X-Message-Number: 15549 From: "John de Rivaz" <> References: <> Subject: Re: Mind readers are real Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 10:53:29 -0000 Whilst this is very interesting, I do not think that it is sensible to say that this is "mind reading". It would only be "mind reading" if the two subjects were unaware by visual or other scientifically understood stimulus what each other is doing. After all, if you have two camcorders recording the same singer performing the same song, you wouldn't claim that one was recording the output of the other - they are both recording the same thing. Yes, if you put an oscilloscope across the feed to the head drum on each machine you will see similar waveforms. (subject, of course, to difference due to the slightly different viewing angles.) Whilst it is fun, the sensationalising of science headlines does dumb things down and I do think that New Scientist is guilty of this at times. -- Sincerely, John de Rivaz my homepage links to Longevity Report, Fractal Report, music, Inventors' report, an autobio and various other projects: http://www.geocities.com/longevityrpt http://www.autopsychoice.com - should you be able to chose autopsy? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message #15548 > From: "Jan Coetzee" <> > Subject: Mind readers are real <del> > Vittorio Gallese, Giacomo Rizzolatti and their colleagues at the University of Parma have identified an entirely new class of neurons. These neurons are active when their owners perform a certain task, and in this respect are wholly unremarkable. But, more interestingly, the same neurons fire when their owner watches someone else perform that same task. The team has dubbed the novel nerve cells "mirror" neurons, because they seem to be firing in sympathy, reflecting or perhaps simulating the actions of others. > > http://www.newscientist.com/features/features_22751.html Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15549