A lot of questions came out before and while I was writing down this idea. All of them are listed at the end of this post, written for me to keep track of what I think are the threats/weaknesses of this approach.
Talking about communication when traveling through outer space, we, as of today, always think about radio waves communication. As we all know, radio waves travel through space at the speed of light, c = 300.000 km/s. That is a limited speed for radio wave transmission, which is affected by the medium through which the wave propagates as well as gravitational forces that may appear in the propagation path, strong enough to bend the wave. This means that under the best conditions, a radio wave would travel at the speed of light. Under any set of conditions, not matching the “perfect” situation, a radio wave would travel at a speed slower than the speed of light.
In Issue #1, we try to establish a communication between Earth and Mars. The distance between Earth and Mars, d, is not a constant, it varies from 54.6 million km to 401 million km. Therefore, if we send a radio signal from Earth on t=t0, it will reach Mars on t=t1(f(d)) which depends on the distance. This t1 will range (approximately) between 182 and 1337 seconds (3 to 22 minutes).
This delay in the communication process is a big drawback when operating any device on Mars. It is needed a precise planning as bidirectional communication is going to take between 6 to 44 minutes. Anything can happen in that time.
The farther the receiver, the longer the time taken, thus this communication time by means of radio waves would take years to complete
Other situation to be aware of is presented in Issue #2. The impossible communication. When a spaceship is moving at a certain velocity V>c, bigger than the speed of light, and from a static point, it is started a radio wave communication, the ship is going to travel faster than the radio wave, therefore, the radio wave will never reach the ship and the communication can not be established. Even if the ship travels at the speed of light, the radio wave will never reach the ship unless the ship stops.
Traveling faster than the speed of light is not possible right now, it will be in the near future, be it by wormhole, new power sources yet to be discovered, bending space-time to get two points (origin+destination) closer together, whatever. The technology used to travel faster from a location in the universe to another is not relevant for the communication system. If still using radio waves, should need to make those waves travel faster than the speed of light, open a smaller wormhole to send the radio waves through, or bend space-time to let the radio wave reach the destination in a shorter period of time.
Nevertheless, there is still a propagation time that can not be avoided which depending on the distance between the emitter and the receiver (even shortened by means of whatever technology) might render radio waves communication useless for the purpose of transmitting data from an emitter to a receiver and back.
2. The need
The issues related in the previous item point towards the need of finding a different communication system, one that does not depend on the distance between the emitter and the receiver, one that is not affected by the communication medium, or any kind of external forces.
Therefore, the requirements are:
- Do not use radio waves
- Shortest possible delay between emitter and receiver
- Independent of the environment
- Independent of the distance between emitter and receiver
- Independent of the relative and absolute velocities of emitter and receiver
- Not affected by external actions/forces
- Not AI related?
3. The idea
This idea might or might not be feasible at all, as for now, is based mostly on what we know, which is still very little, on brain connection between twins.
Do Twins Really Have Telepathy? on Penn State University sites talks a bit about this topic, also some others, be it scientific of pseudo-scientific have talked about remote viewing. The former one closely related to parapsychology. Meaning, all what is going to be presented here is closer to speculation/sci-fi, than to actual science, at least at the moment.
As my knowledge on quantum physics and quantum computing is close to zero, it might be possible in the future to use quantum computers to solve this issue. Nonetheless, this is just an idea.
Thus, the idea is based on what is called conjoined twins, and a particular case in which twins are joined by the brain, with some degree of telepathy involved, and brain waves?. So let’s make the assumption that a certain degree of telepathy is possible, in order to go on with this process. (It’s clear that this sounds better when I thought about the system than when I write it down and read it).
4. The device
Te device basically should consist of the following elements:
- Brain cells (biological material)
- Support fluid
- Bio-synthetic interface
- Standard electronic interface
Brain tissue to brain tissue comm would use this “parapsychology” telepathy/remote viewing, and the standard electronic interface would connect to the brain tissue by means of a bio-synthetic interface (BSI) which connects neurons to the standard electronic interface (SEI) and transmits electric pulses from the neurons to the SEI without alterations.
4.1. Stage 1 – Early analysis
This is the critical stage of the development. If this stage fails, further steps won’t be possible, rendering the whole system useless (setting apart prior prejudices on telepathy and other topics).
In order to complete this stage, the following steps might be needed:
- Growing Neurons from Stem cells
- Creating the support fluid
It is clear that it could also be possible to use an existing brain, maybe mouse, at least at this stage. That is not the goal of this stage, though could be an initial step.
