About Mind Reading interview with Michio Kaku on Fox News

[ErikJ]

His new book will be coming out in a few days. The Fox guy seems a bit nervous about this new development.

“THE FUTURE OF THE MIND: The scientific quest to understand, enhance, and empower the mind.”

Future_of_the_Mind

Telepathy. Telekinesis. Mind reading. Photographing a dream. Uploading memories. Mentally controlled robots. A Brain Net to replace the internet.

These feats, once considered science fiction, have now been achieved in the laboratory, as documented in THE FUTURE OF THE MIND.

But the book goes even further, analyzing when one day we might have a complete map of the brain, or a back up Brain 2.0, which may allow scientists to send consciousness throughout the universe.

[longship]

1. Michio Cuckoo.

I am not a big fan. He treads off the science track into pseudoscience far too often for my comfort. He also incessantly self promotes his "co-invention" of string field theory, a collection of uncountable theories with no practical test (no matter what he claims). He can be very interesting when he sticks to known physics, but he almost never does. When he strays off that path he rather consistently goes down some woo woo path. He squanders his popularity on rubbish like...

Telepathy? Telekinesis?
BAH!

[AngryDem001]

2. Disagree

I for one LIKE when he strays outside of established physics. I like to see what might be possible.

Who knows? There might come a day the "woo woo" will become reality.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

4. It seems to be based on the palpable, the tangible, the biological to me

The brain is a physical organ and I assume one day we will fully understand it and how to read it, including the ability to detect what it's thinking. After all, it's simply a matter of interpreting the electrical signals that constitute thought in particular parts of the brain. If we were to come back in 200 years, I imagine such things as telepathy would seem like magic to us now, the way space travel and telecommunications would seem like magic to people in the 18th century.

[ErikJ]

6. I only caught a little bit of his radio show "Fantastic Science" a few months back and...

was VERY impressed and fascinated by his breadth of knowledge of the universe when people asked him random questions. No Art Bell woo-woo crap stuff, just solid facts and theories.

[longship]

7. That's the problem, my friend.

He's not straying outside established physics; he's straying into metaphysical woo.

You say you'd like to see what is possible. Then, you too should probably stay within the bounds of science. Because when one strays outside those bounds, one can likely no longer be talking about the possible.

Telekinesis and telepathy? Bah!

[FlaGranny]

8. Nothing much would ever

have been accomplished without first being imagined, so I'm going to disagree with you. Straying outside the known bounds is what brings about innovation and invention. Since our brains utilize electrical pathways, enhancing these signals, in some way, could be possible. Enhancing electrical signals to levitate an object or reach the mind of another - not all "woo."

[longship]

11. The bounds of science do not include telekinesis and telepathy. nt

[shebornik]

12. How do you know

what the bounds of science include, when you are the one imposing the boundaries?

[longship]

13. No prior plausibility, and those arguing for it make statements which are falsified.

Plus, there is zero evidence that telepathy and telekinesis exist. Telepathy has been studied for a long, long time with zero compelling positive results. When one looks at the scientific literature on it, there is no effect. Therefore, it is reasonable to state that telepathy and telekinesis are likely not real.

I would willingly change my mind on this if there were compelling evidence that supported such thing. Sadly, for the proponents, there is none.

That's why I feel comfortable making such statements as I have here.

Thanks for the question.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

14. The U.S. Department of Defense is currently funding such research

This is science, not metaphysics. The goal is to develop a human brain-computer interface whereby brain signals can be interpreted and understood by a computer. Some of the research is being carried out at the University of California, Irvine. Called synthetic telepathy, there's already been quite a bit of published research in the area.

http://cnslab.ss.uci.edu/muri/research.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27162401/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/army-developing-synthetic-telepathy/#.UwvCDoV1JeE

This is already working in the lab. Subjects hooked up to an electroencephalograph can communicate individual letters to a computer through thought alone. This successful research was published back in 1988 in the leading journal Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology (Elsevier Science publication).

http://drfarwell.com/pdf/Farwell-Donchin-1988-Talking-Off-the-Top-of-Your-Head-BCI-brain-computer-interface.pdf

Since then there's been more research including development of the BCI2000 system for people who are completely paralyzed and can only think, with the development of more sophisticated software algorithms that can read their brain waves. The research is not perfected and is ongoing. Eventually, brain waves through a computer interface will be able to move artificial arms and perhaps eventually operate devices at a distance with computer assistance, which is a type of synthetic telekinesis. However, the technology is based on physical, biological, observable, and testable phenomena in the laboratory, not metaphysics or spirituality. Here are a few more recent publications:

Donchin, E., & Arbel, Y. (2009). P300 Based Brain Computer Interfaces: A Progress Report. Foundations of Augmented Cognition. Neuroergonomics and Operational Neuroscience Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 724–731.

