Coolest picture ever Sharpshooter you have posted there! Love it!

Yeah that is crazy when one dreams something and the next day you actually experience them as a repeat, or for that matter when you dream about people in black and later see them actually pass away.

Very strange isn't it? I wonder what that could mean?

Hey smiless Thanks, I love that pic, made me smile and that is always a good thing.

I don't know how to explain it or what it means but it is very strange when it happens

Thank you for the kindness, and know that the genuine intention is shared...

Lack of time necessitates a later response to the above...

This is a very current site which contains information on the topic of 'mind reading'...

http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/22201/?a=f

The article demonstrates the technique being used to facilitate this feat. I, as always, am being extremely analytical in thought. I wonder id our conversation could evolve from this information.

For those of you, and metalwing... who would like to incorporate this fMRI technology into the development of the converstaion, I urge you to read the atricle in the link, and join in.

This coul be very intriguing!



Thank you for the allusion metal!

Good job. Do you see the potential projected into the future? The process is largely limited by resolution and real time processing power. Both will continue to improve rapidly and the size of the equipment will shrink. Speak up! What did you learn? What do you think about the possibilities.

metalwing,

As interesting as this seems, I am, still a skeptic first, and a believer second. With that being said, it is still early in our technological developmental stages...

From a purely logical standpoint, I do not consider this to be mind reading, at least not in the sense that it is done without a control sample. It is clever type of pattern recognition, and without a doubt, there seems to be some practical potential. It requires the person being 'read' to observe a thing while the brain activity is being measured and recorded simultaneously, if I understood correctly. This represents the sample image by which later comparison is made.

I find myself still asking the same question as before...

Does an all inclusive baseline in this type of thought patterning exist? Is the pattern of say, a yellow bird, the exact same in every individual, or is a new control required for different individuals?

If a new control is required, then the idea, no matter how successful it could be, would have to be on a voluntary basis with carefully measured and recorded results for ech subject.

Is this considered to be mind reading from your point of view? If so, could you elaborate on what substantiates the grounds for this conclusion?

I think it is mind reading, on par with a second grader's reading skills.

All reading is is pattern recognition. A mind is far more variable and complex then the English language. So this task WILL be daunting, but ultimately achievable.

Speech software is very similar, it requires a person to speak and correct the software for HOURS before it starts to get smart, but once the software has mapped a persons speech patterns, then its accuracy sky rockets.

I think in order for this kind of technique to really be fool proof would require a better understanding of the fundamental framework of the human mind.

THAT will be the biggest hurtle to overcome.

I disagree with the exact parallel drawn between reading and pattern recognition. Even if it was accurate, the thoughts themselves were un known. It was only the thermal imaging, which indicates bloodflow throughout the brain, that was recognized as a pattern. Keep in mind, as you obviously have in your response, that there were only two subject variables in thought from which these patterns were established.

So after repeated observation and recording, there were two possible established patterns to choose from when the observer(s) made their conclusions.

With that set of standards, any good poker player is a mind reader as well. Do you see what I mean? The player(observer) is not reading the thoughts of the other person, they are just remembering the cues from an established control sample.

thank you

I agree its not an exact parallel, however I would say that a good poker player is just that: a mind reader reading your mind within a matrix of possibilities much more limited that what we have for a written vocabulary.

Have you seen that TV series "lie to me"? Fiction, but certainly a true concept, I believe I have a natural affinity in this regard, its extremely rare I am fooled by a person with veiled intentions. Its a system of facial expressions body positioning and verbal inflection that give away mind states VERY accurately. Now I do not know what they intended, but there is a limited set of possibilities and I can use my intellect to usually choose accurately based on my knowledge of the person, the situation, and what was said to map to an appropriate intention.


Again I do not equate this with the level and precision that we currently read at, however compared to my brother I think some poker players can read minds better then my dyslexic brother can read words.

And of course mapping a multivariate system is no small feat, but unless the brain is far more dynamic then we currently surmise, its still within the realm of possibility.

We may need to incorporate other tactics to make it accurate beyond a lab, and I do not think this tech will be available soon. (understatement given the complexity of fMRI no less the software needed and the sample size . . . ect)

But already within control samples accuracy rates reach 80%.

Brain tissue is very similar to muscle tissue. A cell "fires" and uses a chemical reaction to produce electricity in the brain and a "spasm" in the muscle. Both produce heat. The MRI can read the activity of the water being heated in the reaction. Current resolution limits the reading to small but specific areas. Increase in resolution can get down to the individual cell.

