by animal experimentation "acceptable for the greater good", will not be stretched far making that same determination apply to humans.
Sorry, but this is BS. Like I said, I'm a vet. You don't think I don't love animals? You think I don't respect and honor animal life? I'm honestly not sure how you could have gotten from my post - essentially a rant against the fallacy of anthropocentrism - the exact opposite of what I was saying.
But I'm also not an idiot. Nearly every therapy that has ever been developed - every drug, every vaccine, every new surgical method has gone through a period of animal testing. I have myself developed several. You see, there is a philosophy called "one medicine" that the majority of veterinarians adhere to, and it is picking up steam in the MD community as well: human and animal medicine are mutually dependent on one another, and advances in one lead to the benefit of all, because we are animals.
If you are uncomfortable with the fact that animal testing is a fundamental part of modern medicine, then stand by your moral beliefs and don't go to the doctor when you are sick. But until the day comes that we can do away with animal testing forever, we will continue to treat the animals as humanely as possible and give them the respect they deserve. Because we don't live in a perfect world where everything is sunshine and puppies, and consequently if people didn't do what had to be done our medical science would still be in the dark ages.
One more quote Ericoo38, from someone who also doesn't agree with your self important justification for animal experimentation:
“The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men.”
― Alice Walker
Once again, I'm not sure if your reading comprehension is poor or you just missed my point entirely (so why don't you go back and read it again) - I disagree with anthropocentrism, I despise it as a philosophy, and as a veterinarian I respect animal life equally with human life.
Considering that I stated that in the VERY FIRST SENTENCE of my first post, I must assume that you didn't read it in entirety.
I'm sorry, but people like you are absolutely hypocritical. Plain and simple. You actually have the nerve to attempt to call me out for a perceived lack of compassion for animal life - a person who has devoted his entire life to caring for animal life? Hilarious.
I'm assuming you love animals, and you probably have a few of your own - right? Next time you take them to the vet when they are sick, and you are presented with a treatment for them - remember, that treatment came at the expense of the lives of other animals. Sometimes they were mice. Often, to tell the truth, they were dogs and cats. And they died, so that yours could live.
That's the way medicine works. That's the world we live in. Take your head out of the sand and deal with it, because we don't pull cures out of a magic hat. At some point, we have to test them.
And although I think I made my point rather thoroughly, I figure I'd just drive it home a bit more. I'll use an example from veterinary medicine, that way you aren't too up in arms about the human side of things:
How do you suppose we know that ivermectin, the active drug in the majority of heartworm medications for dogs, kills heartworm microfilaria and prevents a disease which is fatal to dogs? No seriously, how do you think we know that it works? This drug has saved millions of canine lives, and will save untold more. It works, but how did we figure that out?
Because someone, somewhere, had the unfortunate job of deliberately infecting dogs with the parasite, treating some with the drug, and deliberately letting the others die as the control group. Oh, but it goes further than that, because how to you suppose we know that the dose we use is correct? Because someone else, somewhere else, had the unfortunate job of deliberately infecting dogs with the parasite and giving them a range of doses - from ineffective to toxic. Now we know the lowest, and safest, effective dose. Now we know the lethal dose (LD50, I'm simplifying things here) for an Ivermectin overdose and how to treat that. Now we know how long the drug acts, and how effective it remains.
And that saves lives.
So seriously, that is just one example. But whatever fictitious world you are living in where medical treatment DOESN'T come from testing, and life doesn't come from death and sacrifice, I'd like to know how to get there: because it sounds like a fantastic place to live. But the rest of us will live in the real world until then.
I can read Ericoo38, and what I continue to read over and over again, although you say you don't like it, you continue to attempt to justify animal experimentation, when there is no real justification.
Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. ~Charles R. Magel
I'm sorry, I've tried to remain civil, but the extent of your position is truly perplexing (for reasons that hopefully will become clear in this post):
Justification? Morality isn't black and white. It never was and it never will be. What do you propose - that the cures and treatments that we have should not exist?
Should we throw away all antimicrobials? Should we never have created them?
Should we discard all surgical techniques? All treatment protocols? All beneficial medications of any kind?
