Latest news with #mindreading
Yahoo
06-07-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Scientists Merged 3 Human Brains—Here's How
"Hearst Magazines and Yahoo may earn commission or revenue on some items through these links." Here's what you'll learn when you read this story: Brain-to-brain verbal communication in humans was first accomplished in 2014 when brain-computer interfaces helped transmit a message from India to France. Since then, some progress has been made on technology that could make so-called mind-reading possible, including a device that would allow at least three people to share thoughts. While communication using only thoughts shows promise in the medical field for patients who are unable to speak, when it comes to other uses, there are still many ethical implications that need to be navigated. Mind reading has long existed in science fiction—Vulcan mind meld, anyone?—and those carnivals where alleged mind readers try to part you from your last $10 bill with a promise that they know exactly what you're thinking. But thanks to some recent scientific developments, it is now no longer the stuff of cyberpunk and magic. Back in 2014, two words were heard halfway around the world. Those words were ciao and hola. The only people who heard them were two subjects, one in India and one in France, both of whom were willing subjects for an experiment that wanted to probe into whether it was possible for one person to find out what another was thinking from 5,000 miles away. The non-invasive research merged brain-computer interfaces and computer-brain interfaces. Brain-computer interfaces allow the brain to control a device or application by analyzing and translating brain signals into digital commands, while computer-brain interfaces use a computer to influence brain activity. Wireless EEG recorded brain activity through electrodes on the subjects' heads. When the subject in India sent the message, the letters of the two words were then converted to binary code. The code was transferred to another computer before being sent to the subject in France via internet. Transmission of thoughts from one brain to another succeeded. Because the computer-brain interface used transcranial magnetic stimulation to prepare the receiver by using magnetic fields to boost electrical signals in neurons, the receiver found out when there was a message on the way. This experiment marked the first brain-to-brain verbal communication in humans and opened up a new frontier. 'We speculate that future research could explore the use of closed mind-loops in which information associated to voluntary activity from a brain area or network is captured and, after adequate external processing, used to control other brain elements in the same subject,' the researchers who ran the experiment said at the time in a study published in PLOS One. How far have we come since then? In 2019, another research team invented BrainNet, a non-invasive system that also uses EEG and transcranial magnetic stimulation and became the first multi-person brain-to-brain interface. Meant for problem-solving applications, it can accommodate three people at a time, decoding the brain signals of the two message senders with EEG before transmitting them to the receiver through an internet connection. BrainNet originally demonstrated how three people could silently work together to tackle a computer game similar to Tetris. The researchers predicted that the system could eventually be scaled to accommodate larger groups. The mechanism behind direct brain-to-brain communication, or neural interfacing, in both humans and animals was elucidated in 2021, when veterinary physiologist Ehsan Hosseini hypothesized that the weak magnetic field in one animal's brain was capable of transmitting information to another. He also suggested that cryptochromes, proteins that act as photoreceptors which help regulate circadian rhythm, can actually perceive these magnetic fields and convert them to action potentials, or ultrafast zaps of voltage across the membrane of a neuron. Other studies even claimed that the ability to pick up on weak magnetic field energy may explain telepathy and other paranormal phenomena. More recently, the neurotechnology startup Neuroba is exploring ways to integrate human consciousness with not only brain-computer interfaces, but AI and even quantum communication. They are currently trying to develop algorithms that will allow messages to be delivered more accurately. This could be a breakthrough in the medical field, with patients who are otherwise unable to speak still having the ability to communicate by using just their brains, whose messages will be analyzed and translated by a computer. Beyond medical use, ethical implications for this technology remain unclear. Neuroba also mentions that a device like an updated version of BrainNet could revolutionize the workplace by connecting thoughts during meetings and other collaborative efforts. While some are convinced that hooking up everyone's brains in a conference room would be revolutionary, there are concerns. Everyone reading each other's thoughts and thinking alike, possibly being pressured to think alike, ventures on the robotic and could possibly (brace for another Star Trek reference incoming) create another Borg. There is also the possibility of misusing neural interfacing to invade others' privacy. Ultimately, much of the field still remains unexplored, and a code of ethics will have to be established if it is to be used regularly in the future. You Might Also Like Can Apple Cider Vinegar Lead to Weight Loss? Bobbi Brown Shares Her Top Face-Transforming Makeup Tips for Women Over 50
Daily Mail
04-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
The Project stars are left utterly shocked as magician repeatedly reads their minds live on air: 'I feel sick!'