Researchers around the world are, or have been studying the growth of Neural Stem Cells, and growing Neurons from those neural stem cells as well as plain stem cells (here, here and here – many more on the internet). While other body cells have a limited life span and are renewed every short periods of time (2 weeks, 4 months, 17 months), neurons usually die when the being dies, unless external factors apply. All this life span of the neurons takes place within the brain of a body. Therefore, it’s critical to be able to grow neurons in a lab, and ensure their life span by providing a proper environment that prevents those neurons from dying.
While recently some researchers seems to prove that human brain keeps growing neurons even at an adult age, it is beyond the scope of Stage 1 to add “hippocampal neurogenesis” to this system.
To ensure the life span of the neurons, at least a reasonable amount of time, there is the need of a support fluid that holds the generated neural tissue. The basis to this fluid is the CSF fluid (CerebroSpinal Fluid) which keeps the brain, and spinal cord, from eroding with the skeleton (skull, and backbone), serving as a cushion. Also acts as a medium to, by homeostasis, feed the brain cells, this function leads us to another important issue, how to feed the recently created tissue.
A CSF fluid could be created, and two membranes added to the brain tissue holder, one to allow the entrance to the brain tissue zone, another to allow the exit from the brain tissue zone, providing some sort of CSF circulation.
Circulation of CSF is important in order to let nutrients enter the GNT, and allow waste disposal.
Milestones of this Stage-1 are:
- Achieving a reasonable amount of generated neural tissue (GNT)
- Achieving a CSF that provides a proper environment for the GNT to live in
4.2. Stage 2 – Neural Tissue Selection and Networking
If the outcome of the first Stage is positive, at the start of this second Stage, we would have two products, GNT and CSF. Regarding GNT, Stage 1 did not take into account the kind of neurons to generate, nor the spatial distribution of them. That stage only cared about producing neurons/neural cells, of any kind.
When reaching this stage, we have to test which kind of neurons are best suitable for the purpose of IDT, sensory neurons, motor neurons, interneurons, a combination of two of them, or a combination of the three, or a combination of any of the 10.000 types of neurons that have been identified.
In order to decide which ones would perform better, we also need to take into account which ones are more suitable to allow telepathic transmission (let’s call it telepathic for now).
Also, in this stage we need to create two linked GNT to act as a emitter/receiver, as we need to test bidirectional communication between 2 devices.
Though Img. 4 is a simple schema, and states “dual” tissue, it is actually a single tissue, where we set a membrane that allows connection between dendrites and axon terminals. The purpose of this membrane is to separate both sides of the GNT to finally create two IDT devices, while allowing the interconnection of neural cells in the meantime.
The idea behind this step is the brain conjoined twins situation, and the possibility that sharing the same brain and information while joined, could share same information when separated. This issue makes this stage also a critical step as if it can not be achieved, the IDT device will not exist, at least with the approach introduced in this document.
Besides, we need to design a BSI interface to provide information to the GNT and analyze how that information propagates. This interface should provide synaptic contacts for neurons to bind to on one side and electronic contacts on the other to provide information from a device, i.e. computer.
Another issue to take into account is that, the achievement of instant transfer of information between halves GNTa and GNTb, might depend on the type of synapses available. We will only know when we reach this step in this Stage.
Once both halves are to be separated, the membrane will be replaced by a BSI interface to close the neural circuit. Will this imply the need of providing the synaptic connectors in the exact location of the neuron-neuron synaptic connections? Might be, thus the membrane permeability points would need to exactly match the BSI synaptic connectors map, or simply locate connectors upon the membrane matching the pattern provided by the BSI.
Milestones of Stage-2 are:
- Create the membrane that allows neuron connection, and allows later separation of halves and grow the GNT with that membrane within
- Find the stimuli that drives neurons to “attach” to the artificial Synaptic Connectors of both the membrane and the BSI
- Find the proper material to build the Synaptic Connectors
4.3. Stage 3 – BSI desing and “signal” transmission
This stage could be planned before Stage 2, just doing some testing providing electrical signals (V>(-40 mV, -90 mV) from a micro electrode set inside one side of the GNT and analyse what is received at another micro electrode set inside another side of the GNT. Nonetheless, that kind of testing has already been carried out thoroughly already, and it would just prove that a signal could be transmitted from one side of a GNT to another side.
The issue here is the use of the Synaptic Connection Pattern (SCP) and test if the input passed through a SCP is received as is at the other SCP. This test should be carried out firstly without separating GNTa from GNTb, in order to test also if the SCP at the membrane allows a proper data transmission.
The previous image shows a random pattern for the SCP, just as an example. There, we send a voltage signal Vin through one of the Synaptic Connectors (SC00) on the left “early” BSI0, and should expect the same result at the paired Synaptic connector (SC10) on the right “early” BSI1, Vout = Vin. What could happen is that the output would not come out from the paired Synaptic connector but from other connector.