Should we throw away our physiological texts? Our anatomy texts?
Because every single one of those things exists because of experimentation. Some of that experimentation was on non-human animals. Some was on humans. All of it was on living beings.
What you are essentially proposing is that we go back to the dark ages. How are your humours today, Debi? Maybe a little bloodletting will make you feel better. Is that what you would prefer?
Listen, I commend you for your love for animal life. I share it. I'm not going to sit here and say that I have probably done more to further both the welfare of animals and humans than you have: that may very well be the case, considering the path I have walked in life, but I don't know you so I can't say that for certain. I'm not going to sit here and explain the philosophy of morality, the steps of translational medicine and research - I could go on and on all day with that.
Instead, I will just say what I have already said: What do you propose as an alternative?
Seriously, do you have some genius idea for coming up with treatments and cures that does not involve animal testing? If so, I would LOVE to hear it. Please, enlighten us all with your insight into this contentious matter.
And if you can't answer that one, simple question, then our discussion is over. I'm sure you will probably ignore it, in favor of more tenuously relevant quotes instead of addressing the issue at hand.
The fact is, as I have repeatedly said: this is the state of things. Does it suck ass? Yes, it does. Is there an alternative? No, there isn't. So we are faced with a choice: forge ahead until we HAVE an alternative, or regress to the dark ages of medicine.
Since I am fairly certain you don't have the moral resolve to go live out the rest of your life on a desert island in protest of modern science and technology, I think it is clear that your position - while admirable - is irrelevant. You are living in a fantasy world.
"Do no harm". Try practicing what you preach.
Debi, nobody likes animal experimentation, perhaps those who do it less than most. But before you condemn those who use it "for the greater good", perhaps you should renounce everything from Tylenol for your headache, to that shampoo you use, to a surgery that might save your life someday, because EVERY ONE of those things and a zillion others are based on animal experimentation. Until you do that - and I doubt you have - then put your righteousness on the shelf for awhile. Now if we're talking about the horrendous animal cruelty for the greater good that occurs in the food industry, well then, I just hope you're a strict vegan.
Debi - I'd be with you if we were talking about testing the shampoos or perfumes in the eye's of rabbits. But what Ericoo said in his heartworm example was testing a heartworm medication for dogs, on dogs. That's not ''justification'', that's just grown-up life.
As he keeps asking you - what do you propose as an alternative? Should you take your dog to the Vet because he's sick, and have the Vet say "Oh, he's got Heartworm. And there's nothing we can do for him, or for the million dogs that will get it - because we won't test the candidate drugs". Is that your alternative?
What about testing on Humans? My cousin has Pancreatic Cancer right now - so that means he has 6 months to live. Ask any of the 37,000 American's who will die from it this year if they'd like to be candidates for experimental drugs or not. The reason we have Human treatment for Human diseases is because we experiment on Humans all the time. We do it with double-blind studies, and doctors giving patients a placebo KNOW those guys have false hope of a cure, and they KNOW they are going to die.
So, I agree (and Ericoo agrees) with you - we shouldn't be experimenting on animals just for human convenience. I don't want to use a shampoo or a moisturizer that was tested on a cat for my 'convenience'. But that's not at all the same as experimenting on Dogs to cure a Dog disease and saving millions of Dogs in the process. It's just naive to think that's not necessary. Unless you have an alternative suggestions, that is just a necessary fact of grown-up life.
The only other alternative is to let millions die horrible cruel deaths because we don't want to get our hands dirty.
Debi, I see you never did answer about an alternative. How are we supposed to advance medical knowledge and save lives, both of humans and animals, without testing first? Yes, I oppose using animals to test hair-care products and other frivolous items, but when it comes to drugs and surgical methods that save lives, it HAS to be done or those items would not exist. If you are so gun ho about not doing ANY testing, then provide an alternative way of testing. To be honest, you are sounding like those militant PITA types that would stop at nothing to remove all forms of supposed animal "abuse".
