Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:33, 22 May 2010

Synthetic telepathy

Synthetic telepathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparent POV fork of brain-computer interface, most recently cleaned up after being loaded down with conspiracy theories identical to mind control. G-book searches reveal the term "synthetic telepathy" has a large following among conspiracy buffs and those who claim the government is reading their minds. Very little coverage by WP:RS reliable sources, most of which are specific to military research already existing at brain-computer interface. LuckyLouie (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Redirect to brain-computer interface. Agreed that there is not enough for an article on its own, but this topic is different from brain-computer interface. A BCI is about using the mind to tell a computer to do something. S-telepathy is about communication between two people. There are multiple sources about this area of research (some cited in the BCI article) showing that it is a topic with possibilities even if those possibilities have not yet been realised sufficiently to create a separate article. The fact that the conspiracy theorists have got their claws into it is a reason to be vigilant and to remove the rubbish whenever it appears, not a reason to delete the article entirely. But do delete Psychotronic (mind control), which was recently merged into Synthetic telepathy and I think is the root cause of some of the problems in the article. GDallimore (Talk) 21:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"Keep" The information in the article is valid. Synthetic telepathy requires a BCI to work but is a separate subject with enough studies, research, and projects that support it having it's own article. I've referred to information provided in the synthetic telepathy article many times when writing the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence requesting an investigation into government agencies that use certain technologies. I was a straight A student accepted to UC Berkeley to study astrophysics before my life was ruined by an individual using remote electronic mind control and synthetic telepathy technology. Not all of us are conspiracy theorists and delusional hypochondriacs. Some of us are credible victims who need help. You can find documentation of research on manipulating brain waves using electromagnetic radiation and on microwave hearing dating back 50 years. It is important that a credible and easily accessible source of information on the subject exists, rather than the distorted truths and propaganda provided on conspiracy websites. I am concerned that the psychotronic article was recently deleted and now the synthetic telepathy article. In addition, there is no information about technology based research in the mind control article. It is evident to me that a group of people have collaborated to delete and redirect certain information. It should concern you as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.21.135 (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree on redirect. Content relating to academic use of the term should first be developed at brain-computer interface and then moved to its own article when significant content appears. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Redirect to Brain-computer interface. It appears that this is a real term used for such an interface, albeit with no particular consistent definition. The present contents represent a particular fringe/OR viewpoint that appears to be nonsense to me. It's best to just redirect this to the existing, neutral article. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Redirect/merge with brain-computer interface, which is a much stronger article covering much of the same ground. May be worth mentioning Dewan and Malech's work in the BCI article. --McGeddon (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. I'm feeling pretty silly for not having noticed that Brain–computer interface exists when I encountered Synthetic telepathy recently. There was a tremendous amount of nonsense in the article 24 hours ago (misinterpretations of sources, and wild WP:OR, and use of some overly-hyperbolic sources). The current article still has some exaggerated language for what the 60 minutes story showed, and keeping the article would make it a target for further POV exaggerations. Synthetic telepathy is simply a form of brain–computer interface and that's were this material belongs. Johnuniq (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed brain-computer interface has a large number of watchers, so it's better equipped to keep this topic out of the hands of the psychotronics crowd. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Psychtronics is a Czech term and nothing to do with the link you have provided. In scientific terms, it relates to soviet research into directed energy weapons that manipulates the psysiological state of the human brain as to effect the conscious mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.141.9 (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect per above. I think the BCI article has everything in this article, including all valid references, but a check would be useful. Ravensfire (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Unqualified Editors The article has been vandalized by a small number of editors that claimed to understand the technology, but when tested (see talk page) failed to demonstrate any comprehension of the material. The arguments put forward rely on a false interpretation (i.e. lack of knowledge) of terms, phrases and technology. One small example is the failure to understand TMS is writing information to the brain, apparently, this small group of editors feel that perceptible alterations can be performed without any form of non-invasive communication. Synthetic telepathy and BCI are two fundamentally different disciplines. BCI is an interface and relates how to connect with the brain. Synthetic telepathy is just one form of application that can be performed when a BCI exists. As such, it is clear that GDallimore, Gavia immer and LuckyLouie are unqualified to be editing, or commenting, on the validity of this article or its citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.244.240 (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