What the article you posted was showing was the actual storage of a grid pattern by the brain. With higher resolution it could have shown a picture being stored with all the detail the brain was able to remember. As the ability increases, one memory is no different that another. The brain stores emotional memeries, events, any complex event, in the same way. Habits are somewhat different.

You should check out the advances in artificial vision and compare the progression of technology. The eyes are a primary data input device for the brain. The current effort to make replacement human eyes shows that the brain is basically an odd sort of computer.

That's what I have always thought. The brain is a biological computer for processing information. It is not the "self" that uses the brain.
Both the brain and the body are biological machines for processing data utilized by the self which is connected to it.

This reality is a three dimensional holographic environment like a virtual environment in a computer. It's a similar idea to the movie matrix except the "outside" reality is probably not like the matrix movie. It could be even more strange.

Strange indeed! I bet all the women are naked!

I want to say that I am not flippantly dismissing the potential of this type of technology, nor the individual responses here which concern it.

The issue that poses itself to me lies(no pun intended billy ) in the fact that in order for any thought 'reading' to be made on a consistent and accurate basis, the first thing that would need to be established is what every specific thought imaginable looked like using this fMRI technique. This would be akin to having a standard 'imaging alphabet' for every possible combination of human thought. Is that even possible? Moreover, if that is possible, then would it not also be required that all human thoughts construct/display the same patterning in every thought combination possible?



Using the same logic, both the poker player and the fMRI are both reading minds. I mean, I do not agree that either of those things represent an accurate account of reading one's thoughts, but they are both logically consistent in the given construct.

Does patterning the electrical and thermal activity of the brain using these techniques equate to 'mind reading' and if so, is knowing one's thoughts the same thing? It certainly seems as though the positions of this conversation are being taken from two separate/different sets of premises.



This would make an excallent thread topic. I would further comment, but I think it is too soon and would further confuse things at this point in time.



I think that this is a gross underestimation of the diversity involved in human thought. There are nearly infinite combinations possible. If there exists the same patterning displayed with more than one object of thinking, then the process loses it's accuracy.



That is not that outstanding considering one without any knowledge could guess at a 50% level between only two choices.



I am not sure if I am understanding you correctly, are you claiming that the fMRI image represents the activity in the brain when thinking about a specific picture in the control, or the picture itself? They are not the same thing, are they?



metal,

I seriously think that the comparison between a human brain and a computer does a great injustice to a normal functioning brain. It is a very common analogy nowadays, and it may help one to gain a better understanding depending upon the level of thought in the individual, but I think it also oversimplifies to the point of losing accuracy in knowledge by terminological containment alone.

Artificial vision would be a major step in understanding how the eye itself relates to and 'feeds' the brain information. Much could be known if we were ever to succeed at creating an artificial form of vision which was comparable to our eyes. I have not looked at the progress of this field in a while, it is a good path to pursue given this topic though.

Is recording the electrical/thermal activity of a brain while thinking about a picture the same thing as the thought itself, or does it represent a product of that thought?

Good question. I think it is a product of that thought, or a picture of it, rather than the thought itself. Just like a video of you is not you, it just a picture of you.

There is no difference. A thought, such as an impulse from the stomach might cause, that appears in your mind as an apple, is just a set of stored data that is your vision of an apple. If a machine read your mind and showed the EXACT same image on a screen of what your mind saw, what is the difference?

http://www.mindbraininstitute.org/

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ... it's a duck ... or the future android equivalent.

You need to see the movie "Blade Runner" which was based on Philip K. ****'s book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" It deals with the concept of how close does a copy of a human have to get to a human, before it becomes human. Great movie, the book is better of course.

I regret to inform you, guys, but the government couldn't wait for your conclusions, while you still argue about the feasability of the automated Mind Reading... (i.e. they decided to procede without your help -- and quite successfully, it seems...

For a good example, take a look at
http://www.archivum.info/sci.anthropology/2006-11/msg00009.html
***************************************************************

P.S. Who knows, your indecisiveness could've been planted in your mind(?)

That's true we haven't gone here yet. I wish I had one of those controllable combat rats to eat bugs. I wonder if the robot zombie army chicks are "hot"?

First sign of the zombie apocalypse and I’m outta here!