Scientists reconstruct videos from brain activity

[Misanthrope]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/scientists-youtube-videos-mind/story?id=14573442


Researchers from UC Berkeley were able to reconstruct YouTube videos from viewers' brain activity -- a feat that might one day offer a glimpse into our dreams, memories and even fantasies.


But the potential to watch a person's memories may not be so far off. Whether such memories could be used in a court of law, however, would be limited not only by the technology but also the nature of memories. After all, Gallant's website reads, an accurate read-out of a faulty memory only provides misleading information.

What do you guys think? It's interesting but at the same time kind of a scary thought.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I would need to know a lot more before making a real comment, but until then-fucking amazing!

[Misanthrope]

I would need to know a lot more before making a real comment, but until then-fucking amazing!

It's so mind blowing. The brain is an amazing thing, hard to fathom.

[¿Que?]

Well, it seems actually pretty clever. They use brain activity and correlate with the videos on YouTube. So certain brain activity signals the color blue, another could signal a circular shape, etc etc. That's actually pretty clever and nothing too technologically advanced. Mostly just statistical manipulation of existing YouTube data and MRI data.

[piet11111]

The reconstructed videos are blurry because they layer all the YouTube clips that matched the subject's brain activity pattern.

So the computer just went "hmm this could be the youtube video" and made thousands of possibles into 1 video instead of creating an actual video based on brain activity.

Shame that would have been a million times more awesome.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This is a very interesting development. I wasn't aware we were anywhere near being able to reconstruct people's mental imagery, even crudely as has been done here.

With appropriate improvements this kind of thing could lead to the ability to record our dreams. Now wouldn't that be a massive creative boon to the world of visual arts?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

It's so mind blowing. The brain is an amazing thing, hard to fathom.

My thoughts exactly.I wonder what could be possible if we were able to use all of our brain power at once (instead of just a fraction).

[GPDP]

My thoughts exactly.I wonder what could be possible if we were able to use all of our brain power at once (instead of just a fraction).

This gets brought up a lot. Nothing would really happen. Some parts of the brain are used only when they need to be used. It wouldn't unlock psychic powers or any of that crap.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

My thoughts exactly.I wonder what could be possible if we were able to use all of our brain power at once (instead of just a fraction).

That's a myth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10%25_of_brain_myth).

[Tablo]

Quite interesting. Might have some positive aspects to being able to interpret mental images.

[piet11111]

This is a very interesting development. I wasn't aware we were anywhere near being able to reconstruct people's mental imagery, even crudely as has been done here.

With appropriate improvements this kind of thing could lead to the ability to record our dreams. Now wouldn't that be a massive creative boon to the world of visual arts?

If your dream is on youtube maybe it might actually find something similar :tt2:

[The Vegan Marxist]

That's a myth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10%25_of_brain_myth).

The url isn't working. http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10%25_of_brain_myth

[Nox]

It's fucking scary. This will undoubtedly end up in the wrong hands, and will probably be abused by the government, if it takes off that is.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's fucking scary. This will undoubtedly end up in the wrong hands, and will probably be abused by the government, if it takes off that is.

Oh for fuck's sake, the spectacle of leftists quivering in their boots every time a scientific advance is made is quite pathetic.

Was the harnessing of fire a bad idea, because I'm damn sure that's an ability that's been abused?

[maskerade]

man imagine watching people's dreams. There are probably millions of people out there with crazier dreams than me, and mine can be quite surreal (like everyone's). Awesome.

[RedAnarchist]

I've had some bizarre dreams, both regular and lucid, and it would be great to be able to record some of them.

[Mather]

Oh for fuck's sake, the spectacle of leftists quivering in their boots every time a scientific advance is made is quite pathetic.

I'm sorry but if this 'advance' is to to be used for the purposes of scanning peoples memories and dreams for oppressive purposes, as mentioned this could be used in bourgeois courts, then the only right thing to do is to voice our concerns.

We do not need to celebrate or admire every single technological and scientific discovery simply for the sake of it, that is just blind technophilia. I prefere to judge each discovery and new invention on it's own merit and also to look at the wider social and political consequences of such discoveries and inventions. This is also more true with more advanced technologies than with primitive ones, given their ability to affect a much wider number of people or whole societies. This latest 'advancement' falls into the latter category.


