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