Close
today i learned (til)

Mind Over Matter: How Brain Implants Are Making Telekinesis Real

May 3, 2025

Imagine a world where you can move objects and complete tasks simply by thinking about them. Sounds like a pretty relaxing and too-good-to-be-true idea, right? What if I told you that researchers are closer to this reality than you may think? In pop culture, characters like Raven from Teen Titans and Wanda from WandaVision may make telekinesis seem like an impossible out-of-this-world ability. Still, when translated into the real world and boiled down, telekinesis has nothing to do with supernatural powers and everything to do with our brain’s signals. 

How is this possible?

Researchers are using brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) to simulate what we know as telekinesis. As the name suggests, these machines create a connection between brains and machines, translating the brain’s electrical signals into commands the machine can follow. This connection allows thoughts to control tangible items (Brain–Machine Interface Projects, n.d.). In medical dramas like Grey’s Anatomy, you might see a patient hooked up to a machine that has funny-looking lines. Well, that tool is an electroencephalography (EEG), and it is used to view brainwave activity using electrodes. In BMIs, this brainwave activity is translated into digital commands, which can be boiled down into 3 simple steps: signal detection, signal processing, and command execution.

 

Real-World Applications

There have already been some great advances in this technology and researchers are working to continue to push the bounds between ideas and reality. Miguel Nicolelis, a neuroscientist from Duke University, was one of the creators of a virtual arm used to further explore this mind-machine connection. As he explains it, “We trained these animals to use their own brain activity to control an avatar arm and hand that could explore objects, virtual objects that we created for them” (Npr, 2011). The connection between the monkey’s senses and this virtual arm was so strong that the monkeys assimilated the arm as their very own, and they could even feel the texture of objects solely using the virtual arm. 

Nicolelis is hoping that this advancement can lead to even bigger uses, such as exoskeletons that would allow paralyzed individuals to use a BMI to walk and move again (Npr, 2011). A step in the right direction was seen when researchers used brain implants on paralyzed individuals to allow them to control tech devices without the need to lift a finger. Using just their thoughts, these individuals were able to perform tasks commonly performed on devices such as browsing the internet, streaming music, and even sending emails/texts to their loved ones (Sanders, 2018). Although this was not a physical feat of walking and moving again, the ability to communicate with their loved ones and with society in this way is an amazing step in the right direction.

Challenges 

Although researchers have been able to accomplish many things using BMIs, brainwave activity, and brain implants, there are still many challenges that come with trying to make telekinesis happen outside of a controlled environment. The brain is deeply complex, our thoughts, ideas, and intentions are often too specific for a machine to translate into commands. Many times, machines struggle to translate these complex thoughts and turn them into tangible actions. There is also the issue of mobility with these BMIs as researchers are currently trying to create wireless and more efficient versions. Another big differentiation between BMI technology and pop culture’s versions of telekinesis is the matter of levitation. As of now, no technology allows us to lift objects using solely our brains without the help of things like magnets and robotics. 

Conclusion 

There is still a long way to go before we can say that telekinesis is real and fully possible, but these advancements give hope that maybe one day we will be able to accomplish great feats using solely our minds and our ideas. I think it can be used for many good things, such as giving paralyzed individuals the ability to move again, and although it isn’t like Eleven from Stranger Things lifting a car, I find it just as interesting.

 

 

 

References 

Brain–Machine Interface Projects | IEEE Brain. (n.d.). https://brain.ieee.org/brain-topics/brain-machine-interface-projects/

Npr. (2011, October 7). A virtual arm that talks with the brain. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2011/10/07/141156406/a-virtual-arm-that-talks-with-the-brain

Sanders, L. (2018, August 8). Brain implants let paralyzed people use tablets to send texts and stream music. Science News. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/paralyzed-people-implants-brain-computer-interface-tablets

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
The science and history of the PB&J sandwich
today i learned (til)
All About Water Puppies
today i learned (til)
Infectious Diseases, Immune System and Vaccines
today i learned (til)
The Science of Yawning

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.