Different stimuli trigger different parts of the brain, even on babies who are yet to be exposed to environmental and cultural patterns, it’s not like a single neuron gets “informed”, but a zone inside the brain. Therefore, we could also get Vout not just on SC10, but on several SC1x. Even passing through the Neural Membrane, several SCnx could get signaling, so transmission through the membrane at SCPn should be also analysed.
Let’s assume for a moment that we obtained Vout from the SC10 that is “paired” with the SC00 where Vin has been injected. Being that the case, the SCP design starts:
- How many Synaptic Connectors?
- Which should be their distribution on the membrane and the interface?
- How will be data organized?
The number of Synaptic Connectors will be determined by the GNT structure as well as how data will be organized and how the GNT reacts to data transmission. Will we use bits or q-bits, n-bits? How long would be the word, 64, 128, 256…? A human brain and spinal cord host about 100 billion neurons with a minimum of 100 trillion connections. For brain cell connections it might be more suitable to use n-bits instead of single bits and form n-bit words (thinking that telepathy is not on the standard side of knowledge and brain patterns are “broad”, not single cell). Would the brain behave as a n-bit to bit converter?
Milestones of Stage-3 are:
- Grow a GNT between two membranes with some random SCP, same on both
- Check signal transmission results for both directions SC0 -> SC1 and SC1 to SC0
- Grow a GNT between two membranes with some random SCP and a center membrane, all three membranes with the same SCP
- Check signal transmission results for both directions as in item 2 and also check that the inner membrane (SCPn) outcome matches input on SC1 or SC0 depending on the transmission’s direction
- Check items 1-4 with different SCP
An important matter at this stage would be to evaluate if it is possible to force a SCP, i.e. instead of finding the “best” SCP, set an SCP that meets the communication needs and “force” the GNT to learn how to use it. Nonetheless, later training would be through learning.
4.4. Stage 4 – Simple learning
As we don’t know (yet) how brain cells would react to different inputs, we need to learn about the GNT behaviour as well as teach the GNT to react to those inputs.
In order to analyse the behaviour, a set of signals will be sent from SC0 and check the outputs at SCn and SC1 to verify if the triggered connectors at SCP0 have a match at SCPn and SCP1 or, if they show a different On/Off pattern, and if so, which pattern is this.
In order to test info propagation, we will drive the SCP0 with some signal, an 8 bit example is shown in Img. 8. At this point we only know the input signal and its characteristics and, if everything went fine in Stage 3, we already know where the outcome of a single input will appear, or at least we can predict where in the SCPn and SCP1 the output would be.
Driving an input pattern does not guarantee that the out pattern at SCPn and SCP1 will be the same, though it would be desirable. Then we will have to repeat the same input pattern N times and check the outputs at SCPn and SCP1 verifying that each input repetition produces the same outputs at SCPn and SCP1, be them equal or different that the input pattern at SCP0.
If the values at SCPn are the same at each repetition of SCP0 input pattern whether the triggered SCn are different, and we observe same situation at SCP1 we are moving in the right direction. If they differ, we should study the observed deviation. There would be several options:
- Pattern Parallel Translation: The input values at SCP0 reflect as is at SCPn and SCP1,
- Pattern Shift Translation: The input values at SCP0 reflect shifted at SCPn, and also shifted at SCP1
- Pattern Random Translation: The input values at SCP0 reflect randomly displaced at SCPn and also at SCP1
- Pattern Random Rearrangement: The input values at SCP0 reflect rearranged at SCPn and also at SCP1
- Random Unpatterned Translation: The input values at SCP0 have no direct relationship with the values at SCPn and SCP1
It’s clear that the ideal situation would be Pattern Parallel Translation, it would be the easiest to manage and to develop the system on to. Pattern Shift Translation would be a best second as with the repetition, training and learning, the shift value can be known at the design stage, so could develop the system with that constrain in mind.
Pattern Random Translation could be possible to use too by setting a pattern in the values that could be easily detected.
On the other side, Pattern Random Rearrangement, though keeping the values, does not keep the value pattern. And the last one, Random Unpatterned Translation does not keep nor the values nor the position. These two are not desirable, and if they are observed, the system would not be feasible.
Now, the big question here is, can we induce certain behaviour in order to obtain PPT, PST or PRT? And related to this, does a GNT react to positive education?
By positive education we mean that we offer a prize to the GNT when we get the desired outcome at SCPn that matches the input pattern at SCP0. Also when the desired outcome appears at SCP1, and even better when the desired outcome appears both at SCPn and SCP1, be it PPT, PST or PRT. We would use the CSF to reward the GNT. This topic needs to be studied as a GNT is not designed (unless until can test it) as a full sized brain but a piece of brain tissue, and reactions to learning most likely would differ from an actual full sized brain. This positive education would mean that some chemical elements will be added into the CSF at the time the desired response is observed.
