the way of the future

>>7824430
Does anyone have the paper? Still can't believe the cat sees us as big cats

>>7824438
It is from 1999, I coud not find a digital version.
But it is a legit Berkley experiment.

>>7824440
Did they comment on that big cats thing? Is it an accepted fact that I wasn't aware of?

>>7824444
Nice quads, checked.
Also as I said, I have no access to the original paper so i can't verify it.
Maybe an anon with more google skills can find a digital copy and grant us some insight.
The video is legit though, the comments are added by some anon making the webm out of a documentary on machine-brain-connections.

File: comp.jpg (21KB, 489x254px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 489x254px

The input and output video resolution is low res on purpose to minimize the neurons which have to be monitored and simpler neuron output that can be distinguished from random noise.
Wether or not the cat sees a cat face in the human face I couldn't make out of the summaries of the paper.
The output face does have a more triangle shape though.

File: u-socket_2_15a.jpg (831KB, 1447x2265px) Image search: [Google]

831KB, 1447x2265px

Our brains see human faces everywhere too, the pattern is hardwired in us.
I am not suprised by the cat having its own cat-face pattern it sees.

>>7824471
It sees the way we truly are on the inside. It sees our souls. That researcher is damned to hell. Become a Christian before it's too late to save yourself.

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/19/18/8036.full.pdf+html

File: cat.jpg (6KB, 453x241px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 453x241px

Advanced pareidolia.

>>7824440
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/10-15-1999.html

Found this. It might be there.

>>7824491
Good job anon.

>mfw my philotard high school teacher told me animals don't have intelligence
lel

>>7824438
There is a hypothesis pet cats bring dead prey back home because they never see us kill prey, so they want to make sure we don't starve to death.

>>7824518
He might be right, but only for certain specimens of homo sapiens who lack any intelligence.
Your highschool teacher for example who should have no business teaching anything to anybody.

Kitty seems bored.

>>7824430
All the cats I encounter rub themselves on me and show me their assholes, I must be a sexy as fuck cat lookin human.

>>7824521
cats are that nice?

>>7825062
>rub themselves on me
Marking you as "familiar" with their scent.

>>7825071
Of course, cats are extremely social animals, everything else is memes.

>>7824518
animals don't have intelligence. they might have awareness, but that isn't the same thing. you're not intelligence for recognizing human faces because that's a subconscious process in your neural networking. what makes you intelligence is forming a conversation, solving tasks, and so on that are outside your instincts (fixing a computer algorithm, designing an IC/engine). This cat isn't smart for having a section of its brain dedicated to processing faces as cat-like, as almost every living thing has that for a coping mechanism.

Here is the paper:
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/19/18/8036.full.pdf+html

It talks about the reconstructed images, but the word 'face' only comes up twice and it doesn't say anything about the cat percieving the human face as a cat face.

>>7825246
>animals don't have intelligence.
But you are wrong. Even birds are intelligent and can problem solve and use tools to solve novel problems.

>>7825246
Cats have a certain capacity to learn through observation, though. Far above that of a gecko at least. Clearly there's gradations of intelligence.

>>7825057
Probably mildly sedated or just wants to nap.

>>7824438
>Still can't believe the cat sees us as big cats
What if it's us that sees cats as tiny humans when they're in fact demonic killing machines?

What if us human really look immensely evil and ugly without neuronal filtering?

>>7824430
I'm glad people use my .webm

>>7824430

I wish webms had audio. It'd be great if the X-files theme played right there at the end.

>>7824430
I wonder how Latinos view other humans.

>>7825637
It's completely inaccurate and wrong though.

Read:
>>7825289

>>7825715
Nah I've wrote all explanations and provided scientific papers on /pol/ when I made the thread - cats do perceive us as bigger cats but with different behavior than their.

Everything they do to us is what they would do to other cats - it's because they're still slightly wild and not domestic - they never been trained for a specific purpose - they're just wild animals that tolerate us.

It's really no big deal - and it doesn't change anything - for long time I thought it was common sense as I first read about it in national geographic magazine as a kid.