Here is another hard fact of life for you: Rats are rodents. They have a life span of 2-3 years and their only goal is to eat, breed and defecate. In the wild they are used to clean up larger animal kills that the predators leave behind and to be a food source for smaller predators. In urban area's they breed fast and become problems as they can carry diseases both directly (rabies) and indirectly (the black plague was caused by a rat borne flea). We kill cattle to eat, same with pigs. We keep chickens in pens to harvest their eggs until they can no longer produce then kill them for their meat. We have been doing this ever since mankind learned how to eat meat millions of years ago. Testing on animals is the same thing as both lead to the survival of all species.
Wow. My post left behind a lot of strife yesterday. Let's see now...
"Such turmoil"? There is considerably less death, warfare, and whatever other measure of chaos you want to use than there was a thousand years ago, when obviously available land and resources dwarfed human populations. In fact, the further back in recorded history you go, the more resources were available for humans, and yet, the more violent and hazardous life was. For you to simplify all the compexities of modern life and all the causes of poverty to "lack of resources" either shows a distinct lack of historical and modern awareness about the outside world, OR you're trying to engage me in a philosophical discussion about economic principle of scarcity, which is the natural state of things and the foundation of all competition, in the marketplace and the natural world.
I doubt it's the latter.
The rat lacks the comprehension and intellect to understand the concept of self-worth. You can "side" with the rat if you want, but it's only concern is whether or not it can get food from you.
Again, if you would seriously sacrifice a human's life to save a rat's, well, that's just terrible, but that's your business, I guess. I don't have such a twisted worldview.
Yes, I am an anthropocentrist. I freely admit it. I only care about animals to the extent that they're useful to humans, and the idea that all life has some fundamental, sacred "right" to exist that demands that humans - more or less the only ones capable of understanding things like rights and valuing other life forms for anything more than immediate gain - use energy and resources protecting them is completely counter-intuitive to me.
You're not an anthropocentrist Eric, and find the attitude childish and selfish. And that's cool with me. The wide range of intellectual viewpoints and the fact that we can discuss such complex philosophical issues are just one of the things that make humans awesome.
2 deleted, gizmowiz beginning with a derail about the POTUS - something they've been doing for years. Stop. Post on-topic.
You're suspended for a week for violating #4 of the Code of Honor.
SF Accountant,
You really are in love with the sound of your own voice, be in your head or on a soap box spewing forth "correct" human thought like vomit onto the masses aren't you?....lol.
Your type are all-knowing and legendary in your minds only.
You peeps should really stop encouraging SF....this guy acts like he must validate every opinion you have or you are otherwise an idiot and beneath him.
You are wasting your time....the dude is an all-seeing all knowing god in his own mind.
So... no arguments, no evidence, no comments on the topic at hand... just "man, you're totally not as smart as you think you are." That's all you've got?
With commentary like that to challenge me, is it any wonder I'm so full of myself?
@ Troy1101
Nice ad hominem, I'm glad you're able to stay on track here.
LOL
Now back under your bridge, troll.
At least the animal rights people are making interesting counter-arguments. Yours however is simply a personal attack lacking any reason for rational people to take seriously.
Enjoy mediocrity
You're contradicting yourself. First you're trying to point out the double-standard that SF Accountant has for not being willing to conduct human experimentation and favors animal experimentation, clearly valuing human life greater than that of animals. And then you go on to type this silliness that people that are willing to engage in animal experimentation would not be far stretched to apply the same treatment to human experimentation.
Far from QED
Anyway. If you wear contact lenses, are taking insulin, use antibiotics, have or know someone living with a pacemaker, or heart surgery, or have been given radiation or chemotherapy for cancer. You have animal experiments to thank for your (their) live(s).
Got Aspirin?
Only until we program them to do otherwise...hahahahaha...that was an evil laugh by the way.
Clearly no one has heard of the landshark!
*knock knock knock*
Oh! Someone's at the door
"Candygram!"
OOooooh! Candy!
Interesting, but the first thing that comes to mind is "borq".
The first thing that came to my mind was a King rat telepathically controlling a massive rat horde to steal all the cheese.
I can just imagine him from his high-tech rat throne, his tiny rat face poking out from bundles of wires and cortical implants.
Adorable!