The stars of The Project were utterly dumbfounded when an illusionist repeatedly read their minds during Wednesday night's episode. Waleed Aly, Sam Taunton, Sarah Harris and Georgie Tunny were joined by Scottish magician Scott Silven, who tasked them with thinking of an object that would take them back to their childhood. They were then asked to name the age they experienced the object they were thinking of, or that was a significant year in their lives, and each age the hosts gave was written down. Silven asked Georgie to then reveal her memory - and she said it was of a lamington cake she had at her seventh birthday party. Throughout the trick, a gift box sat on the table, and when Silven opened it, the box contained a lamington, shocking the group. From A-list scandals and red carpet mishaps to exclusive pictures and viral moments, subscribe to the DailyMail's new showbiz newsletter to stay in the loop. Sam was asked what object he had thought of, he said a lotto ticket - and Silven pulled one out of the centre of the cake. When he presented the ticket, it featured the exact numbers the group had chosen. 'I feel sick!' Sam cried out, while Sarah chimed in, 'We need an old priest and a young priest in here, right now!' Silven did not reveal how he pulled the trick off, but the cast were absolutely shocked by the results. There was another show on the show when Peter Helliar was back on The Project on Tuesday night. The comedian, who sensationally quit the current affairs series in 2022, appeared alongside series regulars Waleed Aly, Sam Taunton, Sarah Harris and guest star Kate Langbroek. While fans of the show were happy to see Peter back behind the desk, he was just dropping by to promote his new children's book, Detective Galileo. Peter admitted he felt a little unusual sitting in a spot on the desk normally reserved for guests. Throughout the trick, a gift box sat on the table, and when Silven opened it, the box contained a lamington, shocking the group as Georgie Tunny admitted it was the item she had in mind Sam (right) was asked what object he had thought of, and he said a lotto ticket - Silven then pulled one out of the centre of the cake 'I used to be on this side of the desk, and then the last few times on that side, and now back on this side. I'm playing tennis with myself!' he joked. Peter explained that his three sons Liam, Oscar and Aiden 'are 22, 20 and 16' so no longer the target audience for his kid's books. 'I still sit at the edge of their bed and read to them' he joked. 'They are less interested to hear my ideas, but they love it and they are supportive. I try to get in touch with my own inner child rather than talk to my kids about it'. It's not the first time Peter has returned to the show since his departure. Last year, he appeared on the desk alongside Michael Hing, Max Rushden and Sarah Harris. The Project was rocked by two other high-profile exits in late 2022. Lisa Wilkinson announced she was quitting effective immediately, and long-time anchor Carrie confirmed her departure a month prior.
Forbes
26-05-2025
- General
- Forbes
5 ‘If-Then' Statements That Can Drive Couples Apart, By A Psychologist
Your relationship is shaped by the silent stories you tell yourself. 'If-then' beliefs can either be ... More traps that cause a disconnect or bridges in your relationship. Are yours bringing you closer, or pushing you away? Whether you realize it or not, your relationship is shaped by a set of silent rules. These rules often appear in the form of 'if-then' statements, a sort of mental shortcut that helps us navigate love but can just as easily trip us up. While some 'if-then' beliefs can create boundaries and emotional clarity, others can lead to unrealistic expectations, miscommunication and ultimately emotional distance. Here are five common relational if-then statements that might be silently driving your relationship, and how to revise them in ways that promote connection, rather than confusion. This belief often stems from the romantic notion that true love means never having to explain yourself. The fantasy is that if it's real love, then you're soulmates, a concept often equated with intuitively sensing each other's moods and desires without speaking a word. While this idea may feel comforting, research suggests it can quietly chip away at your relationship. A 2015 study exploring 'mind reading expectations' — the belief that partners should inherently understand each other's feelings without being explicitly told — found that such expectations are linked to problematic patterns of interaction. Specifically, when participants felt their partners had failed to recognize that they were upset, they reported feeling even more distressed and were more likely to respond with combative behavior or the silent treatment. These reactions weren't random. They actually stemmed from a violated expectation that their partner should have known something that was never communicated. Relying on your partner to 'just know' can trigger an unintentional chain reaction: unspoken needs become unmet needs, which escalate into frustration and conflict. Even when your partner cares deeply, they can't be expected to anticipate every emotional nuance, especially if it hasn't been shared. Instead of letting resentment build in the silence, try revising this belief to something like: 'If something matters to me, then I need to communicate it clearly.' Remind yourself that clear communication isn't a sign of weak connection. Instead, it's a hallmark of emotional maturity. As the research shows, unmet mind reading expectations often create more emotional upset and strain. By expressing your needs directly, you not only increase the chances they'll be met — you also protect your relationship from the misunderstandings that drive disconnection. This belief comes about when one partner feels solely responsible for keeping things afloat, whether that means initiating difficult conversations or planning quality time when life gets too busy. It's as if only one partner is responsible for carrying the emotional weight of the relationship, and it's an exhausting position to be in. While effort is