What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
The camera starts rolling on Best Buy holiday campaign. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - A behind the scenes look at one employee's singing debut.
88 Comments
- GalOnDigg, on 01/05/2009, -7/+39And yet these neuroscientists will never know what women want.
- flossdaily, on 01/05/2009, -2/+19As a neuroscientist, I can tell you exactly what women want:
A man with a large penis and an even larger bank account.
And actually they only want the man because it's attached to the penis. - flossdaily, on 01/05/2009, -4/+21"Doctor, the porn center of his brain is showing readings that are off the chart!"
-"Yes, I see... and his reaction to LOLcats is abnormally high."
"Oh, and this is interesting... whenever we show him a picture of Ron Paul he has an orgasm." - inactive, on 01/05/2009, -1/+17I work in a neuropsychology lab. This is hardly mind reading. If you notice the computer gets to guess between two objects, usually either a dwelling or a tool. When you think of a dwelling, blood travels to different parts of your brain than when you think of a tool. That simple. Those two categories are among the easiest categories to detect through fmri (also faces is really easy). There is no way the computer could figure out what kind of dwelling or what kind of tool through fmri. The implications of the technology are extremely simple and limited. This technology has existed for many years, and it's honestly not that interesting, because it really has no potential of ever discriminating between things other than simplistic categories. Sorry to burst your bubble but finer discriminations within brain scanning devices probably wont be available for at least another 50 years. That is how little we know about the brain. It is no big deal that we can detect blood changes in the brain and then make general inferences from it. So stop pissing your pants!
- inactive, on 01/05/2009, -2/+17that's because women are confused about their own wants
- inactive, on 01/05/2009, -1/+15From the comments on the video page:
"Thank you for doing this report. I am one of those who the government is using this technology on remotely without my consent. When I began to expose this, they used the technology to torture me neurologically and physically remotely. Their capabilities are far beyond this report; they access the brain to implant thoughts, and visions, and to deliver their repetitive mind control statements. Anyone subject to this obscene technology will actually hear their voices as they repeat whay you''re thinking, what you are going to do next, what room you''re in, etc. The technology is obscene and should be banned. May God bless you for doing this report."
That is... absolute comment gold. - wheremyarm, on 01/05/2009, -1/+14Cool technology, but this piece was full of unnecessary fluff.
When the woman is put in the scanner, the computer got to choose between two choices, and not the full 10, so it had a 50/50 chance right off the bat. To give it even better odds, it only had to guess between two different categories, dwelling or tool, so it could have just been guessing on that the whole time. Does it have a lower success rate when identifying what the person was thinking about with all 10 choices? What is the rate of success? These are things I'd be interested in knowing even if it wasn't 100%, they didn't need to dumb it down by skewing the results to make it appear more amazing. - BossKey, on 01/05/2009, -1/+12I see what you thought there
- Chris_F, on 01/05/2009, -0/+9Women want to be miserable, an it's their goal to make other miserable as well.
- quato, on 01/05/2009, -2/+11I saw this story tonight and the Guy was talking about this technology being applicable in 5 years. Does a persons thoughts fall under the self incrimination clause or will they be able to be harvested for evidence like DNA or blood? Scary *****.
- inobla, on 01/05/2009, -1/+9Divide by zero!
- Plotinus, on 01/05/2009, -0/+8Thought crime.
- inactive, on 01/05/2009, -1/+8The tin hat wearers are laughing so hard I can hear them over the distance.
- Sublex, on 01/05/2009, -2/+9Science: 1
Sylvia Brown: 0 (should really be negative, considering all her misses) - flossdaily, on 01/05/2009, -1/+7I *KNEW* you were listening!
- mark076h, on 01/05/2009, -5/+11Imagine the Mind of a Digger....... would you even want to know?
- Chris_F, on 01/05/2009, -1/+7The brain activity in the internet meme center of his brain is... IT'S OVER 9000!!!
- Turbosc, on 01/05/2009, -2/+7partially cool, partially scary.
- DiscoUnderpants, on 01/05/2009, -0/+5Minority Report?
- DanBoodro, on 01/05/2009, -0/+5I would also like to see the results of such a test. The technology is obviously within reach and no longer limited to muscle impulses from the brain as somewhat is to the consumer market. The one thing that scares me about this is we end up in a situation where the government abuses this technology and this country turns into a Minority Report type deal, where murderous intentions are discovered and people are tossed away to a prison of sorts without so much as a trial. This technology needs to be kept within the scientific community for as long as needed and used responsibly only with the approval of humans.
BTW: It would be very interesting to see how it tests with animals. - quarkde, on 01/05/2009, -0/+5Related: http://digg.com/general_sciences/Scientists_extrac ...
The future is looking bright; think of how this will help in diagnosing patients :) - seltaeb4, on 01/05/2009, -1/+5I knew all of you were going to post here.
- AboveandBeyond, on 01/05/2009, -0/+4I can't wait until we can write stuff into our brainz.