This is the next big foot, so grainy the image could be anything you want

>>7825246
>forming a conversation, solving tasks, and so on that are outside your instincts
None of those things are outside of your instincts, though, abstract logic is a result of conditioning and your subconscious brain chemistry.

>>7825629
>What if it's us that sees cats as tiny humans when they're in fact demonic killing machines?
We actually do, the baby faced kittens, and for that matter most mammal babies, are so cute to us because they have the same facial pattern properties as human babies, which we are hardwired to response to.
And the cat does the same thing to us with their patterns.
We see them as tiny humans and interpret human emotions and motives in them, they see big cats and think we are starving because we are not hunting mice and such.

If you think about it it also applies to dogs, why would that specific animal be so well integrated into human society?
My take is that their social hierarchy system is similar to the human one, we too have a lot of different natural and cultural ranking systems in place.
So it doesn't even occur to the dog that we are a totally different species, the patterns just snap well into each other.

>>7824501
Amazing how much focus is given to the eyes of the face.
Makes sense too.
Basic facial recognition starts at the eyes, and it is so easy to make a face from the most basic figures because of the strong response to this pattern.
^^ :( =) oo ._. ** >>

>>7824430
Where is the camera that records the input images from the exact same point that matches the output neuron signals ?

>>7824471
lel. cats see human faces like cats. Maybe they just think we are huge cats

I can reconstruct a face from random noise too.
hurr durr
Ill believe it when I see the papers

>>7825918
why dont we see a human face though?

What would happen if you connected this to a dreaming cat ?

why would they use such shitty resolutions ?

>>7825923
That could actually be the cats eyes or it could be the image is taken directly from a brain.

>>7825915
Input is a video showed to the cat on a monitor.
It is a video on a loop.
Output is the signals the neurons carry, they are measured with the thing stuck onto the head.
Read the paper.

>>7825918
>I can reconstruct a face from random noise too.
OK hotshot, do it.

>>7825921
The question would be do we really see dreams with our optical processing parts or are they just manifestations in higher regions of the brain.

>>7825923
Answered in the thread, to minimize noise in the neurons and therefore less noisy output video.
Remember they can only watch 170 neurons at a time.

>>7825918
I thought I was the only one.

>>7825912
>>>
Can't see it

>>7825918
>>7825932
>Ill believe it when I see the papers
so you mean the paper that was already linked half a dozend times already?

>>7825925
imagine one the technology gets advanced enough to monitor more or even all optical nerves.
you could implant a chip to record anything you see.
or alter what you see.
would be some ghost in the shell tier stuff.
fund it.

>>7825933
Does adding a "mouth" help? >_>

File: Capture3.jpg (21KB, 333x397px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 333x397px

>>7825937
Nope, I do recognize >_< though.

1999?
why haven't there been repeat tests with
better input/output
different animals
humans for comparison
fucking makes my blood boil. How are we to take neuroscientists seriously when they can't even do their job right?

>>7825987
Weren't there some blind people who got augmented and had visual information from a camera induced into their optic nerves so they could see primitive shapes?
AFAIK the body started to build up scar tissue around the transmitters which dampened and finally stopped the signals reaching the neurons.

>>7825723
Fucking post them here, why waste time on pol

[spoiler]or at least link the archived thread[/spoiler]

File: 1kw87H8.gif (1MB, 400x308px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x308px

ITT: Y'all niggers ignoring the part where the experiment is reading the OPTIC NERVE, not the cat's BRAIN.
The images aren't the cat's interpretation of anything, it's basically a camera signal.

File: 987684.gif (470KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 200x200px

>>7826022
>yfw it's basically a camera signal
>yfw your view of the world is distorted
>yfw we are big giants cats in reality

>>7824438
>Still can't believe the cat sees us as big cats

They don't, that's just really shitty resolution and noise in the image. All the other images in the frames don't look like that.

>>7824438
4u

>>7826022
The eye does some pre-processing.