essential in any relationship, effort that feels one-sided can lead to emotional burnout. Instead, a 2021 study published in Communication Monographs found that when individuals received more relationship maintenance from their partners, including gestures that demonstrate care, support and engagement, they experienced less conflict, felt more emotionally united and bore less relational load (a term describing the emotional strain one feels in a relationship). Interestingly, the study also found that when women held more communal perspectives, that is, thinking in terms of 'we' instead of 'me,' both partners demonstrated better executive functioning after stressful conversations. In other words, shared maintenance and a collective mindset reduce the emotional toll of relational stress. It's not about never trying. It's more about both partners contributing to the emotional upkeep of the relationship. Rather than holding onto the belief, 'If I stop trying, we'll fall apart,' try this shift: 'If I'm the only one maintaining this connection, something needs to change.' The deeper you reflect, the more you will realize that sustainable connection doesn't come from one person doing the work of two. It comes from both partners showing up, supporting each other and sharing the effort, especially when things get hard. Many couples shy away from conflict, assuming that disagreement is a sign of trouble. But recent research conducted across two national contexts — the UK and Hungary — suggests otherwise. A 2020 study found that it's not arguing itself that's harmful, but the belief that couples shouldn't argue at all. In fact, this aversion to disagreement was the only one of several tested lay beliefs that consistently predicted lower relationship satisfaction. This could be because when we treat disagreement as a threat, we often suppress our needs or tiptoe around issues that actually matter. Over time, this silence, intended to preserve closeness, ends up creating emotional distance instead. So, notice what happens if you replace the default belief with, 'If we argue, we're being honest.' Disagreement can be uncomfortable, sure. But train yourself to also view it as an invitation to learn something new, to clarify misunderstandings and to connect with parts of the relationship that go unnoticed, conveniently. Conflict is not a sign of dysfunction when handled constructively. Rather, it's a sign that both people are invested in making the relationship better, and showing up as their full selves. This belief often stems from lived experience such as betrayal, neglect or abandonment that teach us to protect ourselves by shutting down emotionally. And while those defenses may shield us from further pain, they can also quietly block us from the connection we deeply want. A 2022 study published in Current Psychology found that people high in attachment-avoidance often cope with vulnerability through 'defensive isolation,' which is the act of pulling away from social situations to protect themselves from potential hurt. They may seem independent or aloof, while actually fearing the cost of closeness. On the other hand, those high in attachment-anxiety tend to express distress through passive-aggression or simply acting out — all calls for help that don't always invite care or safety. These patterns don't mean someone is 'too broken' to love again. Rather, they reflect the different ways people learn to manage emotional risk. It's important to realize that these defenses aren't flaws. They're protective adaptations. But when left unexamined, they can make it harder to build the closeness we long for. So instead of retreating behind familiar walls, try this reframe: 'If I feel unsure, I can express that directly instead of acting defensively.' Continue to remind yourself that emotional safety isn't about avoiding hurt at all costs. Life has its ups and downs. But things change for the better when we start recognizing our defenses and gently practicing new ways of relating. Letting someone in doesn't mean forgetting past pain; it means allowing yourself to be seen with boundaries that work for you and choices that favor you. It's a comforting idea that love, once earned, should sustain itself. But in reality, the passage of time doesn't make effort optional. If you look deeper, it makes it essential. A large-scale study of over 8,000 individuals in various types of romantic unions including first marriages, cohabiting relationships and second marriages, found that the amount of effort partners put into a relationship was strongly and positively associated with both satisfaction and stability. In other words, couples who remained actively engaged through presence and care that reflected their deep investment reported feeling happier and more secure, regardless of how long they'd been together or what kind of union they were in. Interestingly, the association between effort and satisfaction was even stronger in first marriages than in cohabiting relationships, hinting that effort doesn't just maintain the quality of your relationship — it may be especially meaningful in long-term commitments. Rather than viewing effort as a sign of something being wrong, what if we saw it as proof something's worth preserving? Consider this reframe: 'If we want this to last, we have to keep showing up.' Continued effort is how intimacy stays alive. All it takes is consistency in the way you show kindness and affection to each other. Love, then, is clearly not a 'set-it-and-forget-it' arrangement. It's something we choose to nurture again and again. And the science couldn't be clearer. Such if-then beliefs are more common than we realize. So, the next time your inner voice says, 'If they loved me, then they would…,' just pause. Don't default to assumption. Choose conversation. Replace fear with curiosity, and remind yourself that love isn't about flawless intuition, but about the willingness to stay engaged and co-create the reality that you came together for in the first place. Are your if-then beliefs helping your relationship, or quietly undermining it? Take the research-backed Relationship Sabotage Scale to find out.
