Extracting Images Directly from the Brain
 

Not sure whether this belongs here or in the philosophy section.

A research group in Japan has made a breakthrough in placing images directly from the brain onto a computer screen. Here's the article...
It seems the possibility of literally viewing ones' dreams, or bringing a visual tangibility to your imagination is no longer the stuff of fiction. With this new technology beginning to blossom, such possibilities are endless. Personally, I find the idea of being able to really see and understand how the mind works fascinating. Mapping dreams, visual responses and how the brain interprets what our eyes provide. As stated in the article above, it could even help shed light on certain mental disorders and deficiencies, possibly solving them eventually.

On the flip-side, however, there lies the issue of what this kind of technology might mean in terms of privacy. What do you think? Is this the breakthrough our scientific community needs to provide us with new and bountiful insight into our mind's mechanics, or the ultimate invasion of privacy? Maybe something else...? Your thoughts.

Wow. Much like you, I think the idea is fascinating, but some of the implications are terrifying.

Wow....that's amazing! I don't see the dark side...every new discovery has the potential to be used for negative things. What, people are going to invent a way to look at my mind from afar without my consent? Seems very far-fetched and at best, will only happen long after my lifetime.

I love the idea because in my artwork I try to translate some of the visuals that pass through my mind in my thought process. To actually be able to literally do it seems incredible.

But...it also seems to me that the technology is limited to only recognizing thought patterns that apparently recall/are associated with those images already viewed by the user and registered in the system, so I doubt it will ever get a true, clear image of what is actually going through our minds, visually. And it's not only visual...it's so much more. Are you telling me that when I think of the word "neuron" I see letters in my mind? Maybe in some cases, but we are all different. So though this is very interesting, it seems to me to actually be quite limited.

When I first started considering creating art where I tried to visually represent my thoughts (what I see 'in my mind'), I talked to many people about it. What was surprising to me was that while I think, visual elements appear to me on a black ground. They come from a kind of darkness/void. In the case of one of my friends, inside of her mind it was white, a bright light where visuals appeared. These conversations were endlessly fascinating to me. I guess it had never occurred to me it would be that radically different to each person.

I think it's pretty cool, too, and look forward to seeing what practical applications will develop from it. I guess I'll dig out my aluminum foil hat for those times I wish to remain more private.

This is really exciting stuff. I've been waiting for a way to put psychedelic visuals into a fixed medium directly. No other human- or computer-generated imagery compares to what your own brain is capable of making. As for remote mind-reading, probably not going to happen as very little of your brain waves can penetrate and exit your skull (i.e., you'd need to be wired).

i don't think this experryment does what it claims--the key is the translation software.
the problem here is that the design is circular---subjects were shown a sequence of characters/images and brain blood-flow was monitored throughout--based on that, it was possible to assign weights within a topological space---which would mean that the weighting for the letters "neuron" were inferred, and then (it seems) the results of this inference were used to generate the results. so basically, you have an input (a letter) and a sequence of physiological changes associated with the shift into it (from the previous input) and out of it. so these changes are correlated with the input, some to operate inside the translation software as an analogy for the input in visual space (these changes then are another set of defining predicates, like the physical attributes which are rendered salilent through the category/name assigned it)...this correlation puts the model in a position to *produce* results---but the building procedure enables the claim that this is in fact a re-production.

but if you think about it, it is and isn't. so this isn't exactly peering into one's skull--this is constructing a model and then using that construct to model.

it's not obvious that representation operates in this way--it's not obvious that cognitive acts are entirely brain functions and not embodied---it's not obvious at all.

but this is interesting nonetheless...it reinforces a very old (and old-fashioned) notion of epistemology--which supposes that the world is simply given and knowledge of the world based on a duplication of that natural order. at the same time, i wouldn't worry about implications for privacy and the like simply because the results follow from the model rather than from what the brain actually does...

No. What's happening here, supposingly, is a person is shown a sequence of simple, black & white images – in this case, the word "N E U R O N", presented in a sequence of block letters – while the machine scans a specific part of the subject's brain activity. Then the machine translates the data gathered from the scan, back into the sequence of images that the person was shown.

I agree with you roachboy. To me it seems like somewhat of a circlejerk and I think the reference in the original post overstates what actually happened and what can ever be done with it. Unless they correlate a "brain signal" with a specific image, or emotion, I think the signal is meaningless. And I don't believe a signal will be so unique that it will always mean the same thing is going on inside the brain. But it's sort of a cool concept in a science fiction sort of way.

So, I suppose arbitrary imaging is a long way off...

i'm not sure that i explained what is going on terribly clearly above, but the outline seems to me correct.

the cog-sci lab that issued this statement has a website here:

Laboratory for Cognitive Brain Mapping, RIKEN BSI

if you tool around on it, you can find links to a considerable series of papers. read around and it becomes more obvious what is and is not happening with these experiments. the article that seems most germaine is the short piece from nature neuroscience, which outlines what appears to be this experiment, but with an emphasis more on the mapping procedures than on the reversal of this maps (a map is reversed in a sense when its status is shifted from representation to template).

the interesting part of this seems to be the extent to which these folk have adapted newer mri technologies to this kind of research. the scans they are using are quite long, so they rigged up a lovely head-immobilization apparatus that features a bite bar...but anyway, they've been able to generate quite detailed maps of physiological correlates to some aspects of visual perception. in the longer pieces, these folk are much more explicit about exactly what they're doing---their work is framed as a partial view of some aspects of the complexity of visual processing.

the maps themselves sound quite cool though, regardless of whether the claims made about them, once reversed, are legit.
plus these folk use cool graphics to present their results.
that is a good thing.

this would be very fascinating especially to someone who has synesthesia.

Ummm... you really don't want to see most of what's in my brain... really.

With refinement, will this technology go beyond reproducing what is actively being viewed, and intrude more deeply into ones brain function? Is it possible that, one day, the reverse process could implant images in a subjects consciousness?

While I generally agree that all research, done withing ethical parameters, advances the total of human knowledge, I have a healthy mistrust of those most in a position to to implement such technology.

Well, for the record, I never supposed or submitted a paranoia about 'remote mind-reading.'

But if what roachboy says is true, I shrug and go back to my other stuff.

miss ya, joy...

Seems like a neat party trick for when you get tired of firing the MRI to uncap beer bottles from a distance.

I'm still around. :)

wow. IF the technology(ie, not the one in the OP) to actually read minds were to be developed, I think we would all go apeshit from opening that can of worms. STOP fucking with the brains.

It's both terrifying and exciting at the same time.

Wouldn't you like to be able to 'see' your dreams after you wake up?

What about the possibility of remotely located machines being able to 'see' what you are thinking about and then present you with a mood-appropriate advertisement, or call the police?

or your girlfriend, instead of relentless asking you 'what are you thinking about' every time you stop paying attention to her, can simply turn on the scanner and see how dirty and jaded your mind really is.

As interesting as this technology is, I really don't want people to know exactly what I am really thinking.