>>7826022
aah only one men who makes sense.

>>7826022
>>7826031
>>7826134

> the experiment is reading the OPTIC NERVE
but thats wrong.
the paper explicitly states they are reading from the brain.
"lateral geniculate nucleus - a part of the brain's thalamus that processes visual signals from the eye"
but I guess ignoring the paper and just shouting your opinion from first glances is easier, right?

>>7825650
Latino here. We view other humans as...tacos

>>7824478
I see caterpillar faces.

>>7826045
>>7826045
>>7826045
>>7826045
>>7826045
This.

Morons.

Am I the only one that finds this really interesting? Have their been other experiments with animals such as this?

>>7827296
Humans are animals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsjDnYxJ0bo

>>7827296
36 people minus the 3 who didn't read the paper seem to find it very interesting.

File: 00.png (312KB, 777x445px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 777x445px

>>7827309
Why is he wearing a T shirt here?

>>7825995
If I read what you said correctly, it sounds like the blind persons body protected itself against it. Do you know who did the study so I can google this more?

>>7827543
not him, but the video description explains it

>>7827546
again not him, but
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain%E2%80%93computer_interface
has a list of such experiments and mentions the scar tissue.

>>7827543
There must have been a t-shirt like that in one or more of the reference videos that they used to build the model from, if I understand how this thing works correctly.

>>7825925
>OK hotshot, do it
Its called pareidolia and it is a richly studied phenomena.

>>7824430
I want to see them feed the cat acid and then do this again.

>>7827783
>pareidolia
Not sure how you come to that conclusion, either you didn't understand the paper or you don't understand what pareidolia means.

>>7828053
Pareidolia is literally the name of the psychological phenomena where random noise is perceived as a face, so I got it from the definition of the word.

>>7828115
Exactly.
The output is not 100% random noise, it is neuron activity measured with some noise.

>>7825629
>What if it's us that sees cats as tiny humans
What kind of drug do you used to see a tiny human when you see a cat?

>>7828118
You seem quite confused, the conversation you jumped in the middle of was talking about the input being random noise, maybe you should follow reply chains before you reply so you understand the context next time.

I wonder if this is specific to the cat or is a common trait in domesticated animals by humans.
If it's the latter then you would be able to extrapolate that over to dogs as well. I wonder how we would appear to them if it is that case since they've been domesticated for a decent amount of time longer.

>>7828122
I jumped to nothing you were replying to me.
And the input is not random noise either so what are you on about.

So I found the video here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLb9EIiSyG8

It mentions the doctor is Yang Dan at Berkeley in this transcript:

>http://www.obskure.info/threads/transhumanism-transcending-humanity-by-screwing-bits-on.39/

>33:04 Dr. Yang Dan, Associate Professor of Neurobiology, University of California, Berkeley
image captured from cat brain, of movie of Indianna Jones, face cat sees is 'catlike'

Here's her faculty page that has a list of publications she's attributed to:

https://mcb.berkeley.edu/faculty/NEU/dany.html


I'm kind of tired, but I don't see a study in there about the cat faces. It could be that it was a part of a larger study in the video but I have not gone back and checked yet.

Anyone have the link to the article? I'd like to read it.

>>7828133
Like I said, you should follow the reply chain, but the conversation starts here >>7825918.
>reconstruct a face from random noise

>>7828141
Do you actually have a point or do you just repeat what you said before?
At no point in the experiment there is a pure random noise signal that you could interpret freely, the neuronal response has some noise in it due to spontaneous discharge which is normal for all kinds of brain cells.
While it would be technically possible to construct any image output from any input in any experiment by altering the signal enough in a prefixed manner, that would defeat the whole purpose of monitoring something wouldn't it and wasn't done here.

>>7825987
Totally agree with this. It is disgusting to mutilate a living creature like that without a clear set of goals to achieve. That video contributes NOTHING to the sum total of science.
Everything you said about different animals and humans in comparison, is correct, if your gonna do it, do it right and go all the way.