So, when are they going to substitute in for the rats and Rat King in the Nutcracker?
by the headlines I thouhgt it was a story about the mob.
first thing that came to my mind was congress could use this.
hook up the rats (republicans and democrats) together and maybe they will get something worthwhile done.
Uga , you hook up this emerging tech with the smiley face and paradigm of Walmart and bingo...will be awaiting the first Borg Queen.
I for one welcome our future Hive Mind Rat Overlords
Am I the only one who read Talon's comment in Kent Brockman's voice?
This is a fantastic technology, particularly in the case of cybernetic limbs. If we can install sensors in the brain to detect minute signals from electric sensors installed in artificial hands, we can create limbs with an artificial sense of touch. Crude, probably, but better than a heavy lump of metal hanging off your arm or leg that you can't feel at all.
Or, if we could install a system for generating and receiving a complex array of signals to another implant wirelessly, we would have actual cybernetic telepathy. I'd get one installed in a heartbeat.
Ghost in the Shell style, huh? Personally, that series woke me up to the problem of hacking an electronically telepathic web. Somebody could actually hack your brain, man.
and when some one told you to kill you would have no choice but to do as you were told.
Definitely Ghost in the Shell style. Everything from prosthetic bodies, brains that connect to the web, and nano machines... that series was dead on with the direction technology was going 20 years ago.
@ riverboy21
Very much agreed...btw, a new GITS movie is on the way.
As for this technology. It's just amazing how things are progressing. I imagine that in the next few years (maybe even less than a decade), we won't even need to do implants, but could just as easily have the sensors and transmitters sensitive and precise enough that one could just wear something close to a crown, or even just a few electrodes to be able to utilize such an interface.
"Hacking your brain" implies that someone could reprogram your mind. Which would be a neat technology in and of itself, but that's not what this article is about; the ability to send electric signals directly to the brain that it can sense is very different from rearranging the signals in an organic computer. Electronic telepathy does not equal electronic mind control.
Fox "News" already figured out the "hacking your brain" part. It just requires a TV.
Great technology, great concerns. I'd like to see some new stuff - so don't try to kill it off, embrace technology and have serious, intelligent discussion about it so all the wrinkles can be ironed out and we can promote forward progress of our race rather than relying on evolution to handle it for us (all I see in evolution lately is regression - so please, take charge!).
I suppose commercial and product placements are hacking our minds all the time. This is less telepathy and more like getting your wires crossed.
This has already been accomplished, and a major breakthrough in the field was made just a few months ago, in fact. The tech is in its infancy, but by all accounts rudimentary artificial limbs that can "feel" should be commonplace within our lifetimes.
A major problem is resolution - even if you could create sensors that are as sensitive, specific, and numerous as those of proprioceptive, pain, etc neurons in the skin, conveying that information to the brain with high specificity is a whole other ball game. You couldn't simply hook up an outgoing signal to a major sensory nerve or nerves, such as the sensory component of the radial nerve for example, and expect it to relay the information to the brain in a reliable manner. Similarly, you couldn't hook it up to the spinal cord or the dorsal root ganglia for the same reason, and a direct brain implant - although most practical - is even more problematic from a processing standpoint.
I have no doubt that it can be done, and research like this is part of the incremental baby steps in making it possible. If I were to predict, I would say that it will eventually utilize a brain implant that requires a learning curve - ie: the organic brain would have to learn how to interpret signals from the artificial limb, and how to use the limb from scratch (not the Star Wars-esque you've got an artificial limb now you're good to go). This is the only way that I can really foresee compensating for the aforementioned problems.
Instead of Ghost in the Shell, it reminds me more of Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's 1981 novel, Oath of Fealty. It started with characters having neural computer interfaces which sort of devolved into telepathy as characters dealt with a kidnapping and used the computer interface to send messages back and forth to each other.
I say devolved because the interfaces just started as note taking and data retrieval, but then in desperation, a character sends a message to another through the computer interface and that aspect of the story took on a life of its own. I don't think the authors started writing with that idea but once they used it, it opened the floodgates and took over the story.
I like the idea, but at what point will SkyNet be born ? Will this tech be to the point where one day we can program how much we eat before our brain says enough, or how about programming that regulates our metabolism so we no longer need sleep?