Was the harnessing of fire a bad idea, because I'm damn sure that's an ability that's been abused?

There is no need to take an all or nothing approach to science or technology. Some people seem to reject it completely and you seem to embrace it in it's entirety.

A fire can be dangerous, but at most it can only ever affect a limited number of people, given that it is a very primitive form of technology. The more advanced the technology the greater affect it will have to the point that we now possess technology that poses an extistential risk such as nuclear weapons. For example I support civil nuclear power but ideally I would like to see nuclear weapons scrapped (at least on Earth, space is another matter). This mind scanning technology for the first time gives us the possibility of the ruling class being able to monitor peoples minds, a place we never thought the state could reach until now.

What is wrong with celebrating those scientific and technological advancements that do genuinely bring improvements to humanity and highlighting the dangers or criticising those scientific and technological advancements that give the ruling class more power to oppress or destroy?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm sorry but if this 'advance' is to to be used for the purposes of scanning peoples memories and dreams for oppressive purposes, as mentioned this could be used in bourgeois courts, then the only right thing to do is to voice our concerns.

Sure, but this only plays out mental imagery. Considering the human capacity for confabulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation), and how easy it is to implant false memories into people using hypnosis and such, I don't think such evidence would be accepted by any court worthy of the name.

In any case, the ruling classes don't need fancy technology if they want to oppress people. The old-fashioned ways, such as beating/torturing confessions out of people, works just as well and is cheaper to boot.


We do not need to celebrate or admire every single technological and scientific discovery simply for the sake of it, that is just blind technophilia. I prefere to judge each discovery and new invention on it's own merit and also to look at the wider social and political consequences of such discoveries and inventions. This is also more true with more advanced technologies than with primitive ones, given their ability to affect a much wider number of people or whole societies. This latest 'advancement' falls into the latter category.

Even assuming huge leaps in both the techniques for extracting mental imagery as well as fMRI were to occur, and even if they forced someone to submit to the resulting contraption, they would only be able to extract images of what the subject is currently visualising. Any attempt to extract information can be foiled simply by thinking of something else. Someone who's really clever would even be able to feed their interlocutors with false memories to throw them off the scent.


There is no need to take an all or nothing approach to science or technology. Some people seem to reject it completely and you seem to embrace it in it's entirety.

Advances in our state of knowledge are to be applauded, even if some applications of that knowledge are regrettable in the extreme. But in my estimation the good outweighs the bad. Not only does scientific advancement enrich us materially, but by correctly placing us in the universe in which we find ourselves, it enriches us intellectually and I think that is just as important if not more so than the material stuff.


A fire can be dangerous, but at most it can only ever affect a limited number of people, given that it is a very primitive form of technology. The more advanced the technology the greater affect it will have to the point that we now possess technology that poses an extistential risk such as nuclear weapons. For example I support civil nuclear power but ideally I would like to see nuclear weapons scrapped (at least on Earth, space is another matter). This mind scanning technology for the first time gives us the possibility of the ruling class being able to monitor peoples minds, a place we never thought the state could reach until now.

My understanding is that there is no way for this to be practical without the willing cooperation of the subject. If the Thought Police from 2084 picked me up and monitored me, they wouldn't be able to see things I wouldn't want them to see.


What is wrong with celebrating those scientific and technological advancements that do genuinely bring improvements to humanity and highlighting the dangers or criticising those scientific and technological advancements that give the ruling class more power to oppress or destroy?

You can't un-invent things, so what purpose does a general criticism serve? Sure, if a goverment uses a technology oppressively then they are bastards, but I don't see what that has to do with the technology itself.

It's like blaming ploughshares for soil erosion.

[Nox]

Oh for fuck's sake, the spectacle of leftists quivering in their boots every time a scientific advance is made is quite pathetic.

You don't see how easily this could be abused?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

@Noxion: According to my psychology textbook you cannot implant false memories in people via hypnosis.

[FuzzypegX]

This discussion got really silly, really fast.

As someone has already pointed out - and if you actually read the story, you will know - so far all they've been able to do is match-up a Youtube video to a predetermined selection. This is a million miles away from "reading people's thoughts" or any dystopian sci-fi nonsense like that. Science journalism has always tended to overstate and over-hype the claims and successes of science... because that's what people want to read... if you actually know, or have spoken to, any real-life scientists they will tell you exactly the same.

