Hi Jason Resch 

You're right.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/23/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Jason Resch 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-22, 14:16:52
Subject: Re: How visual images are produced in the brain. Was Dennett 
rightafter all ?





On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 6:17 AM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:

Hi Jason,




On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:




On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:

Hi Roger,


?
I accidentally sent the previous email before 
I was done, sorry. Please consider this more complete version
of the intended whole:
?
Hi Telmo,
?
Those images in the videoclips, while still remarkable, 
probably were constructed simply by monitoring
sensory MRI signals just as one might from a video camera,? 
and displaying them as a raster pattern, artificially 
converting the time voltage signal into a timespace signal.


Ok. We're not even sure what we're looking at. The brain is a gigantic^n 
kludge. We are seeing stuff happening in the visual cortex that can be 
meaningfully mapped to images. This stuff correlates with what the subject is 
seeing, but in a weird way. So we can speculate that we're watching, for 
example, a pattern matching process taking place. The most spectacular thing 
for me is when we see the?nticipation?f the ink blot explosion. That's 
something you wouldn't get from a video camera (but you could get from a 
computer running a sophisticated AI).
?


The video we see is an?malgamation?f the 100 video clips which most closely 
match the viewer's current brain activity compared to when the viewer watched 
each of those video clips. 


That's just a practical detail. The 100 video clips amalgamation is just a way 
to reduce noise from a still very imperfect system.
?
?t makes for an impressive display, is a very creative idea, and shows we can 
use technology to read thoughts, but the raw data used to generate the video 
above was just a set of ID's for any one of the control videos the subject 
watched to set the baseline. ?e are not really seeing an image created directly 
from one's brain activity.


We're unlikely to ever see that, because brain activity does not generate jpg 
files. But we are seeing images that correlate with brain activity and that's a 
type of encoding.
?


Never say never.? Even with our comparatively very low resolution low speed 
MRI's, we're able to reproduce images with a 10x10 resolution: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MElU0UW0V3Q

As fMRI technology improves, if we use nanobots that monitor neurons and 
communicate wirelessly, if we run simulations of brains in computers, we could 
get an almost perfect picture of what the brain is doing and therefore see what 
the subject is seeing in perfect detail.? After all, for the conscious entity 
to be aware of it, the information has to be represented in there somewhere.? 
It is just a matter of getting it out, which to me seems like only a technical 
and engineering problem.

Jason
?
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to