Dogs hate me, I have an affinity to cats, do dogs see me as a cat? if so is it smell that triggers images?
Leave experimentation on animals alone until you know where you are going - pricks!

>>7824501
>>7824438
If I'm not mistaken, output is calibrated by showing the subject many different images. The output is nothing but many of those images stacked on one another. If they show the subject many images of cats then output images will look like cats.

>>7828294
You are mistaken.
The output is not a mix of different images, it is the added up signals of exactly the same video over and over.
Also if you had bothered to even glance over the summary of the paper or read the thread you would know that they showed the cat portions of the movie Indiana Jones, not other cats.

>>7828272
How do you know where you can go with any technology until you do some basic research first?
The real applications of this tech is developing Brain-Machine-Interfaces.
The most obvious would be making blind people see again which was done in a primitive manner already.
Then you have all the things that we currently consider still a science fiction like cyborgisation.

Jesus fuck

>>7828298
>The output is not a mix of different images, it is the added up signals of exactly the same video over and over.
That's what I just said.

>>7828553
>If they show the subject many images of cats then output images will look like cats.
Do you see cats in the input video?
No other cats were in the input video.
Does Indiana Jones even feature any cats?
It does not feature any cats.

>>7828303

Transhumanists should be lined up and shot.

>"If I'm not mistaken, output is calibrated by showing the subject many different images. The output is nothing but many of those images stacked on one another. If they show the subject many images of cats then output images will look like cats"

>>output is calibrated by showing the subject many different images

>>output is nothing but many of those images stacked on one another

It is not what you just said.

>>7828560
What a meaningful contribution to the thread, well done anon.

>>7828559
I didn't watch the video. I just know how the experiment works. I read about this experiment years ago.

Assuming that looking at humans consistently produces feline features in the output image relative to what a human would see in the same experiment (which isn't so clear since the output image is too fuzzy) then I suppose cats preferentially pick up on feline features. It reminds me of the Mass Effect 3 scene where the human, the salarian, and the turian all say that asari look like their own respective species. The human focusses on the face, the salarian on the skin, and the turian on the cartilaginous cranial ridge things.

>>7824430
I remember they did this with MRI data of humans as well, where they used machine learning to match patterns of fMRI activity to hundreds or thousands of videos during the training phase and then recreated the image presented to the subject, which would then look as a composite image of the various training videos presented.

This seems very different, though. I'd be interested in knowing where the electrodes are positioned. If it's in the visual cortex and these are truly just action potentials the image should be far more distorted.

>>7828595
see
>>7824491

Electrodes are in the lateral geniculate nucleus, a part of the brain's thalamus.

>match patterns of fMRI activity
There is no pattern matching done by the science team, they are not comparing the unknown response to a known pattern.
They are just adding up the discharges of the neurons in the thalamus and see what images emerge.
This is a very different, more crude but also more impressive process.

>>7826320
Why didn't they do one comparing optic nerve and brain simultaneously

>>7827555
Oh okay, so I did misunderstand. I thought it was building scar tissue against the new sight signals, not because there's just an object poking in the brain. Cheers for the read

>>7825641
That literally was the music playing in my head when the video paused at the end.

>>7828682
what for, the optic nerve would show a distorted input image without much processing done on it.
it is basically just a cable from the retina to the brain.
the interesting work starts when the signals reach the pattern recognition parts of the brain.

i wish i hadnt seen this

i am thoroughly spooked out

>>7830966
Why does this spook you?

File: 219.jpg (57KB, 1046x372px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1046x372px

This

>>7824430
Amazing

>>7825935
>1984

>>7830720
Retina actually does some processing before image goes into the optic nerve.

What if the device merely shows the camera's image twice, right one filtered so that it will look bad?

Has anyone been capable to replicate this experiement?

>>7826045
/thread

>>7831452
>did a peer reviewed paper from the University of Berkeley cheat and nobody noticed?

>>7831452
googled a bit, there have been several similar experiments.
the scarring seems to be the big problem of applying this for prolonged times.
seems like pharmaceutical research has to be done first to progress this further.

