Stop lion

The problem with dreams is that they are often very abstract and your brain is using it's magic human-powers to fill in the gaps with something that is less SEEN and more IMAGINED.

Once, I had a dream that I started waking up from, and all at once I perceived that the world I was in was REALLY shitty. Like, a kindergartener's crayon, stick-figure drawings of a house and people and some trees. Seriously, THAT is what you "see" (literally what is projected on your visual cortex) when you dream, your imagination does the rest. Not to mention it pays no attention to physics, gravity, logic, or color theory.

Human visual memory is largely the same (for normals, I haven't studied those with eidetic memory). You don't remember THINGS; you don't remember actually seeing the plate of spaghetti you ate last night. What is going on is you remember that you ate spaghetti last night, and your procedural memory of what a plate of spaghetti tends to look like is being constructed in your mind and combined with the other parts of the memory. It's more of a list of disjointed sentences describing what happened, than a clear logical videotape.

So if they ever found a way to "film" a person's dreams, all you would get is a bizzare mish-mash of abstract stuff that's probably not very well relatable to reality, much less cogent. Kinda like what you would see if you looked at Picasso while on acid.

>>3775
>So if they ever found a way to "film" a person's dreams, all you would get is a bizzare mish-mash of abstract stuff that's probably not very well relatable to reality, much less cogent. Kinda like what you would see if you looked at Picasso while on acid.
If they're filiming them "live," sure. But if they're filming the human's memories of his dreams...

>>3776
thing is that their example is run through the visual cortex through image processes. Dreams are(n't processed through the visual center of the brain. Take one of my favorites Me Mark Twain and Huck Finn hunting zombies along the Mississippi. They come up out of the ground and they get smacked with shovels or picked off at range with a Winchester then it ending with almost getting to second with some strange women (its one of my escape triggers) . Its nothing I've ever "seen" but I remember it. How would that translate into image without the visual triggers.

>>3777
Dreams, and imagination for that matter, are largely based on memories of similar experiences cobbled together into a new scene. The current technology they're using might not be able to access that particular area, but I wouldn't be surprised if advancements in the tech would make it possible without having to do a ground-up rewrite.

>measure domain activity during extended exposure to movie trailers
>compile 18,000,000 images of topographic similarity

>"we can see into the brain's imaging!"

>Eventually, this process will allow you to record and reconstruct your own dreams on a computer screen.

My God.

>>3787
And thus began the era of incriminating illegal thoughts.

>>3788
One count of Virtual Assault

Three of Sodomy

and one of illegal use of a rubber chicken (its part of the assault charge)

That's cool as hell.

>>3789
>and one of illegal use of a rubber chicken
You'll never get that to stand up in court! Where's your evidence!?

I'm with Ninja. It isn't as awesome as we're initially led to believe. Taking existing images to composite existing movies being watched by a person seems pretty rudimentary. This kind of tech is going to need another 50-100 years, minimum, before we've got machunes that can translate dreams and memories into actual usable images.

Anyway, lying in a giant fMRI tube for extended periods of time sounds like zero fun.

I remember a lecture at the Mayo thirteen years ago of two british scientists who did something similar. It seemed so amazing back then that they could pull shady black and white images out of dead brain tissue, the older guy mentioned he wouldn't be surprised if people it for magic.

It's amazing the advancements we've made in a decade, imagine what we'll be able to do in 2020? Full resolution? And by 2050?

>two british scientists who did something similar ... they could pull shady black and white images out of dead brain tissue
>dead brain tissue


Yeah... I don't think so.

>>3799
I saw a fascinating documentary about a stodgy American secret agent in the Reconstruction Era who could display the last image a person saw just by shining a light through their skull.

It also featured an amputee scientist who devised a giant mechanical spider.

>>3800

When I'm very rich, someday, I am going to freaking build this thing. Not so HUGE, but maybe... I dunno... ten feet tall? Large enough to demolish a house and scare the fuck out of the neighbors.

>>3801
You know if you just get a real one it'll scare them so much they'll burn their own house down.

>>3799
Dead brain still has the same neuron arrangement as living brain
Fire charge through it and get a picture on the other end

>>3847

Dead brain starts to rot instantly.

>>3847
Dead brain is dead.

How are we defining a "dead" brain? Like persistent 0% neural activity or what?

Because the brain does indeed remain active after a person can be declared dead...

>>3859

The way the initial thing was worded was "dead brain tissue", which seemed to me to indicate a slice of brain matter from a cadaver that had been preserved in formaldehyde or something.

My point was that after death, there are chemical changes in all body tissues that pretty much turn a delicate structure like the brain into swiss-cheese fairly quickly. You'd need some kind of handwavium sci-fi technology to preserve it in a perfect state once the body is dead.

Of course, this will all be moot in a couple more decades (or thereabouts) when we will be able to scan someone's entire brain and recreate it in a supercomputer neuron-by-neuron.

>>3861

>couple of decades

Uh. We're nowhere near understanding anything about how the brain works to create what is thought of as the "mind," so I feel that estimate needs to be bumped up by some factor of "a lot longer."

the picture is not gonna get less blurry, as the human brain most occupation is posting concept around the already available pictures from our eyes. picture memory is very bad for the brain. when you remember someone, you don't see a picture popping in front of your brain-eyes. you list a series of feature and match them to recognize the persons.

>>3938
There's got to be some sort of decent picture memory, because people can draw complex, even lifelike stuff without having models in front of them--and the imagination gets its cues from memory. So somewhere in there is a fairly complete recollection of what that thing should look like.

>>3940

There's evidence for and against pretty much every kind of memory model out there.

I'll also grant that it could just be the instructions necessary to derive what the face should look like if fully defined, but if the brain has the power to derive what the face should look like based on the focal points it does store, it should be possible to combine the procedure the brain uses to reconstruct a face with the hazier memories used to recollect a face, for example. Basically do the same thing that dreams do--use a snippet of memory and allow the brain to build the rest of the scenario to fit that memory.

>>3940
nope. the first thing you learn when trying to improve your art, is that a face follows tons and tons of rules, tied to maths and biology.
"ignorant" people have the very basis in mind, aka stick figures. the rest is just a more or less detailed set of data that will guide you when drawing. those data aren't pictures. it's shit like "eyes are in the middle of a circle that contain the skull", or "humans have 5 fingers in each hands"