Im just speculating here, but this will open up the doors for some weird, strange, and wonderful experiments.
Well, it's a bit of a stretch from the actual subject of the experiment, since it isn't about literally programming the brain but sending it signals that an organism - in this case a rat - can identify. So it's less about neural rewiring and more about communication between electronics and organics.
As for Skynet, I think it's slated for 2060 now. I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords (avatar pic related).
SF accountant
Well, it's a bit of a stretch from the actual subject of the experiment, since it isn't about literally programming the brain but sending it signals that an organism - in this case a rat - can identify. So it's less about neural rewiring and more about communication between electronics and organics.
As for Skynet, I think it's slated for 2060 now. I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords (avatar pic related).
>Fawna Thank god I'll be dead by then.
You'll be dead in less than fifty years? That's a shame.
If everything goes smoothly, by then I'll have replaced over half my body with cybernetic equivalents and will be healthier than ever!
SF, let's hear it for the Singularity! Ray Kurzweil's at Google now, so he should have access to enough storage :-)
Awwww yeeeeeeah! Hook me up!
In 50 years, instead of a walker, I want a powersuit to help me get around...it would be so awesome to walk around like robocop!
And the glee I'll feel in aggravating those young whipper-snappers when I venture out into the crosswalk when the timer has already counted halfway down before I even make my first trundling move!
*Gaaaareeeeze...kachunk*
*Gaaaareeeeze...kachunk*
...
*stares angrily at teenager in his hovercar* (with the hover-function disabled because his parents are helicopter parents (VTOL-parents in 2063 mind-you))
(Digitized voicebox) "hahahahahah, all your base youngin' All.Your.Base!"....*fsssssssk STATIC*
...10 minutes later I'll get to that curb, and I'll feel damn good about it too!
...checks onion on my belt
In a hundred years, I plan to be a head in a jar.
Ideally I'll be hooked up to a massive mainframe (ideally in control of a vast array of smaller, well-armed robots for my own personal use), but if not, I'd settle for being placed on a shelf next to other preserved heads where I can argue with ex-presidents and celebrities for the rest of my horrifically extended lifetime.
Sounds utterly....
...............
...............
...............
..............AWESOME!
Maybe that's why all these crazy shooters look like zombies lately.
Once a technology is made public, it means that military and other agencies have already perfected its use.
That's already written on different almanacs published here and there, it's public knowledge, no news here.
Remember to wear your aluminum foil hat shiny-side up! It's the only way to block those mind-control rays.
...I prefer Reynolds Wrap since they are a staple.
...Don't try to cheap out either, you need the gauge used for broiling, if you think that a thin foil you'd use on your Nana's casserole was sufficient, you'd already be buying extra fluoridated toothpaste and not even taking your standard deduction on your tax return!
Don't let THEM in! They already took John Denver and the most influential Kennedy's, the resistance is running out of leaders!
Hmm, Mrs. Frisby and The Rats from NIHM come to mind...
We are the borg.
I am Ratcutus of (squeak!) Borg. Resistance is (squeak!) futile. Open your doors and (squeak!) surrender your cheese. Your culture will adapt to feed us. Your life (squeak!) as you know it (squeak!) is over!
Squeak!
ChrisMcK, you beat me to it.
Intersting and yet creepy at the same time.
But at the same time I think: OH the ratmanity. Where is PETA? I quite surprised they aren't already on here
Still sending people to infiltrate these labs and release all the animals. I used to work at Duke, know some folks in this lab as a matter of fact, and security is a CONSTANT concern. Don't worry, PETAs all over it.
True story. I swear.
I worked late one evening as was the practice when I was a plant manager for a large manufacturer. A lady that worked in the accounting office did not know I was there and walked by my door wearing a cow suite (utterly hilarious if you get my drift).
I called out to her and asked why she was wearing the cow costume. She said she was going to a PETA protest for sheep. I asked why. She said sheep were being mistreated by cutting their wool.
Hmmmm
I asked her what happens to the sheep if the PETA protest is successful and the farmers stop selling the wool, and the sheep lose their jobs as wool producers?.