However, we do have a good understanding of Misplaced Pages procedures. Please start at WP:V and WP:NPOV. Johnuniq (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can't understand the terminology or technical relevance of citations, then Misplaced Pages's procedures cannot be applied properly. Leave editing to the qualified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.244.240 (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

WP policies apply to ALL articles. If you cannot understand and follow them, then you should expect your additions to be reverted/removed. The requirements for inclusion in WP are determined by WP, not by each individual editor. You do not have a choice about following them. Ravensfire (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

WP Policies were followed, the articles cited could not be understood by a small group of editors. Most of them require an advanced technological knowledge in the field to be able to put them in their appropriate context. What do you want me to do? Educate your editors? I can't do that. They are looking for words and phrases verbatim, unfortunately, the documents are not written like that and require translation. The significance is not always apparent as a result. That's just how it is.78.147.141.9 (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In the News This has hit the newswire...back soon with links... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.244.240 (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Meat Puppetry This article has been vandalised by a group of editors that have violated Misplaced Pages's standards on sock puppetry. All editors on this page have deleted substantial portions and made subtle edits, as a team, before nominating it for deletion. Further, no attempt was made to enter into discussion before such edits occurred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.141.9 (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

A Quick Example Spot the inconsistancies:

1. An article today that states extensive training would be required to detect speech: http://www.physorg.com/news137863959.html

2. 60 Minutes segment shows that no training is required and that a generalisable pattern exists: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5119805n&tag=related;photovideo

This is what you are really up against...classified versus unclassified material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.141.9 (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

An article "today" (Oohhhhh! Ooohhhhh! Found the inconsistancy!), that is dated August 2008 versus something from June 2009, nearly a year later. I'm shocked, shocked to see that things change. Ravensfire (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Pedantic as usual and still missing the point. These are different projects, the report was "updated" in June, but published in Jan. Meaning, they were able to do this, even as the military fund project denied any knowledge of generalized patterns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.141.9 (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep This technology has advanced sufficiently that there are now mass market toys such as Mindflex. The uses of such interfaces are numerous and telepathy is just one of them. Synthetic telepathy seems a good title for this topic and there are numerous sources. Editing this material into a satisfactory state is not a matter for AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Mindflex and other similar toys are BCIs - they do not permit telepathy. GDallimore (Talk) 22:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you got a citation to back that up? It is a form of telepathy and uses the same principle. That is, matching a generalizable neural pattern through statistical analysis to an action or event. Once again, you prove your lack of understanding of the technology.78.147.141.9 (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is Tan Le demonstrating her mind control device linked to a PC...live demonstration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40L3SGmcPDQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.141.9 (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment O'RLY? This has got to involve the indef'd User:Frei Hans; some of the IPs, I expect. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Telepathy and war and all the drama he caused. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 22:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What? No monkeys with robotic arms?
The term "synthetic telepathy" does seem to have some currency, although what people mean by it differs. Synthesising a non-existent ability is an odd proposition.   pablo_hablo. 00:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

There's the problem: Synthetic Telepathy is a serious field of scientific investigation (example). It involves using an external sensor on someone to detect patterns of thought that imply a message and destination, and an electronic communication system to convey the message to the intended recipient. The research is at the baby-footstep level, although it can do some interesting party tricks. The problem of course is that using the overloaded term "telepathy" attracts the interest of certain fringe dwellers who conflate what a reliable source actually says and what some random website claims. The concepts are exactly the same as brain-computer interface. Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

 Administrator note 78.147.141.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked 1 week as a sock puppet of indefinitely-blocked user Frei Hans (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 02:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This claim has been fabricated, good look with blocking too, I'm on a VERY large dynamic pool of addresses.78.148.48.31 (talk) 11:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Science and technology)
• AfD debates