More to the point:


Whether the technology could also be used to watch people's dreams or memories -- even intentions -- depends on how close those abstract visual experiences are to the real thing.

"We simply don't know at this point. But it's our next line of research," said Gallant.

"We simply don't know". I rest my case.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

@Noxion: According to my psychology textbook you cannot implant false memories in people via hypnosis.

I'm pretty sure I remember reading that "hypnotic regression" or something like that was used to extract spurious "memories" from alleged victims of satanic ritual abuse.

[EvilRedGuy]

Oh for fuck's sake, the spectacle of leftists quivering in their boots every time a scientific advance is made is quite pathetic.

Was the harnessing of fire a bad idea, because I'm damn sure that's an ability that's been abused?


Yeah they play too much Deux Ex: Human Revolution lol.

Of course technology can be abused, so can weapons, violence, everything, etc. Technology in the hands of Capitalism is dangerous but not in Communist use, there it will be helpful.

[Mather]

Sure, but this only plays out mental imagery. Considering the human capacity for confabulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation), and how easy it is to implant false memories into people using hypnosis and such,

As someone else mentioned, the jury is still out on the ability to implant false memories into peoples minds.

But lets assume that this were true. Then I assume that the said person would have to be with a psychologist who could do this procedure for them?

If that is the case, then that alone is no guarantee against abuse by the state. Very few (if any) people know in advance that they are about to be arrested and thus have this procedure done in order to guard themselves against any intrusions. All well and good if you prepare for it but your fucked if your just some poor guy who gets picked up by the police, taken to the station and they then scan your mind.


I don't think such evidence would be accepted by any court worthy of the name.

Under the capitalist system there is no such thing as a court worthy of its name.

This is most true when dealing with political court cases such as anti-capitalist protestors and people campaigning against police brutality, to name but two examples. In these types of cases, the courts are more than happy to disregard evidence in favour of state oppression and 'sending a strong message to political activists'.

Of course this point is more of a case against the capitalist legal system as a whole. However if this mind scanning technology were to be used as liberally as for example DNA samples in Britain are, then this technology becomes part of the arsenal of the wider capitalist legal system. As such we cannot simply view this technology in isolation and as a mere marvel of scientific discovery, but must look at the wider social and political context in which it will be applied.


In any case, the ruling classes don't need fancy technology if they want to oppress people.

Of course the ruling classes can do without fancy technology and still rule and oppress.

But fancy technology like this and things like 'smart' CCTV that can preemptively alert the police/state to recognise certain types of behaviour, are fast giving the ruling classes a much bigger and more powerful advantage. The rate of technological change and progress is now so fast and so great and there are of course many positives that we have gained and will gain with our technological progression. But amongst all of this are some very worrying developments, technologies that can be so transformative and such game changers that they give the ruling classes a unique ability for social control and political oppression that becomes more than the sum total of all previous technologies and methods of oppression. Of course this mind scanning technology is still in it's very early stages and rather primitive but at some point it will be developed further and refined, at this stage this technology could become a game changer.

If we wish to overthrow the ruling classes then it makes no sense to cheer when they arm themselves with this type of technology.


The old-fashioned ways, such as beating/torturing confessions out of people, works just as well and is cheaper to boot.

The use of naked violence by the ruling classes has and will always be part of their arsenal of oppression. But violence cannot give the ruling classes the ability to see into our minds and to extract the information it seeks in order to oppress and control us. We now live in an era where information itself is fast becoming the most valuable tool, either for the ruling classes or the working classes. Up until now, no amount of violence could give the ruling classes all the information they need to further their rule and win the class war. This technology does offer them that possibility and we need to be on guard about that for this very reason.

As for the use of torture for confessions, this point is not really relevant as it has been proven that torture does not guarantee that the information obtained is true. Many people who have suffered torture have lied or confessed to lies given to them by their torturers simply to stop any further torture.

Also, what about the ability to protect your family, friends or political associates? If your being tortured because the state wants to either arrest or kill someone you know, at the moment you can either remain silent or give them a lie so as to protect that person. But if in future this technology is further developed to the point that it could extract this information, well nothing you can do would alter that. Besides having fatal consequences for your family and friends, it is also so disempowering as people would no longer be able to keep their mind and thoughts private and secure.