I said, you do realize if they cannot live to produce wool, then they don't live and produce mutton. You do realize that don't you?
I will never forget the expression on her face. She looked like a horrified cow in that costume. Oh well. Life is tough.
While this is a story with cool content, this is *NOT* telepathy. Electropathy, maybe, if that's even a word.
Technically, it is. The definition of telepathy is:
As this is a form of communication that directly bypasses all the senses and affects the brain directly, this would qualify.
The use of electrical wires and the internet to connect the rats is a looooooong stretch of the word telepathy. A rat 2 inches or 2 million miles away can be conditioned to do something when he feels a tingle from a electrical shock delivered to his brain. It doesn't matter if another rat sent the signal, or a lab worker or a computer closed a switch. What if electricity generated by a solar cell caused the shock? Would he be communicating telepathically with the sun??
Well, no, because the shock from the solar cell was randomly generated without any intent behind it.
Any form of deliberately generated and controlled input - be it electric signals, words, or smoke rings - is communication. Any form of communication without actual senses - sight, hearing, touch, smell, or taste - is telepathy.
I know it doesn't fit people's common idea of telepathy, IE, psychic powers, but Andrew was challenging the article's technical accuracy, and I'm defending it as technically correct.
This experiment does not use 'some means other than sensory perception'. The sensory perception is the artificially induced sensory input provided by the electrical thingie in the rat's brain. In terms of creating brain input that is not specifically one of the 'five senses', this is in a way similar to injecting drugs into the rat that it can feel to provide it feedback. In this case, instead of chemicals, they're using electrodes.
If it's not one of the five senses, then it doesn't fit the technical definition of a sense. A signal in your head is not, definitionally, a sense, unless that signal came from a sensory organ; nerve endings in the skin, eyes, olfactory organs, etc. If you're going to expand the definition of "sensory perception" to include any immediate and identifiable signal that your brain can perceive, then telepathy in any sense is completely impossible, since you need to be able to perceive signals in your brain in order to receive communication. A hypothetical psychic telepathy would certainly create signals in your mind that you could "sense", and thus would not fit your definition.
feeling electrical stimuli, whether on your skin or in your brain, would fall under sensory perception, would it not? maybe electropathy, but not telepathy.
"If you're going to expand the definition of "sensory perception" to include any immediate and identifiable signal that your brain can perceive, then telepathy in any sense is completely impossible, since you need to be able to perceive signals in your brain in order to receive communication."
Exactly.
Telepathy from what I understand is one of those nonsensical concepts that people use as a placeholder for 'mysterious'.
Well... okay then. I don't understand the logic of interpreting something so that it makes literally no sense, but sure.
Well, no, not really. Or at least, I'd argue not.
You have electric impulses in your brain all the time; thoughts are, at a basic level, electric impulses, but it's not a "sense" biologically speaking. So receiving an electric shock via your fingers is sensing electricity, but having an electric signal bombard your brain directly would not be, since it skips the mechanisms that we use for perceiving the outside world. So if these signals are used to communicate, I would say that this is technically telepathy.
But it's all just semantics, anyway.
"Strictly speaking" it is NOT telepathy or clairvoyance as is usually meant in parapsychology. What they did was capture the electrical impulses created in the brain by sensory input into one animal and transmit them by known and well studied means to the region of a second animal's brain that would produce the same response as seen in the original animal. This research appears to be more about being able to capture and transmit patterns of electrical activity in the brain that cause specific behaviors or responses.
There has been other research where a person isolated in one room and viewing a set of stimuli was able to alter (on a statistical basis) the responses of a second person in another room. This is more what is usually meant by telepathy.
If it's not one of the five senses, that makes it EXTRA Sensory Perception then doesn't it?
Anyway, just break down the parsing and do away with your preconceptions.
"Telepathy"
Tele - (Greek) distance, jump to
Pathy - (Greek) feeling, thought
QED
It's official, folks... the Zombie Apocolypse has been cancelled. We're going with Robot Overlords, instead.
Well there's the solution to sequester, similarly connect Obama and Boehner, and the rats can work it out.
