From: J. Maynard Gelinas <j.maynard.gelinas.nul> Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:05:29 -0500 Archived: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 08:52:24 -0500 Subject: Re: Prayer Meditation Cause 'White Orbs' To Respond >From: DRudiak <drudiak.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:32:38 -0800 >Subject: Re: Prayer Meditation Cause 'White Orbs' To Respond >>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >>To:<post.nul> >>Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 12:19:40 -0000 >>Subject: Re: Prayer Meditation Cause 'White Orbs' To Respond >>>From: J. Maynard Gelinas<j.maynard.gelinas.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 15:08:29 -0500 >>>Subject: Re: Prayer Meditation Cause 'White Orbs' To Respond >><snip> >>>Speaking strictly as a layperson, my sense is that a more >>>prosaic explanation is possible that might both explain these >>>observations while at the same time fitting in with recently >>>published 'brain-computer interface' findings. For example, here >>>is a press report about a research team that used a combination >>>of EEG sensors on the head of one person, connected to a >>>computer, and then 'transmitted' to another person quite >>>similarly to what is often termed as 'telepathy'. >>>www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091006102637.htm >><snip> >>When you've made such an apparatus 'discrete' (a single unit - >>without wires) and 'remote capable' you effectively have a form >>of mind-reading. <snip> >>So, even in our primitive state, we can now see rational >>technological explanations for UFOs' sensitivity to human >>thoughts or intentions, and further, for CE witnesses' accounts >>of 'telepathy' and even of apparent 'control' of their bodies. >This strikes me as rather exaggerated to call this "telepathy" >or "mind-reading". There is no direct brain to brain interface >and the "receiver" is totally unaware of what the "transmitter" >is thinking (in this case trying to mentally move the right vs. >left arm). The transmission is very indirect (through a rapidly >flashing light presented to the "receiver's" eyeballs, not brain >to brain), and if any "mindreading" is going on, it is by the >computers interpreting very simplified brain wave signals at >both ends, basically two distinct but unrelated brain activity >states at the sender/receiver ends, one motor cortex (sender) >and the other visual cortex (receiver), as a way of representing >a binary 0 or 1. <snip> Hi David, I think you're making a classification error here. That is, the classification between the theoretical potential of a particular technical approach versus the limits of a current implementation. It is without a doubt that the critique you offer about the system depicted in this press article is valid. For example: It is not fully integrated into the brains of subjects; communications bandwidth is slow; it is not wireless; etc. I offered a bit of speculation about how those issues _might_ be resolved. But, that doesn't mean the approach I suggest depicts what might be used in the field, or even something viable as a potential technology. It's just a speculation. But it's speculation grounded in evolutionary reality, rather than a revolutionary theoretical advancement that simply can't be predicted today. One thing we do know about technology is that over time, in incremental iterations, it evolves to support a larger feature set, faster response time, and better reliability. Thus, it may well be that this approach could - over time - provide a feature set that entirely meets the feature set described by witness accounts to these events. Or, perhaps, it might only offer a subset of features. We won't know until such time as this technology develops and becomes more widespread. But we should not ignore the relationship between those seemingly close set of features both seen here in primitive form and those as are claimed observationally by witnesses. It's an interesting parallel. Often any one technological approach to solving a particular problem is but one among many. That is, there may be other brain->brain interface solutions not currently being researched that are completely unknown. Perhaps they would have an entirely different set of inherent limitations. But, from an epistemological standpoint, that is speaking about the unknown, whereas here Ray and I are extrapolating about the known. Which has the advantage of confining the discussion within the realm of known reality, compared to debating aspects of the utterly unknown - which often tends to break down into irrelevant semantic arguments that offer no illumination; akin to debating how many angels might fit on the head of a pin, so to speak. Instead of arguing about the limitations of this implementation, I'd suggest you consider what might happen several technological advancements out. Perhaps where this technology might be ten to fifteen years hence. Even if this discussion turns out to be wrong in the specifics, I argue that it's still _interesting_ and _relevant._ Best, Maynard Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp