Why is NASA researching thought reading?

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/mar/HQ_04093_subvocal_speech.html

NASA Develops System To Computerize Silent, "Subvocal Speech"
 
 
NASA scientists have begun to computerize human, silent reading using nerve signals in the throat that control speech.

In preliminary experiments, NASA scientists found that small, button-sized sensors, stuck under the chin and on either side of the "Adam's apple," could gather nerve signals, and send them to a processor and then to a computer program that translates them into words. Eventually, such "subvocal speech" systems could be used in spacesuits, in noisy places like airport towers to capture air-traffic controller commands, or even in traditional voice-recognition programs to increase accuracy, according to NASA scientists.

Really? They developed mind reading technology because of an inability to deal with noise cancellation?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist sorta guy, but at the very least this is a misuse of their funding.

If you are not a conspiracy theory type guy then you are on the wrong forum.

Please stop with this NASA witch hunt. 

Thank you.

If you are not a conspiracy theory type guy then you are on the wrong forum.

Please stop with this NASA witch hunt. 

Thank you.

Hardly a witch hunt. They have no business researching in anything but Aeronautics and Space.

Also, it may surprise you to know not all flat earthers believe in a conspiracy.

If you believe this, you are on the wrong site.
and, please stop with your NASA witch hunt, it only degrades what was once a great society.
Your conspiracy theories has made this a parody site.

It is time for new leadership.

How is this in any way "thought reading"?  Unless you think with your throat.

You need to change your topic header.  It's nothing to do with "reading thoughts"!

And you are aware that this NASA report is a decade old?

At any rate, at Carnegie Mellon University, researchers found that the same "speaker" with accuracy rates of 94% one day can see that rate drop to only 48% a day later; between two different speakers it drops even more.

Thus far, after 10 years, it's still useless technology, and has no practical application.
 

I don't see any mention of "thought reading" here? And the potential practical applications of the research are listed quite clearly in the piece you quoted.

This is just an improvement of the WWI throat mic :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throat_microphone

Where is the conspiracy there ?

The conspiracy is they have no business spending tax payers money to study the reading of subvocalizations. Why are they even interested in reading thoughts? 

Especially if it is useless - which may just be purposefully misreported.

This is not an improvement on the Throat Microphone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subvocalization . This is reading peoples thoughts, which not only is a morally gray area, but also has absolutely nothing to do with space travel or astronomy.

This is reading peoples thoughts, which not only is a morally gray area, but also has absolutely nothing to do with space travel or astronomy.

No, it is NOT "reading people's thoughts".  One has to sub-vocalise for this thing to work.  And its application has positive ramifications for astronauts.

are we reading the same article? Can you point out for me where it states they can read thoughts?

I think its fair to define subvocalizations as thoughts as a large portion of people subvocalize often and without real knowledge they are doing it. [nb]Rayner, Keith and Pollatsek, Alexander (1994) The Psychology of Reading[/nb] Many even have to work hard to remove subvocalization.[nb]http://www.vipassana.com/meditation/beginning_insight_meditation.php[/nb]

I think its fair to define subvocalizations as thoughts as a large portion of people subvocalize often and without real knowledge they are doing it.

You're welcome to consider it "fair" to equate subvocalisation with a uniquely neurological process, but nobody else does.

One easy way to disprove this?  Whilst you're reading this thread, think simultaneously of one of your loved childhood pets.
 

This is reading peoples thoughts,

No.  It. Is. Not.

http://www.vipassana.com/meditation/beginning_insight_meditation.php

Why have you linked this?  Subvocalisation is not mentioned.

Quote from: Username on February 02, 2014, 08:01:54 AM

This is reading peoples thoughts,

No.  It. Is. Not.

Quote

http://www.vipassana.com/meditation/beginning_insight_meditation.php

Why have you linked this?  Subvocalisation is not mentioned.

If you really want to harp on the word "thought" just switch the word "subvocalize" in place instead or whichever word we can come to an agreement to use.

That said, I'm not meaning to equate subvocalization to all thought; I'm saying that Subvocalization is one instance of thought, or at least the manifest ion of such an instance - and it is one that can contain particularly private information.  Many medical conditions affect this as well.  Its not reading *all* of peoples thoughts, just some, namely those involved in subvocalization. Many people are not aware of their subvocalization (especially when in a fatigued state); thus they could betray themselves, reveal private information, be manipulated, or otherwise be put into a morally suspect position.  Many others can not control their subvocalization. This leads to the naive idea that your inner voice is due to the "Holy Spirit" or conscience.

Do you really think it is right to build technology that reads conscience?

