Apparently some believe that a direct linking of minds, representing a vast augmentation of communicative "bandwidth" and by- or over- or under-passing language, would be both feasible and a positive advance for our increasingly 'cognitised' species. This is an extraordinary notion and whether the linkage is expected to be one-way or two- or more-way it seems to say more about the current mental models of those who entertain it than about its realisability. It seems to be understood along the lines of mental witnessing. We imagine that our inner workings are not only witnessable (formerly by God, presumably, or at least since the C16th, and now by whom? Our significant others?) but are actually being witnessed (if only imperfectly), so that the context of witnessing is actually integral to our 'inner' life. This is not to say that such witnessing actually takes place, but the idea of it, the extended metaphor is a complex idea that rarely ceases from being latently active. So, one version of directly linked minds is to imagine it taking place via the assumed witnessing function. We invite others in as audience, they are to occupy already existent but vacant seats in the theatre, if not the royal box previously reserved for God. The mind however does not make a clear distinction between content and witness; if the witness metaphor is pushed into greater clarity then it produces an infinite proliferation of mirror images, a psychedelic effect. Say that the contents of the mind are thoughts, feelings, sensations, images, and contextual atmosphere. How much of each of these can be imagined as directly shareable? In the first instance, in immediacy, these are forms of the entire subject, are complete but transient embodiments of pure and formless subjectivity. Pure subjectivity is without number (1+1=1 or 1=0), so could that be the axis of co-experience? It can't be ruled out, but the energy released by such 'fusion' would be unpredictable.