Farwell, L. A., & Donchin, E. (1988). Talking off the top of your head: toward a mental prosthesis utilizing event-related brain potentials. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 70(6), 510–523.

Guger, C., Daban, S., Sellers, E., Holzner, C., Krausz, G., Carabalona, R. ...Edlinger, G. (2009). How many people are able to control a P300-based brain-computer interface (BCI)? Neuroscience Letters, 462(1), 94–98.

Mak, J. N., Arbel, Y., Minett, J. W., McCane, L. M., Yuksel, B., Ryan, D. ...Erdogmus, D. (2011). Optimizing the P300-based BCI: current status, limitations and future directions. Journal of Neural Engineering, 8(2), 1–7.

Sellers, E. W., Arbel, Y., & Donchin, E. (2012). P300 Event-Related Potentials and Related Activity in the EEG. In Wolpaw, J. R. & Wolpaw, E. W. Brain-Computer Interfaces: Principles and Practice. Oxford, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.

Sellers, E. W., Vaughan, T. M., & Wolpaw, J. R. (2010). A brain-computer interface for long-term independent home use. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, 11(5), 449–455.

And if you look at the video, Kaku is only referring to published, peer-reviewed research such as his allusion to the paper in 1988 I referenced above, where a person hooked up to an EEG machine can concentrate on and highlight letters of the alphabet appearing on a computer screen and communicate that selection through brain waves. I think Kaku is on very solid scientific ground here and you're being a little unfair to him.

[longship]

15. I am aware of that type of research.

That's science.

But telepathy is communication without an interface to the brain. That isn't science; that's "Men Who Stare at Goats" woo. The Defense Department funded that, too. So I wouldn't use DOD funding for a criteria for being science.

Just saying.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

16. Well of course that's not what my post was about

The DOD funding was just scratching the surface in describing the legitimacy of this research (funded by several other government entities besides). As to what constitutes telepathy, the terms "artificial telepathy" and "synthetic telepathy" are in common use by scientists involved in the development of a brain-computer interface. "Artificial telekinesis" also is used by scientists to describe how synthetic telepathy might eventually be used, such as the use of radio waves sent out by the brain-reading computer to operate machinery or even robots at a distance. I wouldn't get hung up on the words telepathy or telekinesis as they are evolving different meanings. The new technology is developing means that make it appear as though humans are possessed of telepathy and telekinesis. At any rate, it's clear to me from the interview that Kaku isn't referring to metaphysics but to science.

[longship]

17. Well, that's fine then.

But it's more than a bit confusing when science adopts a terminology which has a decidedly unscientific origin. One would hope that the scientists would know better than that. It gives comfort to the woo woo kooks. That's not a good idea in a country which is having problems with general science education and rational, critical thinking.

Call it anything, but please don't call it telepathy. It certainly made me cringe.

I know that this is a rhetorical argument, but sometimes rhetoric is important.

Thanks for your response.

Regards.

[FlaGranny]

18. Yes, that is

the kind of research I was referring o.

[greiner3]

9. "He also incessantly self promotes his "co-invention" of string field theory;

"...a collection of uncountable theories with no practical test (no matter what he claims)."

As to your point that he 'incessantly self-promotes';

"He (Dr. Kaku) has taught at Princeton University and the City College of New York, as well as written seven books on science for the general public. Michio has also appeared on dozens of radio and television shows and documentaries, explaining complex theories in a way everyone can understand." so that;

""Einstein once said, 'If a theory cannot be explained to a child, then the theory is probably worthless',"

http://www.aps.org/careers/physicists/profiles/kaku.cfm

Scientists, mainly Neil DeGrasse Tyson, lament the lack of mainstream scientific knowledge and Dr. Kaku's approach to this dilemma includes;

""Einstein once said, 'If a theory cannot be explained to a child, then the theory is probably worthless',"

http://www.aps.org/careers/physicists/profiles/kaku.cfm

I think Dr. Kuko's approach to 'self' promotion may not be the standard model for 99.9999% of scientists, but as witnessed via the clip ON FOX NEWS of all places, his ideas reach, well, middle class(?) Americans.