As for the cost, well if were talking about the welfare state and social services, then yes the ruling classes like to cut costs. Sadly the ruling classes care little for financial cost when were talking about the police and security services. Capitalism always seeks to control and monitor society no matter the financial or human cost.


Even assuming huge leaps in both the techniques for extracting mental imagery as well as fMRI were to occur, and even if they forced someone to submit to the resulting contraption, they would only be able to extract images of what the subject is currently visualising. Any attempt to extract information can be foiled simply by thinking of something else. Someone who's really clever would even be able to feed their interlocutors with false memories to throw them off the scent.

The only point I can see here that needs to be raised is mental health and ability.

Sadly not everyone is clever or even mentally healthy and if the person in question had severe mental health issues, learning difficulties or was non-neurotypical, what then? These people are already very vulnerable if they were to be picked up for questioning by the police or state, I would dread to think of how much more vulnerable they would be were they to be subjected to this technology.


Advances in our state of knowledge are to be applauded, even if some applications of that knowledge are regrettable in the extreme.

This is why I made the point of transformative or game changing technologies.

All scientific and technological discoveries has risks attached to them, as do many other things. Fire, knifes, guns etc can all harm and kill, but their overall affect is limited to the individuals who fall victim to these things. These tools are dangerous but their danger and their abilities are limited to varying degrees. A truly transformative game changing technology that would give the ruling classes the ability to totally monitor and control society down to what people think and dream is a wholly different matter altogether.


But in my estimation the good outweighs the bad.

Are you talking about this mind scanning technology in particular or is this a general statement?


Not only does scientific advancement enrich us materially, but by correctly placing us in the universe in which we find ourselves, it enriches us intellectually and I think that is just as important if not more so than the material stuff.

More important, really?

I'm sure most homeless people and people in the third world would rather have their basic material needs seen to, than to be given their place within the greater universe. If I was starving and had a choice between a hot meal and all the secrets of the universe then I'll go with the hot meal.

Enriching ourselves intellectually and even finding the answers to the secrets of the universe are noble aims and I do hope that one day we will unlock these secrets, hopefully I may live long enough to see some of this. But as there are still so many people who do not even have their basic material needs seen to, I'll put a priority on meeting those needs first before pondering the great questions of our wider universe.

If a person is materially cared for then I would say that our material and intellectual richness should be equally cared for and developed. Besides if a society is still materially underdeveloped then it's intellectual development will always remain stunted.


My understanding is that there is no way for this to be practical without the willing cooperation of the subject.

If the police were to use this technology in interviews then the issue of willing cooperation is at risk. I remember my time at Maidenhead police station, they never asked for my consent for that DNA sample they took off me.


You can't un-invent things, so what purpose does a general criticism serve?

All of the developed technology we have so far is not truly transformative. Nuclear weapons do pose an existential risk of sorts, but they do not have the ability to empower the ruling classes in their totality over society. So I am not saying we need to un-invent existing technology but that the technology of the near future that has the potential to be truly transformative (politically and socially) needs to be very carefully thought out. By this I also mean that it's not just enough to think of it's scientific merits in isolation but think of that in addition to thinking about it's consequences for the wider society in the political and social sense. Truly transformative technologies need to be open to public debate and democratic accountability.


Sure, if a goverment uses a technology oppressively then they are bastards, but I don't see what that has to do with the technology itself.

In the general sense technology is neutral by virtue of it being a mere tool.

However some individual technologies have only positive outcomes (medical advances, space travel etc) and other only negative outcomes ('smart' CCTV, DNA police databases etc). We design our tools to fit their purpose and sadly today the ruling classes do design certain technologies that will only ever benefit them. When we do DIY for example, we choose the tools we need and want. On the wider societal level, truly transformative technologies should be developed or rejected according to our needs as a society and that decision can only ever be reached via democratic accountability.

If we totally surrender that accountability and just accept all the technology that the capitalist classes develop without thought, then we all face a much more bleaker and darker future.

My issue is not with technology itself but how it is developed without any democratic accountability or insight into how it will affect society as a whole.