Hi Roger,

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Hi Telmo Menezes
>
> Well then, we have at least one vote supporting the results.
>

Scientific results are not supported or refuted by votes.


>
> I remain sceptical because of the line sync issue.
> The brain doesn't provide a raster line sync signal.
>

The synch signal is a requirement of a very specific technology to display
video. Analog film does not have a synch signal. It still does sampling.
Sampling is always necessary if you use a finite machine to record some
visual representation of the world. If one believes the brain stores our
memories (I know you don't) you have to believe that it samples perceptual
information somehow. It will probably not be as neat and simple as a sync
signal.

A trivial but important point: every movie is a representation of reality,
not reality itself. It's just a set of symbols that represent the world as
seen from a specific point of view in the form of a matrix of discrete
light intensity levels. So the mapping from symbols to visual
representations is always present, no matter what technology you use.
Again, the sync signal is just a detail of the implementation of one such
technologies.

The way the brain encodes images is surely very complex and convoluted. Why
not? There wasn't ever any adaptive pressure for the encoding to be easily
translated from the outputs of an MRI machine. If we require all contact
between males and females to be done through MRI machines and wait a couple
million years maybe that will change. We might even get a sync signal, who
knows?

Either you believe that the brain encodes images somehow, or you believe
that the brain is an absurd mechanism. Why are the optic nerves connected
to the brain? Why does the visual cortex fire in specific ways when shown
specific images? Why can we tell from brain activity if someone is nervous,
asleep, solving a math problem of painting?


>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 1/7/2013
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
> From: Telmo Menezes
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2013-01-07, 06:19:33
> Subject: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains
> viaacomputer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Roger Clough  wrote:
>
> Hi Craig Weinberg
> ?
> Sorry, everybody, I was snookered into believing that they had really
> accomplished the impossible.
>
>
> So you think this paper is fiction and the video is fabricated? Do people
> here know something I don't about the authors?
>
>
> The hypothesis is that the brain has some encoding for images. These
> images can come from the optic nerve, they could be stored in memory or
> they could be constructed by sophisticated cognitive processes related to
> creativity, pattern matching and so on. But if you believe that the brain's
> neural network is a computer responsible for our cognitive processes, the
> information must be stores there, physically, somehow.
>
>
> It's horribly hard to decode what's going on in the brain.
>
>
> These researchers thought of a clever shortcut. They expose people to a
> lot of images and record come measures of brain activity in the visual
> cortex. Then they use machine learning to match brain states to images. Of
> course it's probabilistic and noisy. But then they got a video that
> actually approximates the real images. So there must be some way to decode
> brain activity into images.
>
>
> The killer argument against that is that the brain has no sync signals to
> generate
> the raster lines.
>
>
> Neither does reality, but we somehow manage to show a representation of it
> on tv, right?
> ?
> ?
> ?
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 1/6/2013
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
> From: Craig Weinberg
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2013-01-05, 11:37:17
> Subject: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains via
> acomputer
>
>
>
>
> On Saturday, January 5, 2013 10:43:32 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
> Subjective states can somehow be extracted from brains via a computer.
>
>
> No, they can't.
> ?
>
>
> The ingenius folks who were miraculously able to extract an image from the
> brain
> that we saw recently
>
> ?
>
> http://gizmodo.com/5843117/scientists-reconstruct-video-clips-from-brain-activity
>
> somehow did it entirely through computation. How was that possible?
>
>
> By passing off a weak Bayesian regression analysis as a terrific
> consciousness breakthrough. Look again at the image comparisons. There is
> nothing being reconstructed, there is only the visual noise of many
> superimposed shapes which least dis-resembles the test image. It's not even
> stage magic, it's just a search engine.
> ?
>
>
> There are at least two imaginable theories, neither of which I can explain
> step by step:
>
>
>
> What they did was take lots of images and correlate patterns in the V1
> region of the brain with those that corresponded V1 patterns in others who
> had viewed the known images. It's statistical guesswork and it is complete
> crap.
>
> "The computer analyzed 18 million seconds of random YouTube video,
> building a database of potential brain activity for each clip. From all
> these videos, the software picked the one hundred clips that caused a brain
> activity more similar to the ones the subject watched, combining them into
> one final movie"
>
> Crick and Koch found in their 1995 study that
>
>
> "The conscious visual representation is likely to be distributed over more
> than one area of the cerebral cortex and possibly over certain subcortical
> structures as well. We have argued (Crick and Koch, 1995a) that in
> primates, contrary to most received opinion, it is not located in cortical
> area V1 (also called the striate cortex or area 17). Some of the
> experimental evidence in support of this hypothesis is outlined below. This
> is not to say that what goes on in V1 is not important, and indeed may be
> crucial, for most forms of vivid visual awareness. What we suggest is that
> the neural activity there is not directly correlated with what is seen."
>
>
> http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/crick-koch-cc-97.html
>
> What was found in their study, through experiments which isolated the
> effects in the brain which are related to looking (i.e. directing your
> eyeballs to move around) from those related to seeing (the appearance of
> images, colors, etc) is that the activity in the V1 is exactly the same
> whether the person sees anything or not.
>
> What the visual reconstruction is based on is the activity in the
> occipitotemporal visual cortex. (downstream of V1
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079612305490196)
>
>
> "Here we present a new motion-energy [10,
> 11] encoding model that largely overcomes this limitation.
> The model describes fast visual information and slow hemodynamics
> by separate components. We recorded BOLD
> signals in occipitotemporal visual cortex of human subjects
> who watched natural movies and fit the model separately
> to individual voxels."
> https://sites.google.com/site/gallantlabucb/publications/nishimoto-et-al-2011
>
>
> So what they did is analogous to tracing the rectangle pattern that your
> eyes make when generally tracing the contrast boundary of a door-like image
> and then comparing that pattern to patterns made by other people's eyes
> tracing the known images of doors. It's really no closer to any direct
> access to your interior state than any data-mining advertiser gets by
> chasing after your web history to determine that you might buy prostate
> vitamins if you are watching a Rolling Stones YouTube.
>
>
>
> a) Computers are themselves conscious (which can neither be proven nor
> disproven)
> ? ? and are therefore capable of perception.
>
>
> Nothing can be considered conscious unless it has the capacity to act in
> its own interest. Computers, by virtue of their perpetual servitude to
> human will, are not conscious.
> ?
>
>
> ? ? or
>
> 2) The flesh of the brain is simultaneously objective and subjective.
> ? ? Thus an ordinary (by which I mean not conscious) computer can work on
> it
> ? ? objectively yet produce a subjective image by some manipulation of the
> flesh
> ? ? of the brain. One perhaps might call this "milking" of the brain. ?
>
>
> The flesh of the brain is indeed simultaneously objective and subjective
> (as are all living cells and perhaps all molecules and atoms), but the
> noise comparisons being done in this experiment aren't milking anything but
> the hype machine of pop-sci neuro-fluff. It is cool that they are able to
> refine the matching of patterns in the brain to patterns which can be
> identify computationally, but without the expectation of a visual image
> corresponding to these patterns in the first place, it is meaningless as
> far as understanding consciousness. What it does do though is provide a new
> hunger for invasive neurological technologies to analyze the behavior of
> your brain and draw statistical conclusions from...something which promises
> nothing less than utopian/dystopian level developments.
>
> Craig
> ?
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
> 1/5/2013 ?
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Z_D4nNG0oGUJ.
> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>

-- 
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