>>7824430

>nobody comments on the fact that there's Big Boss Snake for input.

I for one welcome our new cat overlords.

>>7824430
I guess a lot of you didn't noticed how that cat face frame was added just a frame before pausing it.

>>7830966
Same here bro

>>7832591
>before pausing it
>it is a webm of a the source, both of which anybody can pause at any time
>I don't or don't want to understand a thing therefore I make up excuses how it fits into my narrow world view
agreed anon and the moon landings were fake because there are no stars on the pictures, right.

>>7824430
That's creepy as fuck, I refuse to believe it's real.

>>7832813
it is a real video of a real study of a real neuronal response from inside a real cat.
see >>7824491

>That's creepy as fuck, I refuse to believe it's real.
>>>/x/
>>>/religion/

>>7832818
Except its not a real neuronal response its a computer generated image based on the interpretation of only 170 neurons.

>>7832830
what kind of argument is that, do you mistrust your doctor when he gives you an electrocardiography too?
thats a computer generated graph based on the interpretation of signals from even less neurons.
your "argument" could be used to doubt 99% of neurobiology and neurology.

>>7832833
>electrocardiography
That doesn't target individual neurons, it gets an average electrical activity over a certain area and there isn't a bunch of additional processing and filtering algorithms to reconstruct a visual picture, its just signal amplitudes that give an estimate of the heartbeat that is much better than if he just felt for it himself.

I am not doubting the science, I am doubting your interpretation of what the picture is because if if was the real neural response it would show 170 graphs of signal pulses, not a reconstructed video.

>>7832849
>That doesn't target individual neurons, it gets an average electrical activity over a certain area and there isn't a bunch of additional processing and filtering algorithms to reconstruct a visual picture, its just signal amplitudes that give an estimate of the heartbeat that is much better than if he just felt for it himself.
and what ultimately causes the electrical activity that the computer captures to give you graph?
the sinoatrial node of the heart which is just a tiny lump of neurons.
from there the signal is progressed, relayed and shaped even more until it over a lot of steps causes the electrical differences in the skin as a side effect that are measured by the device and show you the graphs.

>if was the real neural response it would show 170 graphs of signal pulses, not a reconstructed video.
an image is the visual representation, not interpretation, of the data, so what would change if instead of giving you a video they would show you the bits the gathered data consists of?
are you reading this text from pixels on your screen or is your computer reading out 0 and 1 to you, and would that make things more real?

>>7825246
My cat learned that when the trees move he can smell things from far away.

He wasn't intelligent enough to know the air currents were carrying smells and moving the trees, but he was intelligent enough to sniff whenever the trees moved outside.

>>7832870
>and what ultimately causes the electrical activity that the computer captures to give you graph?
The design of the sensors provided the signal, the ECG does not measure the sinoatrial node, it has 12 leads spread across the limbs and body that is filtered and graphed as a simple electrical signal, the sinoatrial node consists of entire cells, nerves, and tissue and is much more than just neurons. If my doctor handed me a 3D image of my heart and said it the real signal straight from the ECG, I would be skeptical about his competence.

>would that make things more real?
Actually observing what you have to say instead of interpreting a transmitted virtualization.

>>7832880
My cat is intelligent enough to tap my phone, I have no other explanation how he knows to hide on the day of the vet appointment.

Seriously though >>7824430 makes sense to me and I assumed this as given, I mean we humans see our face in some hill on Mars why would animals work differently.

>>7824430
am i the only one who got spooked as fucking shit by this?

>>7832885
would you believe the 3D image if it was measured by an ultrasound device instead?
that too is nothing else than the visual representation of data which started as a lot of raw signals of the device reading-head which were interpreted in the device microprocessor.
the right tool for the right job.

>>7832910
I would believe it was ultrasonic reflections they measured which actually does include depth information, but I wouldn't call it a real picture of my actual insides, for that you would need an endoscope.

