View Single Post
  #20  
Old 05-17-2016, 01:50 AM
thelurkinghorror thelurkinghorror is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isilder View Post
So the optography thing is totally debunked.
Which is pretty much what I said. In forensics, the only way the image of a dead person's killer could be preserved using this technique is if the killer intentionally attempted to preserve it by immediately chemically fixing the image. But as a thing that you can do, it exists in a laboratory setting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangetout View Post
I believe there have been some rather striking results from experiments attempting to measure what a subject is actively thinking about - even to the point of being able to reconstruct a vague, blobby computer-generated image of a scene the subject is thinking about 'in their mind's eye' as it were.

But that's nowhere near the same as being able to download stored memories that aren't consciously being recalled.
Covered in one of the few House episodes I've seen with very poor science where distorted "video" images are shown in real time.

For simple stimuli, there are retinotopic maps. Although the research I expect you're referring you doesn't interpret completely novel stimuli. It's more like the show you lots of objects, find out what neural patterns arise from each stimulus, and then when a random stimulus is shown, they can guess the appearance based upon which pre-known stimulus most closely correlates in neural activity.