/sci/ - Science & Math

Yeah.. right. You can clearly see that its a picture alright but it will never match what we're seeing because we all see the world differently. Look at the background in the image. Its way off. Looks like someones bedroom.

>>3793921
>Looks like someones bedroom.

Well...

>left side
reconstructed by a normal brain

>right side
reconstructed by a brain on meth.

Meth, not even once.


I can see the infomercials now.

>>3793921
>>i'm too fucking lazy to read anything
thats nice fuck off then please.

>>3793921
It is pretty close, just very blurry and dark in some images. In a few years or months even it should be almost a perfect recreation

>>3793921
>Didn't even watch the video

Well we clearly have the tech for computers to read what your brain sees. We just need a more effective method of digitally replicating that information. This method is a good first step, but it's never going to have very good resolution.

invest in tinfoil - NOW!

it isn't recreating your thoughts it's matching it to an image that is already contained in a database. Neat but not all that ground breaking.

Source?

>2090
>All children born are fitted with a recorder
>All crimes recorded through the eyes of the criminal
>No crime ever again

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLb9EIiSyG8
relevant

Do you guys realize that in dreams we never see actual faces, and many other elements from daily life are completely missing? Even if someone could watch your dreams, they wouldn't really be able to identify enough of value, other than the most basic scenario.

>>3793995
but the letter y is a letter.

>>3794008
Have you ever had a lucid dream? You see faces bro, trust me.

They just layered 100 youtube videos together depending on what youtube videos had gotten similar activity when the same subject watched them.

Still cool really cool though. This is a qualitative step in what humans are capable of, and this was just from an MRI. Imagine what we could do with an actual implant!

>>3793995
Your brain doesn't see shit as straight forward as it really is.
When you see something, you likely will think of an event or object similar to it to better understand whatever you just saw, in this case the person compared it to a bunch of other words, including one with a y.

>>3794015

No, you don't. Post awakening you might have a false of memory of it, but it's only that, a false memory.

Read the article, the imagery is reconstructed off youtube's video database. It doesn't actually translate the visual input, it just takes it and converts it into data, then compares it with the videos available and tries to build something similar to it.

Still impressive, mind you.

>>3793991
>mfw that last frame looks like a cat
>mfw cats see human faces with cat like characteristics
>mfw that's why we see human like characteristics in animals and even objects
>mfw no one actually has a face

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdGjB6XCXOA&feature=related
nice try op, 0/10

>>3794029
[Citation Needed]
Yes, you do. I fucking lucid dream every night, trust me.

Some didn't read the description. They don't have a MAGIC BRAIN ACTIVITY TO VIDEO machine, but an algorithm that compares youtube clips to fit the ones who would cause similar brain activity.

>>3794029
[citation needed]
I'm pretty sure I see faces, bro. I don't see why they just wouldn't exist, but a light switch on my bedroom wall would.

>>3794043
The guy using "trust me, bro" as a source is asking for citations. 4/10 because I replied.

>>3794055
you still need a provide a source or else you're bullshit as well.

>>3794055
>ctrl + F "trust me, bro"
>1 result
Ty to quote people correctly, m'kay?
Anyway, he doesn't need to prove shit, the initial claim, that you don't see faces, requires the citation.

>>3794008
>>3794042

god damn no wonder creationists exist, if this is the kind of comprehension we get out of people who actually claim theyre interested in science imagine what creationists must believe.

>>3794055
What reason do you have to believe that we don't see faces in dreams? He's saying we do because apparently he sees them when he lucid dreams, which I can also attest to.

>>3793967
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMA23JJ1M1o&NR=1
it seems computers were involved.

imo a method to get better pictures would be one that starts with 4 large squares, runs all the possible color combos of RGB (one color per square).. then divide.. do 16 squares, repeat.. 32... repeat.. etc.. until you have the resolution you want. record the fMRI every time the colors change.

it's more systematic then random clips of youtube.. but this does prove that the brain does imaging at a basic level just like simulated neural networks;
see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyzOUbkUf3M&t=21m25s
in that clip first he shows that the computer can identify the various stimulus, then he shows what it imagines the stimulus to be when you tell it to present what it has remembered.