>>7824430
>>7824440
>the way of the future
>17 years ago

File: 1446528812538.jpg (404KB, 1200x1131px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 1200x1131px

>>7832918
>wouldn't call it a real picture of my actual insides, for that you would need an endoscope.
in a strict sense this is not the real Saturn's north pole but an image of the real Saturn's north pole.
so you are arguing the semantics of the word "real"?

File: 1431889115476.jpg (175KB, 875x700px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 875x700px

>>7832923
The tech could be used to augment humans in the future.
Cyberpunk dystopia fans will have a blast.

>>7832925
Most of the images NASA releases are heavily modified and aren't real, they shift other wavelengths of energy into various colors on the visual spectrum to make it appealing rather than accurate, such that it is an artistic interpretation rather than a direct real transcription.

>>7832934
>Most of the images NASA releases are heavily modified
agreed.
>aren't real
semantics, as they show real objects.

let's take a step back, how can you be sure what you see with your own eyes is real?
after all your brain is merely interpreting electric signals from your optical nerves.
can you say for sure that anything you see is real?
could it be possible that you are a brain in a jar hooked to a computer?

>>7832938
You are the one making statements about what is absolutely real and how that cat face is absolutely really a direct measurement just to scare some random anxious guy, so the burden of proof is on you, pal, you can't just go to your next jarred brain scare tactic when you fail to conclusive demonstrate your way more believable, but still fatally flawed cat face fear mongering.

>>7832949
>making statements about what is absolutely real
you started with arguing that, not me.
>just to scare some random anxious guy.
that is a weird accusation.
>burden of proof
the burden of proof is on whoever wants to come to a scientific conclusion, if you want to ignore things based on whether they spook you or not that's your loss.
>fail to conclusive demonstrate your way more believable
in your view maybe, i think i presented my points well and you haven't really answered any of them to a conclusion either other than to say no.
>fatally flawed cat face fear mongering
made me chuckle, nice one.

i see we have reached an impasse.
have a good day.

>>7832938
>>7832934

This. A lot of the interesting to look at "huh science" pictures would probably be virtually incomprehensible without a heavy dose of signal processing. Saying that these images are less "real" is about as insightful as saying that post processed music isn't "real".

File: pf.png (105KB, 496x268px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 496x268px

>>7824430

I call bullshit, they stopped it on a frame that purposely looks blurred then suggests that it is a cat face, and voila the human brain fills in the rest of the blurred pattern with said cat face.

why didn't the video pause on this frame, oooh look you guys instead of humans cats see ghouls. spoopy.

go back to /x/ saying that NASA is leaking photos of aliens on mars.

>>7832972
Even in this blurred version the output face is more a upside down triangle than an ellipse as in the input one.

>>7832972
still looks like a cat to me :3

>>7832964
Was this not you >>7832818 determining what is or is not real for someone else >>7832813 just to keep creeping them out and troll anyone who disagrees using more inaccurate metaphors?

Do you still think it was a video of a real neuronal response?

>>7832930
Honestly why wouldn't you just put transplant the brain into a robit body at that point? so much easier to maintain.

>>7832999
Nice trips, checked.
The brain is not really a stand-alone organism, there are a gorillion nerves and stem parts throughout the body, mostly in the spine, that not just transfer but also process information.
For example the famous knee-jerk reflex is not caused in the brain.
Separating and transplanting this mess is probably a lot harder than having interfaces directly implanted and connected.

>>7824430
This was already an established fact.

>>7832925
Let's say there exists some quality "real", which we have not yet defined.

I think he means that one image is more "real" than another if it more closely resembles what he would see were he looking from the perspective of the observer that produced the image.

>>7824430
what has science done?!

>>7824430
:3

>>7824430
>Uncanny_valley.webm
Spooky, although any cat owner more or less knew this since the dawn of time.

>>7824430
Humans do this too. I have trouble remembering peoples' faces. Often more than not I can't remember them even if I know them well.

>>7832930
have you ever had that feeling where you don't know if you're awake or still dreaming?

