Comment by waterheater | Hacker News Reader

Comment by waterheater | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

According to Google Scholar, the paper has been cited 19 times [1], which isn't groundbreaking but is an order of magnitude larger. Also, I imagine the fringe nature of scientific research into remote viewing keeps researcher numbers and therefore citation counts low.

Perhaps a better paper is "The Persistent Phenomena of Psychic Phenomena: An Engineering Perspective" by Robert G. Jahn, who, at the time of publication, was Dean of Engineering at Princeton [2]. According to Google Scholar, this paper has 286 citations [3].

Or consider "On the quantum mechanics of consciousness, with application to anomalous phenomena", also by Jahn, with 238 citations, according to Google Scholar. Or even Jahn's book "Margins of Reality: The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World", which, according to Google Scholar, has 736 citations.

> What's that model? Are brains RF transceivers?

I recommend you look at link 2, page 21, starting at the section "Theoretical Concepts." It overviews a number of plausible models, including one derived from quantum mechanics.

Yes, brains are RF transceivers. This is why transcranial magnetic stimulation is effective.

[1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=A%20confirmatory%20remo...

[2] http://phere.global-mind.org/papers/pear/IEEE_PEAR.pdf

[3] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C31&q=%22...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Jahn#Parapsychology_...

Experiments under Jahn's purview also explored remote viewing and other topics in parapsychology. In 1982, at the invitation of the editors of Proceedings of the IEEE, Jahn published a comprehensive review of psychic phenomena from an engineering perspective.[8] A subsequent critique of this review by psychologist Ray Hyman, which was also invited by the journal's editors, discussed Jahn's work in the context of a long history of flawed psychic research.[9] Psychologist James Alcock carried out an extensive review of Jahn's research and found there to be "serious methodological problems".[10] Statistical flaws in Jahn's work have been proposed by physicist Stanley Jeffers.[11] Jahn closed the PEAR lab in 2007.[12]

>Yes, brains are RF transceivers. This is why transcranial magnetic stimulation is effective.

First, TMS operates at frequencies of 1-10 Hz, so that's well below RF. Second, an RF transceiver is a device capable of sending and receiving a signal over RF, not just anything that emits RF or that is physically affected by RF. Otherwise a glass of water is an RF receiver, because when I put it in the microwave it heats up.

> First, TMS operates at frequencies of 1-10 Hz, so that's well below RF.

So? ELF communication systems have operated in that frequency range for decades [1]. Also, by "RF", I'm not referring specifically to ITU radio bands. I'm saying that the brain in general responds to radio waves in general, which is inclusive of the whole portion of the electromagnetic spectrum below 300 GHz. Perhaps a better characterization of the brain is "electromagnetic radiation (EMR) transceiver."

> Second, an RF transceiver is a device capable of sending and receiving a signal over RF, not just anything that emits RF or that is physically affected by RF. Otherwise a glass of water is an RF receiver, because when I put it in the microwave it heats up.

The very fact that functional brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) have been created demonstrates the brain is indeed a transceiver. According to a DARPA news release concerning a BCI: "By enabling two-way communication between brain and machine—outgoing signals for movement and inbound signals for sensation—the technology could ultimately support new ways for people to engage with each other and with the world" [2]. These signals are electromagnetic in nature. Given that non-invasive TMS EMR is received by the brain in specific and targeted ways [4], and given that non-invasive skull caps receive electromagnetic transmissions from the brain (though I recognize you may object to such a characterization) [3], brains are certainly able to receive and send "radio waves."

A glass of water by itself is obviously not an RF receiver.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_low_frequency

[2] https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2016-10-13

[3] https://brainvision.com/products/braincap-mr/

[4] https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsv107

> The very fact that functional brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) have been created demonstrates the brain is indeed a transceiver.

That is not a sound argument. I think you can see why anyone would disagree.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com