Empty mind meditation does rely on the removal of subvocalization - your inner monologue, the chattering monkey, etc. Obviously, buddhism is not going to be using the same terminology.

NASA has no business doing this research. The gain is minimal, the cost is high (both in moral terms and in monetary terms) and they are an organization that deals with space research, not improving technology that is already suitable for their purposes. They are wasting tax payer money. The blood, sweat, and tears of the working class is fueling their useless and morally suspect research ends.

Those that believe in a conspiracy could likely think of many reasons they would not like their inner monologue revealed.
 

If you really want to harp on the word "thought" just switch the word "private monologue" in place instead or whichever word we can come to an agreement to use.

Nope.  We're not "harping" on the word thought.  We're simply ensuring that we're all on a level playing field here.  The definitions are critical.  There's NO way that a private monologue (whatever that is precisely) can be considered identical to thought.

And you're still missing the point about astronauts communicating with subvocalisation.

That said, I'm not meaning to equate subvocalization to all thought...

So now you're shifting the parameters, as compared to your original assertions about "reading thoughts"?  You've now added a qualifier—it's now not "all" thoughts.  So you're just making things up on the trot to suit your notions as you please.  This sort of thing happens all too often when debating with FEs and makes it very difficult for REs to mount and maintain a cogent argument.  It should also be noted that REs never alter their original premises—we stick by them because they're correct.  We don't need to change our definitions half way through a debate.
 
 

Quote from: Username on February 02, 2014, 08:57:22 AM

If you really want to harp on the word "thought" just switch the word "private monologue" in place instead or whichever word we can come to an agreement to use.

Nope.  We're not "harping" on the word thought.  We're simply ensuring that we're all on a level playing field here.  The definitions are critical.  There's NO way that a private monologue (whatever that is precisely) can be considered identical to thought.

And you're still missing the point about astronauts communicating with subvocalisation.

I'm not missing the point. They already have a technology that allows astronauts to communicate.

Where did I say thought was identical to an inner monologue?

Quote

That said, I'm not meaning to equate subvocalization to all thought...

So now you're shifting the parameters, as compared to your original assertions about "reading thoughts"?  You've now added a qualifier—it's now not "all" thoughts.  So you're just making things up on the trot to suit your notions as you please.  This sort of thing happens all too often when debating with FEs and makes it very difficult for REs to mount and maintain a cogent argument.  It should also be noted that REs never alter their original premises—we stick by them because they're correct.  We don't need to change our definitions half way through a debate.

I'm not. You are reading into what I'm saying.

Quote from: ausGeoff on February 02, 2014, 09:16:33 AM

Quote from: Username on February 02, 2014, 08:57:22 AM

If you really want to harp on the word "thought" just switch the word "private monologue" in place instead or whichever word we can come to an agreement to use.

Nope.  We're not "harping" on the word thought.  We're simply ensuring that we're all on a level playing field here.  The definitions are critical.  There's NO way that a private monologue (whatever that is precisely) can be considered identical to thought.

And you're still missing the point about astronauts communicating with subvocalisation.

I'm not missing the point. They already have a technology that allows astronauts to communicate.

Where did I say thought was identical to an inner monologue?

Quote

Quote

That said, I'm not meaning to equate subvocalization to all thought...

So now you're shifting the parameters, as compared to your original assertions about "reading thoughts"?  You've now added a qualifier—it's now not "all" thoughts.  So you're just making things up on the trot to suit your notions as you please.  This sort of thing happens all too often when debating with FEs and makes it very difficult for REs to mount and maintain a cogent argument.  It should also be noted that REs never alter their original premises—we stick by them because they're correct.  We don't need to change our definitions half way through a debate.

I'm not. You are reading into what I'm saying.

"Much of what people consciously report "thinking about" may be thought of as an internal monologue, a conversation with oneself."[nb]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Monologue[/nb]

That said, I'm not meaning to equate subvocalization to all thought

and then...

I'm saying that Subvocalization is one instance of thought,

Do you really think it is right to build technology that reads conscience?

The blood, sweat, and tears of the working class is fueling their useless and morally suspect research ends.

Wait...what?  This is about class warfare now is it?

they would not like their inner monologue revealed.
 

Well, they shouldn't let NASA strap a microphone to their throat then.

Quote from: Username on February 02, 2014, 08:57:22 AM

That said, I'm not meaning to equate subvocalization to all thought

and then...

Quote

I'm saying that Subvocalization is one instance of thought,

Quote

Do you really think it is right to build technology that reads conscience?

Quote

The blood, sweat, and tears of the working class is fueling their useless and morally suspect research ends.

Wait...what?  This is about class warfare now is it?

Quote

they would not like their inner monologue revealed.
 