>>7835311
I had a wet fart once and didn't know if I shit myself or not, turned out the inside of my asshole was filled with wet turds, but I didn't get a single drop of it on my cloths.

this says nothing about the cats intelligence. Get that pussy to solve a triple integral, then I might entertain the notion of feline intelligence.

>>7835341
>thinks triple integrals are hard

>>7835549
>is a newfag

>>7835549
If triple integrals don't make you hard, you don't belong.

>>7835599
>>7835614
How is high school?

>>7835620
We keep getting older, they stay the same age.

Truly I have become cat God

File: adamsavage.jpg (8KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 480x360px

>>7827543
the reconstructed image is adam savage for sure.

>>7835549
Triple integrals are extremely hard

>>7836012
For plebs maybe.

>>7827543
>>7835951
kek

as expected from biologists and computer "scientists"

>>7835620
>>7835549
so new it hurts

>>7825836
This is a great post that nobody acknowledged

>>7828140
>the original video
Thanks

File: rocket kitty 2.jpg (352KB, 1200x819px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 1200x819px

militarized remote controlled kitty soldiers and assassins when?
think about it, they are the sneakiest killers known to man.
and adorable too so nobody would stop them.

File: 1446946871226.jpg (41KB, 620x529px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 620x529px

>>7836653
Like this?

>>7824478
Not proven to be wired, it's the fusiform gyrus and is also active when expert birdwatcher are looking at birds as well as normal people.

>>7825246
Haha what a madman

>>7837617
>also active when expert birdwatcher are looking at birds as well as normal people.
elaborate, because I understood that as the region is always active when matching patterns, how do you distinguish between born and learned activity?

>>7824478
Nice theory, but I don't see human faces when I look at cats.

File: 1454584513506.png (70KB, 496x268px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 496x268px

>>7832972
meow

File: BeCwA6bCIAAJZzf.jpg (121KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1024x768px

What do you see, /sci/?

>>7832972
this
end of thread.

>>7838471
Your face.

File: 1454584513506.png (88KB, 496x268px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 496x268px

>>7832972

File: desktop.png (9KB, 705x106px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 705x106px

>>7824430
I have to confess something - I am the creator of the .webm and I'm very high - the cat sees us as human part I added myself because I thought it looked like it.

I took the scene from the old documentary TechnoCalyps - Watch it now if you haven't.


I confessed this to point out that discussion on the subject were pointless.

Made it for pol red-pill thread.

Btw I am very smashed - I'm not an avid weed smoker and today I smoked high quality hash.

>>7838816
Omg nice meme. Going to save it with the context and time stamp.

Your genius must no pass down.

>>7838862
thx

>>7827309
>>7827543

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FsH7RK1S2E

File: 1453897396888.jpg (69KB, 500x669px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 500x669px

Wouldn't you be perceiving the output on the screen through your own human perception, and thus it's probably not what the cat is actually perceiving? We perceive our brains (and their cat brains) through our own brains, after all. But it's not really that simple though, as what we call "consciousness" may have a far more complicated answer than simply "muh brain".

Also, iirc they have already done this thing with humans, and the traduction looks just as shitty.

>>7839248
>they have already done this thing with humans
they stuck 170 metal needles into somebodies brain which causes scarring and irreparable damage?
please do give us a link or name of the paper, that is badass.

>>7838857
are you so high you forgot the original source mentions the human face and even if you are the creator of the webm you added nothing new?
420 lmao dude weed, right.

>>7839456
>they stuck 170 metal needles into somebodies brain which causes scarring and irreparable damage?
please do give us a link or name of the paper, that is badass.

No, you sarcastic faggot. I meant the traduction part represented on the screen. I have no idea of what methods they use or if it's different in other cases.

>>7839479
in humans they usually use MRI and similar non-intrusive scanning methods to build a database of how certain patterns trigger different responses in the brain.
then when the subject is shown a new video, the machine can guess what the object shown is by comparing the response to its database.
you can't reconstruct the exact same picture out of this, only a guess on what the human is seeing.

see
>>7827309

this is a vastly different process as it does not directly tap into the brain signals.

