Comments on: I'm thinking so loudly I can't hear myself think

I'm thinking so loudly I can't hear myself think

6am — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 14:50:42 -0800

NASA researchers can hear what you're saying, even when you don't make a sound. When we speak in our minds, we send weak electrical signals to our larynx and tounge. Tricksy new technology is able to interpret these micromovements into the words we were thinking.

By: Tryptophan-5ht

Tryptophan-5ht — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 14:52:08 -0800

speaker for the dead anyone?

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:01:34 -0800

All they would hear is me humming "Check Mr. Popeye" over and over again.

By: Faint of Butt

Faint of Butt — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:02:46 -0800

"I know you can hear my thoughts, boy. Meow meow meow meow, meow meow meow meow, meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow."

By: kosher_jenny

kosher_jenny — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:04:52 -0800

Sorry, buddy, you're out of a job. Seriously, this is pretty cool. (And maybe kinda scary. Tin chokers anyone?)

By: sour cream

sour cream — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:10:27 -0800

Under optimal conditions normal speech-recognition software that works with sound is 95% accurate. So what does "95% accurate" mean, exactly? 95% of the sentences are parsed correctly? 95% of the words? 95% of the phonemes? Or what? And why is it that 95% of all articles on computer linguistics invariably contain such an utterly meaningless statement?

By: 6am

6am — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:10:28 -0800

it's outrageously cool! one step closer to being able to record sounds directly from your mind :D

By: jenovus

jenovus — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:12:10 -0800

Just move your tongue around randomly while you think, guys! Or else, you know, don't accidentally stumble into a sophisticated setup of electrodes and analytical computers.

By: MonkeySaltedNuts

MonkeySaltedNuts — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:12:36 -0800

Many people subvocalize when they read. I've heard that in some people silent larynx movement interferes with the proper intake of oxygen and such people tend to fall asleap while reading.

By: quin

quin — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:13:08 -0800

i imagine such technology could also have far reaching implications for people who can't speak for medical reasons. Also, depending on the speed and improvements in accuracy, i could see it could be useful for military pilots (switching targets, arming weapons, etc) Hell, i just want it so that i can change the pictures on my rims without taking my hands off the wheel.

By: taursir

taursir — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:15:27 -0800

And why is it that 95% of all articles on computer linguistics invariably contain such an utterly meaningless statement? What, articles aimed at people with actual linguistics-related knowledge in mainstream newspapers? What?!

By: j-urb

j-urb — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:21:37 -0800

thought crime. heh.

By: anthill

anthill — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:24:00 -0800

Fuck you, buddy.

By: jenovus

jenovus — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:32:23 -0800

or, Subvocalize This!

By: ChasFile

ChasFile — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:55:14 -0800

Isn't this a double? I could swear I've read about this before but I'm too lazy to check.

By: Mitrovarr

Mitrovarr — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:57:51 -0800

I wonder how long it'll be until the military starts using this to interrogate prisoners?

By: moonbiter

moonbiter — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 16:02:21 -0800

I'm sure the boys down at the precinct just can't wait to get their hands on this.

By: ChasFile

ChasFile — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 16:09:02 -0800

I'm sure the boys down at the precinct just can't wait to get their hands on this. For roughly the same reasons that the results of a polygraph test are inadmissable in court as evidence, I'd imagine so too would be "testimony" that came from measurements of nerve impulses.

By: jam_pony

jam_pony — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 16:09:40 -0800

Do most people think in words? I think in an abstract, nonverbal way. If it's an occasion where I'm going to express the thought in speech or writing, then I go thru another mental process to select words and decide how to express the thoughts. Presumably a person would be subject to being spied upon in the way the article describes only when choosing to use language. The article suggests that the research subject was deliberately thinking of words in order to have them detected.

By: Gator

Gator — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 17:01:17 -0800

Huh. I wonder if some groups might start thinking along the lines of "Polygraph 2.0" with this technology...

By: sourwookie

sourwookie — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 17:19:55 -0800

Just like David Brin's Earth.

By: 6am

6am — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 17:34:14 -0800

chasfile, I found it on digg.

By: BillyElmore

BillyElmore — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:10:18 -0800

Wait a minute. This works, even WITH a tinfoil hat? Must think non-thoughts. Hey, nice camel toe. Was that out loud?

By: flarbuse

flarbuse — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:23:03 -0800

Polygraphs are not admissible in court not because of the fallibility of the machines (after all, polygraphs are far more accurate than eye-witness testimony, for example), but because they would put defense attorneys out of business. If polygraphs were admissible, a jury would decide based almost exlusively on the machine. Legislators and judges are mostly lawyers. They make laws that keep lawyers in business. Therefore, polygraphs are inadmissible.

By: ChasFile

ChasFile — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:47:01 -0800

Wow. That's quite a theory, flarbuse.

By: the jam

the jam — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 19:00:38 -0800

This is polygraph 2.0.

By: hattifattener

hattifattener — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 19:20:39 -0800

Polygraphs may be more relable than eyewitness testimony, but they're both pretty unreliable. Jam_pony, as far as I can tell, it varies widely from person to person. I think half-verbally, kinda, but I can force myself not to use language while thinking. I have a friend who says he thinks entirely linguistically — not even any visual component. All words. I find this hard to imagine (as it were), but it's what he says.