Well, they shouldn't let NASA strap a microphone to their throat then.

Great, so I never equated the two; Thanks.

Quote

The blood, sweat, and tears of the working class is fueling their useless and morally suspect research ends.

Wait...what?  This is about class warfare now is it?

Quote

they would not like their inner monologue revealed.
 

Well, they shouldn't let NASA strap a microphone to their throat then.

If they have a choice in the matter perhaps, and if its NASA doing the "strapping". This is of course ignoring the possibility that the technology would develop even further into something that could be used from a distance.


As far as class warfare goes, science is all about class warfare. Science has taken the place of theocracy.  Scientists are the monks handing down their priestcraft and ruling through their lies and half-truths. Priestcraft funded largely by those who have to perform real work; funded by those who unaware that scientists are liars, cheaters, and fakes.

Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein - some of the rockstars of science are all known to be academically dishonest. Pushing it further, there are studies that show this is common behavior.  On top of that, some even suggest that it is necessary for the advancement of science!

Science should be separated from state. Government funded research is wrong. Let the invisible hand of the market handle scientific funding. This is a prime example of why.

Where did I say thought was identical to an inner monologue?

I quoted you before you edited your post.  Whoops..... you've been sprung, and now lost any credibility.

At 08:57:22 AM you said, and I quote:

If you really want to harp on the word "thought" just switch the word "private monologue"...

And for the record, I personally take a very dim view of people who alter their comments after being fairly criticised for their content.  There's hardly much point in debating with people who do this, but just bear it in mind before you do it again.

Quote from: Username on February 02, 2014, 09:18:20 AM

Where did I say thought was identical to an inner monologue?

I quoted you before you edited your post.  Whoops..... you've been sprung, and now lost any credibility.

At 08:57:22 AM you said, and I quote:

Quote

If you really want to harp on the word "thought" just switch the word "private monologue"...

And for the record, I personally take a very dim view of people who alter their comments after being fairly criticised for their content.  There's hardly much point in debating with people who do this, but just bear it in mind before you do it again.

I didn't alter it after I read any of the posts. Its just my style to edit my posts if i see something I misused or misstated. If you want to read in whatever malicious intent you want, I can't help it.

You still haven't shown where I said they were equivalent. Even if you did, its clearly not my intent. I don't see any point in wasting my time with this level of argument. If you have any actual points to bring up, feel free.

You know my point of view on the matter and you are willfully ignoring it. I'm not saying its the only point of view. I am saying its a valid one.

You know my point of view on the matter and you are willfully ignoring it. I'm not saying its the only point of view. I am saying its a valid one.

Um... okay... whatever. 
 

I'm not missing the point. They already have a technology that allows astronauts to communicate.

Yes, but my guess it that NASA was hoping that this would be a technology to allow astronauts to communicate better.

Research into controlling devices with thoughts (which this is not) has been ongoing for many years by government and private industry, so why sudden concern? 

Quote from: Username on February 02, 2014, 09:18:20 AM

I'm not missing the point. They already have a technology that allows astronauts to communicate.

Yes, but my guess it that NASA was hoping that this would be a technology to allow astronauts to communicate better.

Research into controlling devices with thoughts (which this is not) has been ongoing for many years by government and private industry, so why sudden concern?

The thing is they are often throwing huge sums of money at ideas that I doubt the tax payers would support. Whats worse is they fail to keep records of their monetary spending.

Perhaps they were hoping this technology would improve communication. Perhaps they were interested in selling this technology to the private sector or to the military. Perhaps someone just wanted funding for their pet project. We just can't say for sure.

The governments place is to protect its people.  Thus, I have far less an issue with ends such as tracking climate change and approaching asteroids or even their improvements that lead to laser heart surgery, cat scans, mri's etc - though, eventually some of these should still be handled partly by the private sector - at least as far as funding goes.

In addition, NASA has had quite the failure to produce advancements over the past few years. Should they not be punished through budget cuts?  We are in debt and we are wasting money on a largely useless program that hasn't shown us practical use in years and has had issues in the past with tracking where they are spending their tax payer money. The cold war is over; whats worse is we barely had the money *then* to deal with this. Their funding needs to be cut so they can only stick their fingers in the pies they are designed to. They are a bloated government whale, and the flat earth society is Captain Ahab.

Even when it is in their supposed field of expertise  ( http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60967.0#.Uu-eYvZAV1A ) they still fail us.

We need to cut their spending to remind them that NASA is not a microphone design agency, or a bedding design company, a fastener designer, or even a medical research facility.  These are all needs that should have been met by the private sector.