Sure is samefag in here

>>3794055
Not who you're responding to, but your post is held up by about as much as "trust me, bro" as well.

>>3794073
I'm guessing you're the no faces in dreams guy? Just because there's a lot of people calling you out on your bullshit doesn't mean it's a samefag. Idiot.

>>3794073
No it isn't. You're just refusing to provide a source and dodging questions about something you apparently have no evidence for. If you're going to come here and call people stupid for not believing your anecdotal "facts" then refuse to back them up with any solid evidence or source, multiple people are going to come and tell you to shut the fuck up.
Shut the fuck up.

Samefags ruining /sci/, you are as bad as a tripfag, bro.

>>3794073
>>3794095
Speaking of samefags...

YFW everyone in this thread is just 2 people arguing
YFW you have no face

>>3794095
>samefags
>fags
>s
Even you subconciously know there are multiple people telling you that you're stupid. Maybe you're just stupid. Here, I'll link to all the posts that were ME.
>>3794068
>>3794093

>>3794008
I just recently had a dream that made extensive use of faces, with several close up "shots" of em (My dreams play like movies, I'm not sure why)
I've always heard the mind constructs faces in dreams using memories of faces we've seen, like around town or at work for example.

I honestly know very little on this subject, having devoted no time to read up on it, so a source would be appreciated.

>>3794125
nope, totally different person here, youre the idiot.
my evidence for this? You are unwilling or incapable of looking up readily available information on dreaming, to find the obvious and documented conclusion that you can indeed see faces in dreams. in short, youre acting like we're the stupid ones for not providing you with a source that carbon is indeed an element.

>>3794198
You do realise he is one of the people saying that people can indeed see faces in dreams, and that the person claiming we can't is an idiot, right?

>>3794072
What you are assuming there is that you view things as raw data, however meaning changes perception.

For example take this image for instance, the tiles ladled A and B are the same colour. However this image has context, if this was in fact a real board with a real shadow A and B would be different, and therefore it is useful for you too see them as different despite the light in your eyes from the two regions to be the same.

So since what we are seeing is altered by the meaning of the image, showing a series of meaningless squares of colour would not be a better method of a framework for reconstructing images from brain activities.

>>3794218
Also ... I seem to have forgotten how to construct sentances..

>>3794206
geese, those posts are about identical. oops, well mistakes are made daily, but fuck this thread has frustrated me enough already.

>>3794231
>sentances

>>3794218
there is some plasticy in the visual cortex, I agreed. but I think most of use (the non-schizo) see the raw data from the eyes... unless we choose not of course (such as imagining an image.. imagine a red truck.. lol I made ur image cortex glitch out trollololol)>

Why is the guy in the picture on the right wearing a T shirt

I think that one of two assumptions can be made of this:

>The human brain processes things in a way that first relates unfamiliar sights to familiar ones - for example seeing the dude in the T-Shirt (presumably a familiar sight) in stead of the guy in the film.

Or

> All of the images that we are being shown are result of a program preloaded with images created by the scientists as a simpler way to process information.

>>3794413
because you're an idiot.. see:
>>3794042 and the entire thread.

It looks like all our thoughts jumbled up to be honest. Impressive tho.

Let me see if I understand correctly.

Three subjects were given a movie to watch, and a machine recorded their brain activity during the movie.

Then, the machine was given millions of random Youtube videos. It chose clips from the Youtube videos and morphed them together to make a composite which closely resembles the original movie.

What I don't understand is how the clips were chosen. Did the subjects watch all the Youtube videos, too?

>>3794492
Naw they just random videos and said it's good enough, because they measured some stuff in da brain.

>>3793955
What are you basing that last statement on?

Here I was hoping to see progress towards developing a dream recorder.
Alas... earwax.

>>3794072

This. My initial thought was, rather than saying 'this second of video produces similar activity in the brain", why not have the algorithm build an image from scratch and say "this arrangement of pixels produces similar activity in the brain"?

I assume there is a good reason to do it they way they did though. Would be interesting to see an explanation for their method.