String Theory CAN be checked as to this article;

(Phys.org) —Scientists at Towson University in Towson, Maryland, have identified a practical, yet overlooked, test of string theory based on the motions of planets, moons and asteroids, reminiscent of Galileo's famed test of gravity by dropping balls from the Tower of Pisa.

snip

"Scientists have joked about how string theory is promising...and always will be promising, for the lack of being able to test it," said Dr. James Overduin of the Department of Physics, Astronomy and Geosciences at Towson University, first author on the paper. "What we have identified is a straightforward method to detect cracks in general relativity that could be explained by string theory, with almost no strings attached."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-01-scientists-theory.html#jCp

When Einstein first proposed his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905 there seemed no way to test the theory, but the overwhelming scientific view was that it was correct.

Yet 10 years later it was proven (I won't go into specifics, but the way it happened is much a part of modern literature if one wants to read this about this fascinating story).

"Michio Cuckoo."

I'm not sure if you grew up with Dr. Kaku and have some personal grudge against him but NAME CALLING? Come on!

"He can be very interesting when he sticks to known physics, but he almost never does. When he strays off that path he rather consistently goes down some woo woo path."

Woo woo?

WTF?

Known physics...WTF do you think this term means, or ANY theoretical field of science (Do you know of the TV show The Big Bang Theory and Sheldon in particular);

"Theoretical physics is a branch of physics which employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena. This is in contrast to experimental physics, which uses experimental tools to probe these phenomena.

The advancement of science depends in general on the interplay between experimental studies and theory. In some cases, theoretical physics adheres to standards of mathematical rigor while giving little weight to experiments and observations.[a] For example, while developing special relativity, Albert Einstein was concerned with the Lorentz transformation which left Maxwell's equations invariant, but was apparently uninterested in the Michelson–Morley experiment on Earth's drift through a luminiferous ether.[citation needed] On the other hand, Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for explaining the photoelectric effect, previously an experimental result lacking a theoretical formulation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics

As to "He can be very interesting when he sticks to known physics, but he almost never does.", Dr. Kaku has stated, as other physicists I have read, "If it is not forbidden by Physics, then it is possible."

As to another quote;

" "Without a solid background in advanced physics, I would be forever speculating about futuristic technologies without understanding whether or not they were possible. I realized [to know,] I needed to immerse myself in advanced mathematics and learn theoretical physics," Michio says. "So that is what I did.""

So I'm not sure of what you mean when you state "...but he almost never does."

Are you saying nearly everything he espouses is 'crap' or, well, I don't think you leave room for any other explanation for Dr. Kaku's
work.

"Telepathy? Telekinesis?
BAH!"

Actually I have seen videos where researchers have demonstrated, via MRI's, 'visual' images of what the person is thinking, so what do you mean by "BAH"?

One last quote and comment; "..."co-invention"..." again, I don't know why you feel the need to include quotes.

Are you implying that he is not the co-inventor, String Theory is pseudoscience or have some other reason, such as Dr. Kaku did not invent String Theory?

Also, he DOES have a web site, however, it is a .org and NOT a .com, but he does sell t-shirts (yes, one with his abstract likeness and it's REALLY COOL!), some other clothing and MIND BLOWING posters!

http://www.imaginaryfoundation.com/store/art.html

In conclusion, why would you post this?

Sorry for the lack of some editing but I did not get enough sleep and wanted to get this posted as I've already spent too much time on this post.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

10. Thank you for taking the time to defend Dr. Kaku.

I was going to, but you did a remarkable job.

[tomm2thumbs]

3. "thinking... that's very hard to fake"... FoxNews is the prime example of his quote

FoxNews has never been able to fake thinking, and continue failing for all the world to see.

[ErikJ]

5. Hopefully a lie detector machine like this would

be applied to future news and pundits. Every day I wonder the inside thoughts of Republican politicians and pundits while they are telling obvious lies and distortions. What they are telling themselves while they lie thru their teeth.