These fat cats in their ivory tower are getting away with abusing the working class through their misuse and misreporting of their money.

The thing is they are often throwing huge sums of money at ideas that I doubt the tax payers would support.

That's because it's hard to support something that you don't understand.

Perhaps they were hoping this technology would improve communication. Perhaps they were interested in selling this technology to the private sector or to the military. Perhaps someone just wanted funding for their pet project. We just can't say for sure.

Yet that doesn't stop you from pressing the panic button.

The governments place is to protect its people.  Thus, I have far less an issue with ends such as tracking climate change and approaching asteroids or even their improvements that lead to laser heart surgery, cat scans, mri's etc - though, eventually some of these should still be handled partly by the private sector - at least as far as funding goes.

So, you don't think that being able to communicate effectively in a noisy environment, or trying to stay quiet in a quiet environment don't have practical benefits?  I could easily see this technology being useful by military special forces to improve communications in hostile environments where stealth is critical.

In addition, NASA has had quite the failure to produce advancements over the past few years. Should they not be punished through budget cuts?  We are in debt and we are wasting money on a largely useless program that hasn't shown us practical use in years and has had issues in the past with tracking where they are spending their tax payer money. The cold war is over; whats worse is we barely had the money *then* to deal with this. Their funding needs to be cut so they can only stick their fingers in the pies they are designed to. They are a bloated government whale, and the flat earth society is Captain Ahab.

Even when it is in their supposed field of expertise  ( http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60967.0#.Uu-eYvZAV1A ) they still fail us.

We need to cut their spending to remind them that NASA is not a microphone design agency, or a bedding design company, a fastener designer, or even a medical research facility.  These are all needs that should have been met by the private sector.



These fat cats in their ivory tower are getting away with abusing the working class through their misuse and misreporting of their money.

Now I'm confused.  Are you pissed because NASA is (was?) researching mind reading (not really) or the because that they couldn't get it to work well and therefore wasted all that money?

I doubt people would have a hard time understanding what a bed is, what velcro is, or what a space pen is. All of these have easily implementable existing solutions and are all inventions that should be in the private sector.  The government is not an organization that should be inventing new pens or beds.

Of course these items have practical benefits. The question is why is the government making them? How does it really have to do with the protection and safety of its people?  Is NASA a military organization? If not, then why are military applications relevant.

I'm pissed that NASA is spending time and money on projects that are not reflective of its reason of existence AND that they fail at it. When it does work, instead of giving the technology to the people (who should rightfully own it) they sell it so they can work on further pet projects or indulge their cocaine habits.

They have no business researching subvocalizations AND they failed at it. That the military could use this atrocious technology is of no doubt. That the military should use it is another question altogether.

The NASA budget is:  $17.6B
The US military budget is: $664B

The US spends 47 times more on killing people and blowing stuff up than it does on peaceful space exploration and associated research.

The NASA budget is 0.49% of federal spending

If you are going to get on your high horse about wasting tax-payers money then there might be more obvious targets with much more morally objectionable aims.  Plus:

A report by the Space Foundation estimated that NASA contributed $180 billion to the economy in 2005. More than 60% of this came from commercial goods and services created by companies related from space technology. This means that each dollar of NASA spending creates $10 of benefit in the economy. NASA spending created the satellite communications which allows not only radio and television, but also telemedicine, GPS navigation, weather forecasts, and defense.

A 2002 study by Professor H.R. Hertzfeld of George Washington University showed there is a large return to the companies work with NASA on its research contracts. These companies are able to commercialize the products developed and market them. The 15 companies studied received $1.5 billion in benefits from a NASA R&D investment of $64 million.

Small companies didn't receive as much benefit, because they didn't have the ability to market the technology on a larger scale. The study concludes that NASA could create greater economic benefit by continuing the relationship with the companies they work with. NASA could also help open additional financial and marketing doors for these companies.

These benefits trickle down to everyday life. Since 1976, there were 1,400 NASA inventionsthat wound up as products or services,such as kidney dialysis machines, CAT scanners, and even freeze-dried food.

The US should spend vastly more on military than on  peaceful space exploration and associated research. Because the military provides a basic function of government. 17.6B dollars should be going to help the welfare of our people. Not some Fat Cat's pet project.

Obviously, other areas where the government is spending too much money should also be examined.

As far as the fact that they make ridiculous amounts of money off their ventures - yes we know that. Instead of that money going to the protection of the people or their well being its lining the pockets of those in tight with NASA. NASA shouldn't be in the business of business or improving the economy. That's not their purpose - nor is  R&D of silly and non-necessary projects. We have organizations whose concern is the economy.

The government having their hands this much in business shares disturbing parallels to communism.