By: squirrel

squirrel — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:25:11 -0800

Insanely cool, profoundly horrifying.

By: boaz

boaz — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:33:53 -0800

No, NASA, outer space is that way!

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:41:10 -0800

I think mostly verbally, so I'd be quite the open book.

By: emelenjr

emelenjr — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:43:37 -0800

[ ]

By: sameasthem

sameasthem — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 21:09:26 -0800

The aplications are endless if this really works!

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 21:16:26 -0800

I wrote about this last year. It's still noteworthy though.

By: Citizen Premier

Citizen Premier — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 22:29:03 -0800

HAL 9000 can do this simply by reading lips, no electrodes required.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 23:14:36 -0800

I wrote about this last year. Cassandra was hot, and still no one listened to her. What do you expect?

By: bshort

bshort — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 23:56:03 -0800

Wasn't this in an older SF story as well? Maybe something by Heinlein?

By: saysthis

saysthis — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 01:05:23 -0800

Japan's NTT Docomo is working on a subvocal mobile phone operated by sensors worn on the fingers and thumb. A speaker grips his face, putting the sensors in contact with the cheekbone, upper lip and chin. So far Docomo's system recognizes the five Japanese vowels 90% of the time. What's up Matthew Broderick? Go Go Gadget ... Mundane Ubiquity? Day's a' comin' when you're not gonna be so awesome anymore, motherfucker.

By: Grod

Grod — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 04:19:52 -0800

interesting. not only do I only think in words, I find it impossible to imagine what non-verbal thought would be. language = thought. at least for me. If I had something like this woven into my clothes I could record every thought I have, imagine no more forgetting a good idea because there isn't a keyboard handy (I lose paper so fast that I've come to suspect the presence of invisible paper-eating critters in my pockets).

By: loquacious

loquacious — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 04:47:44 -0800

Subvocal communication is regular fare in many of the cyberpunk classics by Gibson, Sterling, Stephenson, Rucker and others. It's a pretty key piece of tech for really useful wearable computers or other hybrid information devices. It solves a very basic I/O problem, especially as it pertains to mobile devices, or devices used in social situations. While SMS/text is a useful alternative to voice, especially in social situations, and mini-keyboards are cool, this would be a really good way to enable silent but rapid communication. Except instead of adapting to people that look like they're totally nuts and talking to themselves while wearing nearly invisible earpieces or headsets, we'll have to adapt to inattentive people staring blankly into space and making small mouth movements like they were chewing cud or something. Just let me know when I can buy a useable, useful subvocal I/O device, okay?

By: Freaky

Freaky — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 06:43:56 -0800

Grod: So you never think visio-spatially?

By: jack_mo

jack_mo — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 07:13:29 -0800

Grod said 'not only do I only think in words, I find it impossible to imagine what non-verbal thought would be. language = thought.' Same here. For year's when folk spoke of 'seeing' something in their 'mind's eye' I assumed they meant describing the thing in language - the only time I see things in my head is when I'm dreaming or on hallucinogens, no visual component to my usual thought processes whatsoever. Which means one of these machines would be a bloody nightmare for me in some situations, but I'd love one so I could just lie on the sofa think-writing (though I don't understand how this technology could possibly cope with simultaneous thought-streams).

By: substrate

substrate — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 07:20:13 -0800

Grod, think of a chair, that's non-verbal thought. I've been doing some wood working lately (building myself a morris chair) and I was amazed at how much non-verbal thought was involved. I can think of how a joint looks isometrically and figure out where how to jig up the piece for routing or making tenons or what have you.

By: substrate

substrate — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 07:22:03 -0800

That's also how I made it through visual communications in engineering school. I could either take the isometric view and visualize how the plan views would look or vice versa. This made the drafting process much easier and got around my relative lack of hand eye coordination.

By: Grod

Grod — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 07:24:11 -0800

Freaky, not as far as I can determine, when I need to visualize something I draw it or model it in 3d, so I guess part of me must be thinking that way. For navigation I go by landmarks, street signs, etc. In a new place I'll remember my way as a series of left/right/up/down steps and whatever I saw on my way. Say I pass a cherry tree, I don't really remember it as an image but as a cherry tree and what state it is in. However, I could later sit down and draw that tree but I don't "see" it as I understand people to mean when they say they "see" something in their mind's eye. I can construct an image in my head but it doesn't have depth, color, or anything, its a flow of words and associations. I suspect I do think visually on a level I can't consciously access, or only access linguistically. The reason I believe this is the aforementioned drawing and modeling ability. Probably more than you ever wanted to know.

By: hoverboards don't work on water

hoverboards don't work on water — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 08:52:56 -0800

Just move your tongue around randomly while you think, guys! Chewing gum is the new tinfoil hat!

By: Aknaton

Aknaton — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 09:11:43 -0800

Something much like this is in Piers Anthony's Kirlian Quest trilogy. Did I say that out loud?

By: TechnoLustLuddite

TechnoLustLuddite — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 10:37:32 -0800

i wonder if it works when you read something to yourself? Also might be interesting to have it record during sleep.