[Alatar]

Quote:

Scientists at Duke University Medical Centre in North Carolina have created the first brain-to-brain interface using rats, another science-fiction idea that has become reality.

Professor Migquel Nicolelis led a team of scientists in using wired brain implants in the rodents, which they demonstrated could send sensory and motor signals from one rat to another, which could then be correctly interpreted by the second rat.

Source

 

[b3machi7ke]

Maybe it's because I don't understand the field enough, but I'm not all that impressed. Granted, they did perform at levels higher than chance, but not by what I would deem a significant margin. 10% is not that great of a statistical proof, especially when you consider that the tests were done in sets of 10. So one lucky guess is worth 10% of the score, that seems to give chance a much larger impact upon this than what I would like to see.

Again, I'm not an expert and I don't follow this field all that closely, so it's entirely possible I'm being a negative nancy for nothing, and this really is remarkable. But it seems too prone to error and chance, and the statistics don't seem significantly higher than chance. So please correct me if I'm mis-interpreting the results, I enjoy learning something new every day

 

[Omicron]

Quote:

Nicolelis said the technology could be used to link millions of brains trying to figure out a problem, with all of them sharing a solution. He expects this to be a method of communication for humans in a few decades time.

Impressive bit of research they did here, but doesn't this quote remind you of the Borg?

 

[junkerde]

­­­

 

[farmdve]

Why are there never videos of stuff like these? An image is hardly proof without a video demonstration.

 

[GingerJohn]

If this comes to fruition and we create a network of minds that can be freely accessed imagine the advances in science, art and society!

Half the time a problem that you encounter has already been solved by somone else, you have to go and find that information, understand it and implement it. If you could link to a neural network then the solution would be there, instantly. Computer BSODs? No need to go on OCN to ask why, or look up stop codes, just plug into the network and get the solution.

I think it would also allow a level of connection and empathy with others which would improve our understanding of other people and cultures, possibly making the world a much better place.

Of course you would have to be free to join and leave the network at will, otherwise we do indeed go down the Borg route.

 

[Maelthras]

Oh no my brains been hacked! GITS cyber coms!

 

[aroc91]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b3machi7ke

Maybe it's because I don't understand the field enough, but I'm not all that impressed. Granted, they did perform at levels higher than chance, but not by what I would deem a significant margin. 10% is not that great of a statistical proof, especially when you consider that the tests were done in sets of 10. So one lucky guess is worth 10% of the score, that seems to give chance a much larger impact upon this than what I would like to see.

Again, I'm not an expert and I don't follow this field all that closely, so it's entirely possible I'm being a negative nancy for nothing, and this really is remarkable. But it seems too prone to error and chance, and the statistics don't seem significantly higher than chance. So please correct me if I'm mis-interpreting the results, I enjoy learning something new every day

Did you read the actual paper? There are statistical tests available precisely for the purpose of determining the probability that a result was due to chance rather than having a definite link to the independent variable.

Besides that, they did more than 10 trials.

 

[TopicClocker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GingerJohn

If this comes to fruition and we create a network of minds that can be freely accessed

Geth!

 

[BBEG]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b3machi7ke

Maybe it's because I don't understand the field enough, but I'm not all that impressed. Granted, they did perform at levels higher than chance, but not by what I would deem a significant margin. 10% is not that great of a statistical proof, especially when you consider that the tests were done in sets of 10. So one lucky guess is worth 10% of the score, that seems to give chance a much larger impact upon this than what I would like to see.

Am I not seeing the full article? I see no mention of sets of ten or 10%. I see 70% success rate mentioned but nothing else to give us insight into the statistical part of the research. I would greatly appreciate someone PMing me or linking the study.

As for the article... holy crap. Screw FiOS; this is big.

 

[aroc91]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBEG

Am I not seeing the full article? I see no mention of sets of ten or 10%. I see 70% success rate mentioned but nothing else to give us insight into the statistical part of the research. I would greatly appreciate someone PMing me or linking the study.

As for the article... holy crap. Screw FiOS; this is big.

http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130228/srep01319/full/srep01319.html

 

[evilrazor]

I see this being used for reality tv... Wanna know how that food taste on survivor? Plug in your brain... Wanna know how tired the biggest loser contestants are? Jam wires up your nose

 

[[email protected]]

Before jumping to conclusions you should research and assume it's a scam hoax. Science is real and telepathy has played a HUGE role in our lives. The instincts in our brain. I am sure this is a legit experiment. I want to see them do on monkeys and see if they get the same result and i promise you 100% they will. Like i said. This is a lifetime of History breakthrough for Science.

I am sure all of you had the feeling of "reading someone's mind" moment..

I don't see why people need to be skeptic so much.

 

[aroc91]

Quote:

Originally Posted by [email protected]

telepathy has played a HUGE role in our lives

If you say so.

 

[atomicmew]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aroc91

Did you read the actual paper? There are statistical tests available precisely for the purpose of determining the probability that a result was due to chance rather than having a definite link to the independent variable.

Besides that, they did more than 10 trials.

P = 0.05 is NOT all that impressive when you're dealing with extraordinary claims. That means, one in 20 extraordinary claims is a false positive (without even accounting for publication bias). Mind you this isn't a problem specific to this particular paper, but it's pandemic in all of science.

Also: http://xkcd.com/882/

 

[Faraz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aroc91

If you say so.

I knew he was gonna say that.

 

[Puck]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faraz

I knew he was gonna say that.

 

[ladcrooks]

I find animal experiments upset me. I know a lot it is good for the human race. I find it sad that we don't use mass murderers and alike. We have so many evil people locked up and more to follow. A constant supply of lab rats. Oh! I mean human pigs

Science could evolve quicker because humans can talk - hence feedback

 

[mosi]

Veni, Vermini, Vomini... to quote the honorable Sir Samuel Vimes

 

[DMills]

"solve a simple problem: to press the correct lever when an indicator light above the lever switched on, which rewarded the rats with a sip of water"

seems like they got excited over a false positive.
oh boy the rat pulled the 2nd lever... why not give those rats 300 levers to help outweigh the odds?
imho, meh.