It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mind Reading Now Possible

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Mind Reading Now Possible


www.newsweek.com

To detect patterns of brain activity, a subject must agree to lie still in a neuroimaging device such as a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) tube, but in an age when many jurisdictions compel not only convicts but also suspects to provide a DNA sample, that isn't difficult to imagine. Now, neither is the prospect of reading thoughts by decoding brain-activity patterns. Just a year ago, neuroscientists couldn't do much better than distinguish thoughts of faces from thoughts of places (the brain has distinct regions that process images of each). "All we could do was tell which brain region was active," says neuroscientist John-Dylan Haynes of the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Leipzig, Germany. "There were real limits on our ability to read the content of that activity." No longer. "The new realization is that every thought is associated with a pattern of brain activity," says Haynes, "and you can train a computer to recognize the pattern associated with a particular thought."
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Pretty interesting stuff. Especially when you think abou the possibilities of it. If they were to create a "dictionary" like they are talking about, well... it makes for a good sci-fi novel.

www.newsweek.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Nice post Karl.

94% acurate if you can stay totally focused.

What I found interesting is the fact that peoples brain waves are so similar.

The computer can read a hammer in one person, and the waves for the hammer were the same in another.

Well, it's just a matter of time before this technology becomes available on your cell phone.

[edit on 13-1-2008 by seawolf197]



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   
HAha, I'd like to let them have a go at reading me when i look deep into their eyes, evoking a word-less emotional force of hatred toward them. If they can capture something, it is my belief that they will only grasp but shadows of the true workings of ones mind.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Do want.


Imagine for people like me, artists... in the future we won't have to design logos on paper, or photoshop... just think it, and the computer draws it... sure its a long ways away...

Now think what this could be used for as well: Making 'copies' of you're brain, into digital realm.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
I guess keeping your thoughts to yourself isnt a option any more? lol


This is really some scary technology. I wonder how long until they can streamline and compact such a device to where it fits in a breifcase. No longer will people be wrongfully imprisoned atleast, if this is as good as it says it is - think of all the criminals who claim they are innocent - oh yea? prove it.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Foxe
Do want.


Imagine for people like me, artists... in the future we won't have to design logos on paper, or photoshop... just think it, and the computer draws it... sure its a long ways away...

Now think what this could be used for as well: Making 'copies' of you're brain, into digital realm.


Well, again, Id' be thrilled if one of those technologies could read my mind. However i doubt it would be that great. I mean, what does it really imply? You mention graphics; what is a mental image then do you think? If you "imagine" a red sportscar, can it display it? How would that work? If you then imagine "cloudy day" "carnage" or "dissapointment", how does the machine interpret that mental "image"? If you are a die-hard sense-certain existesialist - i suppose you actually believe that images exist in the head like jpg:s on a hard-drive. Me, being more platonic in nature find that quite silly.

I believe some folks have a really simplified and intrisically mechanical view of what the mind is. The mind/soul is governed by living ideas, geometries in manifolds. Relations and co-operating infinite structures that always change, always evolve. I contend that the mind is not made up out of "objects" such as images and sounds - this is an idea sprung from A.I-theory, information theory and other mechanistical ponderings. Plato explains the folly of this idea when likening the head of a man with a bird-house, the individual birds neeing the objective sense-impressions or ideas. the point of that story is that the question still remains as to what force control the objects, gathers and grasps the birds.

We can,though, gather an abstract construct that becomes a graspable "thought-object". But this object is a shadow, a hieroglyph of the far more complex "orbital" fuctions of the soul.

This possible machine will only grasp but the shadows of Man.

[edit on 13-1-2008 by EarthDweller]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


wait till they perfect this brain scanner:1 the judge in the court wont need a jury---criminals wont be able to pretend they are innocent when the scanner says they are guilty.
2there will be more unemployment as buisnesses screen out useless employees that have pretended loyalty and hard work.
3at the airports it might speed up flights as there should be no need to check everyones luggage or make them partially undress.
4this would also be a good way to make sure there are no more crooked cops or even crooked judges for that matter and politicians-----at least then we would know for sure who to not vote for---no more smooth talking lying crooks in office again.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Well, that souds more possible. I'm, a bit conservative still. Verification of simple "yes" or "no" questions should be easy to do with newer technologies, otherwise would surprise me.

This would have some significance as to my idea; that in the future, eye-witnesses will be far more valuable in criminal courts and such than photographic or audio evidence. Perhaps more valuable than DNA evidence.

The advent of these new technologies we see, will make able fabricated frauds of all these, earlier so valuabale, categories of physical evidence. Making way for more creedence towards "believable" witnesses.

I may be optimistic.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   
They tested this on mythbusters . "lie detector test" Using the same principle to detect a lie. Grant beat the mri? proving its not as good as they thought . As they said it was something like 99% accurate. And 1-3 beat it .


Also if i remember right he beat it the simplest way possible.
Think about something else. lol


[edit on 14-1-2008 by Mindless]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Mindless
 


I've always been higly sceptical towards the sceptisism of that program. But sure, how crude is not that method they use for "lie detecting"... It's really dark age stuff.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Above poster . I cant seem to read your post and make sense of it .
Could you please elaborate?

If your saying the show may have an alterer motive . Why partialy debunk a governmental process of detecting a lie? Seem like they would push the theory.

If thats not what you were saying I'm sorry .


(Also the test that was beat was using a MRI (magnetic resonant imaging?)

[edit on 14-1-2008 by Mindless]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   
All i mean is; their scientific method to prove or disprove any myth/function has always been lacking in seriousness. Failing to convince me that their conclusion is of any value at all. I certainly do not believe that they operate under some type of lude agenda. they go about things the simple and entertaining way.

I tend to not trust shows that have interest in results that are entertaining. By principle. The lie-detector may be one of the more trust-worthy experiments, perhaps, since it is quite categorical.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Ahh i get ya . Well the problem is most people either wouldn't understand the science involved or would rather be entertained than educated.

I do agree that there should be more science put forth .
But i believe you can visit there website to find the exact scientific process they use . (could be wrong tho i though they said this)

Either way i thought it may be relevant in some way . Still have yet to read the whole (source)article tho.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
I like to think of all of these studies as preliminary research into tapping the power within. Maybe they'll be able to verify whether or not the average person only uses 10 % of his brain.

To think 10-15 years ago people thought a machine could never beat a grandmaster in chess. Then there was Kasparov vs. Deep Blue. It's amazing how an increased awareness in AI has expanded from science fiction to reality.

What I appreciate about these science articles is that the underlying message is to think big, only then can we move forward.

I like to end with this; which I found hillarious


Originally posted by Karlhungis
"...and you can train a computer to recognize the pattern associated with a particular thought."


The same way you can train a parrot to do math. A lot of time, hard work and energy.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Chess is not that complicated to implicate AI on IMO. So this is no good food for thought. Do you figure a computer like that could compose an original, beautiful musical symphony? Do you think it could compose even on the level of a parrot? Mathematics is one thing, ideas is another. My pocket calculator can calculate "big numbers" faster than me, but it cannot understand them.
Oh, how i long for the day when folks will quit equating processing power with the power of ideas and creativity.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join