Money wasted on crap !!! that money would have been better used to find cures or finding ways to feed the world or better energy what a waste........................
And exactly how else do you go about finding cures for things other than through scientific experimentation?
This research could easily be used to improve artificial limbs, which is a sort of "cure" for dismemberment. Further research into the relationship between electronic signals interfacing with the brain could be used to treat psychological and neurological disorders.
It's foolish in the first place to snidely insult any scientific endeavor that you don't see an immediate use for in those few areas of technology that seem to be of interest to you, but you should at least have the insight to figure out when one actually does.
Yes ,sometimes,but this could help the million plus people that can't communicate ,trapped in their bodies.In the future we could process their electrical signals in the cortex and play them back on a laptop,PS4,the TV etc.They could respond in real time,like closed caption on the TV,their thoughts would be readable at the bottom of the TV.This technology could save thousands of children,that were labeled as autistic,mentally retarded, etc,instead of just looking at their brain waves,we could see what is really going on,seeing patterns of speech from a child labeled severe autistic who can't speak,now is shown to be having seizures.Medication gets rid of the seizures,you have your child back.I'm not a scientist or doctor,but I can see this happening.Steven Hawkins could get back to serious research,working in real time again,no longer spending hours on 10 minutes worth of work.
Silver @14
I would not be so quick to jump to the conclusion that the money is being wasted. What if the signals could be used to help someone with a spinal cord injury walk by sending signals to a lower location on the spinal cord, or stimulate an optic nerve (as is already being done) and give back the gift of sight. Or what if the signals could be sent in such a manner that a microphone could send hearing around the ear itself directly into the brain and give the gift of hearing. Maybe we could get to the point where the Internet could be used to taste and smell food prepared on another continent.
First the technology has to be developed and then a marketable use will employ the technology.
Remember, it was a very large and well established electronics company (Xerox) that basically invented the GUI, but it was Apple computer that really created a use for it.
I say expand the horizons and find a way to turn lead into gold.
Oh don't be so sure of that. As much as I love rats, their use in research has broken a lot of new ground in things that prolong our life
BORG-MICE! Everybody panic!
OHNOES!!!!!
you will be assimilated...
Well I, for one, welcome our telepathic overlord.
Lots of potential for bad outcomes. Sad for the rats, the things we torture animals for
That rat gets to command other rats without even having to share its living space, and makes them push buttons to have food dispensed for it. "Faster, rat-slave! The voice in your head demands more seeds!"
That rat is living the high life. I don't even know what you're talking about.
He doesn't look happy.
Prepare to be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
WoW! Brain implants? There may be hope for the Kardouchians after all!
I am particularly interested in recording the electrical signals from a person's dream, and then replaying those signals to another person's brain who is in a similar state of sleep. - RC
(In the future we might be able to buy movies which can be viewed in a dream state. You would record the brain signals of a person watching the movie, then let a machine play back the movie to another person after the playback machine detects that this person has entered a dream state of sleep.)
(I am also interested in finding out whether someone can say something in a foreign language, and then play back those same electrical signals to another person who doesn't speak that foreign language, so they will be able to speak those words too, even if they don't understand what they are saying.)
For the memory of a lifetime, rekall, rekall, rekall!
So a rat hit a button after receiving a telepathic electronic signal to his brain. Do we really believe this or is this just another private contractor making crap up so that they continue to get funding to sit on their butts and get paid good to do it?
not everybody is as useless as you. Some people actually do contribute to progress. If it were all "made up", then how is it we've come so incredibly far over the years (whether you like progres or not doesn't mean it hasn't occurred)? Why don't you just pay attention to the moronic paranoia you understand and leave science for people who have always been smarter than you
We are BORG, resistance is futile! You and your technology will be assimilated and you will become one of us.
I was just about to type the same thing! You beat me to it!
I was worried when I first read the headline that 2 rats were communicating telepathically. I thought it was going to be about Obama and Reid.
Pinkie and the Brain?
Imagine the possibility's. I could drill a beautiful chick and sell the sensations on line for a 65$ monthly fee. Forget about the Po rn. This is much better.