>>7839456
Original source does not state that, no where the scientists said anything about it, no where in the scientific paper it is mentioned about the cat - it's just the journalist for the documentary opinion about it - just like other people in this thread think they saw a cat face there but it's totally not indicated by the scientific observation and analysis of many tapes.

Just pointing out that people arguing on the idea of the thread are arguing on popular opinion among unscientific people and not based on any scientific observation.

>>7824430
oh my god that's fucking creepy

>>7839771
>Original source
i ment the source of the webm, the documentary, which mentions the human face.
i showed the muted youtube video to some people, they saw the human face too without anybody telling them about it beforehand.

>Just pointing out that people arguing on the idea of the thread are arguing on popular opinion among unscientific people and not based on any scientific observation.

yes that is what /sci/ about, and for that matter most of internet discussions.
we are not a research group peer reviewing a paper, we are anons posting our opinions.

>>7832938
>brain in a jar hooked to a computer?

Speaking of which, what would it take for computers to become 1000 times for powerful on a hardware level

For example, from a 4GHz CPU to whatever would provide computing equivalent to a 4THz CPU, occupying roughly the same size (ie, no racks of supercomputers)

Would integrated circuits ever be possible of doing this? Would a new paradigm or materials be needed?

File: cat-computer-lolworm.jpg (60KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 960x640px

>>7825097
>Of course, cats are extremely social animals, everything else is memes.

File: dog on computer.jpg (206KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1600x1067px

>>7840781
>

>>7838471
looks like an anus tbchwyf

>>7825836
this is a good post

>>7825641
On /gif/ they do

File: future shitting.gif (2MB, 321x345px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 321x345px

The way of the future.

File: curious kitten.webm (2MB, 852x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 852x480px

>>7841772
>The way of the future.
>.gif
>2MB for a handful of low res pictures with tons of compression artifacts
Nice try.

spooky

>>7825629
>What if us human really look immensely evil and ugly without neuronal filtering?
We do, this is why you shouldn't look into the mirror when doing LSD.
The cognitive dissonance lets you see your face without the myriads of associated subconscious reactions.
Basically your sober brain knows it is your face, just as your brain knows it is your hand when you try to tickle yourself.
Cut that middleman out and shit gets weird and spooky fast.

>>7832894
but we don't see cat faces as human faces

File: grumpy-cat-still-hates-everyone-at-south-by-southwest[1].png (410KB, 615x462px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 615x462px

>>7845386
yes you do

>>7824430
That's pretty spooky desu

>>7824521
that's retarded
cats dont have such complex thoughts, they just act according to their instincts

>>7846223
>your unproven POV is false because of my unproven POV
>but my POV sounds better to me, other POVs are retarded

that is not how debate works.

>>7846325
You are the one making the assumption that cats are able ot complex thoughts, so the burden of proof lies with you

>>7846347
>You are the one making the assumption
and you have hard evidence for your assumption they are not?

>>7846362
My position is the basic one: assume as little intelligence as necessary. Everything else requires proof

>>7846371
you take your unproven position, claim it is the standard/basic despite the absence of any data and absence of research pointing in any direction.
then you somehow assume it to be simpler, despite proving either position would have extreme consequences.

a classic example of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

that's why I told you that is not how debate is done.

>>7846403
God exists!
Prove me wrong

>>7846415
there is no data indicating a god existing.
there is no data disproving a god.
therefore any assumption on whether or not god exists are just that, assumptions, never proofs.
did you understand it now?

>>7846426
So you are saying that the assumptions "God exists" and "God doesnt exists" are equally valid?

>>7846426
Not him, but that really depends on how you define "god" and "exist".

>>7846433
no, they are equally invalid and cannot be used to make arguments based on either.
any argument based on an assumption is just as invalid and so on.
notice invalid does not mean disproven.

>>7846438
that would go beyond the scope of this simple example and should be done on >>>/his/, there are half a dozen threads with this question most of the time.