An increase in the levels of any of the elements listed on Img. 10 might be enough to provide positive education, though it might be needed to use synthetic compounds. Testing should be done in order to reach the most reliable learning reward, as we understand that different chemical elements and doses will result in different levels of learning improvement, as well as side effects. We don’t want side effects happening.
Milestones of Stage-4 are:
- Select a group of test patterns to drive the SCP connectors as input
- Verify pattern transmission across the membranes through repetitive testing and positive education
- Verify bidirectional transmission
- Find the chemical elements and dose that induces better learning process
- Verify that the learning process works, driving a set value pattern at SCP0 instantly produces same value pattern at SCPn and SCP1
4.5. Stage 5 – Split testing
If we could obtain a proper outcome at Stage 4, proper meaning that the outcome at SCPn and SCP1 were usable, be it PPT, PST or PRT, then we are ready to split the GNT and test if we can get the same results as when both GNT are directly connected.
At this moment, we should separate both GNTs through the Neural Membrane and add a BSI at the new empty side, right for GNTa and left for GNTb in Img. 11. Then we have two different systems, A and B, each with the same configuration, sizes, SCP, CSF and so on. Once the setup is ready, we should test if the patterns selected at Stage 4, when applied to the SCP00 are received at SCP11, or SCP10, as they were at Stage 4.
If we don’t get the desired result we could go back to Stage 4 and redo the pattern testing, or we could plug SysA to SysB connecting SCP01 to SCP10 and redo the tests from Stage 4 with this new configuration as shown in Img. 12.
If we don’t need to plug SysA to SysB, it will mean that telepathy will be already there, and we should keep the positive education of the GNT under this new setup to increase the telepathy potential and the reliability of the system. If we reach the opposite situation and we need to have both GNT connected through a Neural Membrane, we should find a chemical component or a combination of them and the right doses that trigger telepathy, and those that improve telepathy without side effects, or at least with the minimum effects on the GNT.
Therefore, at this stage, we should be doing back and forth testing, that is, testing the pattern propagation with SysA connected to SysB, with SysA separated from SysB, or go back to Stage 4 and redo the training/learning with a new GNT before splitting.
Whether SysA is connected to SysB or not, at this stage both CSF Chem Add pump should by synched in order to provide positive learning to both systems at the same time and help with the improvement of getting both systems in better sync.
Once we do a thorough testing at this stage, we could build an alpha prototype and improve from there to obtain a fully functional IDT device.
Milestones of Stage-5 are:
- Verify transmission with Systems A and B separated
- Find chemical components or compounds and doses that improve telepathy reliability as well as learning response
5. Some Questions
Well, once this draft is “finished” there comes the time for the big questions, though one of them has been already answered, and I found out by chance.
Just a couple of weeks ago (around May 29th, 2019) while watching a TV show a neurologist was telling there is already a commercial product developed at Yale University, called BrainEx which is some CSF that would allow brain tissue to “keep alive” out of the body. That means that Milestone 2 from Stage-1 appears to be solved already.
This is good news, though we still have many questions to be answered, and here comes the list of them:
- Is telepathy possible?
- Can be telepathy induced by means of chemical compounds?
- Does telepathy have an operation maximum distance?
- Can we grow neural tissue out of stem cells?
- Can we keep neural tissue alive? This has been answered recently, and the answer is yes!
- Can we find a proper cerebrospinal fluid substitute to hold a generated neural tissue and feed it? This has been answered recently, and the answer is yes! (though for this specific case, a different CSF might be needed)
- If we grow “two” GNT joined together, separated by a porous membrane, does it behave as a “single” tissue?
- If we grow “two” GNT joined together and separate them, do we get the conjoined twins “soft telepathy” effect?
- Is there a minimum number of synaptic connectors needed in order to obtain a viable transmission? What number?
- Is there a minimum number of synaptic connectors needed in order to obtain telepathy transmission? What number?
- Is there a Synaptic Connection Pattern that favours transmission of data?
- Is there a synaptic connection pattern that favours telepathy?
- Should we use n-bit words or n-bit planes to drive the synaptic connection patterns?
- Which patterns are better to test the transmission?
- Which chemical elements or compounds, if any, enhance the learning process of the generated neural tissue?
- Which chemical elements or compounds, if any, enhance the telepathy process on the generated neural tissue?
For sure there are more questions, and the more I dig into this issue I find more and more questions in need for an answer. No matter what, this is a simple idea for now.
Hope you found reading this interesting.