- Zervaman, on 01/05/2009, -1/+4I plead the fif!
I plead the fif!
One, two, three, four, FIF! - billricardi, on 01/05/2009, -0/+3What Mr. scientist said: "Maybe I've had a bad experience with a hammer..."
Where I was afraid it was going: "And maybe you've had a good experience with a hammer. Maybe you've had a VERY good experience with a hammer."
He didn't say it. But he probably thought it! The computer knows. Those dirty, dirty scientists. - GlassAgate, on 01/05/2009, -1/+4It'll be cool when these kind of technologies can be used
to unlock what's going on in the minds of people who
can't express themselves vocally, at least using words
that the common person understands. I'm referring to,
just citing one example, a person suffering from cerebral
palsy. - inactive, on 01/05/2009, -1/+3If you read a person's mind and they were thinking about Metallica, the RIAA will now come after you for unauthorized copying.
- kidwithsword, on 01/05/2009, -0/+2The marketing part reminds me of that movie in which ads scan your eyes and know your name and what you are interested in and so on. What was that movie called?
- inactive, on 01/05/2009, -0/+2Maybe Scientology will pick this one up.
- DarkprinceArmon, on 01/05/2009, -0/+2What was funny to me about this story was how many of the scientist tried to use the fear / security tactic to sell the idea. Things like mentioning that they could use it to interrogate a terrorist, or find out if a person had been in a Al Queada training camp. I though that was just campy and plain unnecessary. We all know the technology is going to go to the commercial enterprise to find out what products to push out on us. Soon in the far distant future we'll have to have "do not read my mind" clauses against political and commercial enterprises.
- inactive, on 01/05/2009, -1/+3You can't....oh
- mehan, on 01/05/2009, -0/+2FI-ZIF!
- kd1s, on 01/05/2009, -0/+2Kurzweil predicted this a couple years back. In both his 2005 "The Singularity is Near" and "The Age of Intelligent Machines" he says that we'll be able both read and download human though in the near future.
I should also mention, did you catch the segment where they sat down at the computer and told it what was right and wrong? That's a bayesian learning algorithm. - hoist0that0rag, on 01/05/2009, -0/+2you don't even know what you want. how are we supposed to?
- robdiggity, on 01/05/2009, -0/+2But then wouldn't you also require the approval of monkeys?
- Darkyuubi, on 01/05/2009, -0/+2Oh good...now men can have a chance =]
- ctpmn, on 01/05/2009, -0/+2Gerry, I think you forgot to take your medicine again!
- trucanadian, on 01/06/2009, -0/+1Wow that's amazing. What a breakthrough.
- Devilboy666, on 01/06/2009, -0/+1fourth
- kimoftheworld, on 04/14/2009, -0/+1You expected it would?
http://readingspeedcourse.com/ - mwmccullough, on 01/05/2009, -0/+1Dr. Novella, please enlighten with the accuracy of this story!
- Anonymerican, on 01/08/2009, -0/+1As long as they implant the understanding of using the Three Shells...
- theOguy, on 01/06/2009, -0/+1Screw them, I'll get a protective screen embedded under my scalp.... better yet, something that transmits a pseudo brain pattern so as not to arouse suspicion.
http://www.desktopwallpaper.org/images/wallpapers/ ... - kidwithsword, on 01/06/2009, -0/+1Nah. The main character gets his eyes replaced so that the eye scanners think he is someone else.
- slapthemonkey, on 01/06/2009, -0/+1Does this sound credible?
- inactive, on 01/06/2009, -0/+11) I suppose you're right that it should be considered mind reading, even if at a very general level. I was trying to reiterate the fact that they were wildly exaggerating about the potential.
2)FMRI might improve in the future, it probably will. However, the inherent problem is in the way that the brain works. Different parts of our brain are used to recognize different things. When we utilize these areas, blood flow to them increases. FMRI can detect the increased oxygen levels in the brain, and deduce that increased oxygen means increased blood which means increased activity. Detecting an increase in blood will never be enough to allow us to discriminate between objects in the categories BECAUSE no matter what the object, a similar amount of blood flow is necessary.
3) The only way to detect what objects are being thought about would be to analyze the patterns of neuronal firing (which is how the brain recognizes objects). This is certainly possible, but ask any neuroscientist and they will tell you how amazingly complex this proposition is. We are no where near discovering how that process works. And once we are, a lot more than mind reading will be possible. Real Artificial Intelligence will exist.
4)I'm sorry for sounding pessimistic, it's just that the media always tries to get people riled up about the "Cool" side of neuroscience, when it is in fact, very very far away. - FeloniusMonkey, on 01/06/2009, -0/+1"We make holes in teeth.. we make holes in teeth."
- buttle, on 01/05/2009, -0/+1this is bs. he's just looking at pictures of brain activity, looking for a formula. he's certainly trying, but he's no where close to being able to read minds.
- sockpuppets, on 01/05/2009, -3/+4Uh, hello, you are a digger. You don't know what's in your own mind?
-
Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 