Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If a Meta AI model can read a brain-wide signal, why wouldn't the brain?

1393.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 98 posts

Re: If a Meta AI model can read a brain-wide signal, why wouldn't the brain?

#51

Post by RobotToaster »

boomskats wrote: post #43
RobotToaster wrote: post #28

Reminds me of a study I read once on binaural beats[0], that found the effect disappeared when they used pneumatic (non-magnetic) headphones. [0]the theory that playing a different tone in each ear, that when superpositioned by the brain to produce a low frequency, would entrain the brainwave frequency to the modulated frequency.

Just the fact that your brain 'sums' those signals somewhere, to let you hear that interference frequency, has always fascinated me. Do you have a link to the pmeumatic headphones study you mention?

I did some digging, I couldn't find the paper but I found a reference to it on a wiki page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Monroe#Hemi-Sync

Re: If a Meta AI model can read a brain-wide signal, why wouldn't the brain?

#52

Post by rpastuszak »

ggm wrote: post #8

Contrast this with trans-cranial magnetic stimulation and claims this can induce the feeling of religiosity in people: you may believe in god, because your ferromagnetic particles align to believe in god in the right magnetic field.. (not really.. but still. the thing about induced states of mind by TCMS is true)

FWIW that’s debunked

Re: If a Meta AI model can read a brain-wide signal, why wouldn't the brain?

#53

Post by rithikjainNd01 »

BoxOfRain wrote: post #27
krackers wrote: post #2

Hmm this leads me to recall a bunch of ancient pseudoscientific sounding beliefs and see whether or not they might be plausibly explained by this mechanism: * Is it possible for humans to get a vague impression of other humans' thoughts via this mechanism? Not via body language, but "telepathy" (it'd obviously only work over very short ranges). If it is possible, maybe it is what some people supposedly feel as "auras…

> If it is possible, maybe it is what some people supposedly feel as "auras" For what it's worth, I have a disorder that causes me to see "auras" around people quite often. The nature of the disorder is that my brain can't filter out its own sensory noise properly, giving rise to a lot of visual artefacts that non-disordered brains filter out. These range from 'TV static' to stuff that's not a million miles away from…

Haha yes, I developed the same thing following a blackout! It was scary at first but now it doesn't bother me, sometimes can be distracting though.

Re: If a Meta AI model can read a brain-wide signal, why wouldn't the brain?

#54

Post by dijit »

bamboozled wrote: post #36
RobotToaster wrote: post #28

Reminds me of a study I read once on binaural beats[0], that found the effect disappeared when they used pneumatic (non-magnetic) headphones. [0]the theory that playing a different tone in each ear, that when superpositioned by the brain to produce a low frequency, would entrain the brainwave frequency to the modulated frequency.

Is there any actual science behind binaural beats? They do nothing in my experience…

“nothing”, how?

Nothing as in lasting effects, or “nothing” as in you can’t hear the bineurality.

If the latter, it could be your headphones- and I assume you are using headphones, or the compression, or your ears might be non-equivalent in hearing capability.

If the former, then thats the point OP is making.

At least for me, the sound is strangely pleasurable, not incredibly dissimilar to the kind of “multiple audio sources colliding into one nice stream” that you get from a real life orchestra.

Re: If a Meta AI model can read a brain-wide signal, why wouldn't the brain?

#55

Post by econ »

bamboozled wrote: post #36
RobotToaster wrote: post #28

Reminds me of a study I read once on binaural beats[0], that found the effect disappeared when they used pneumatic (non-magnetic) headphones. [0]the theory that playing a different tone in each ear, that when superpositioned by the brain to produce a low frequency, would entrain the brainwave frequency to the modulated frequency.

Is there any actual science behind binaural beats? They do nothing in my experience…

There use to be one Google video (out of many) that would completely fix my migraine in 3 minutes. Used it about 200 times for that. Hangovers, lack of sleep and spontaneous headaches. At other times it just gave great clarity, very refreshing regardless of the time of day.

I didn't use headphones. I had the link at the top of my blog menu. It was that important.

When Google video shut down I forgot to download it. Caused a slight panic lol The headaches now remind me of it but it is not the right mood to search and the videos online are all useless garbage.

I played it for a friend one time. He instantly put both hands on his head and screamed that I should shut it of immediately. He was really upset and thought I did it on purpose. Also didn't understand how I wasn't negativity affected like him.

If I didn't find that video I'd be convinced it's bullshit.

Re: If a Meta AI model can read a brain-wide signal, why wouldn't the brain?

#56

Post by IanCal »

Animats wrote: post #19
andrewflnr wrote: post #15

This feels just north of conspiracy theory logic. It's proven that humans can just barely sense large-scale magnetic fields, so how about if they can also sense extremely finely detailed fields in a way that solves long-standing philosophical and medical problems? Here are some supporting coincidences that have any number of alternate explanations, but it would sure be cool if this whole tower of conjecture was true,…

This paper starts to go downhill around "The easier-than-expected problem of consciousness". The Meta paper [1] is much more useful. They claim to be reading out what someone is seeing, in a rather approximate way. The sensing is improving. One project was able to sense magnetic fields at 13 points at 1KHZ using a custom helmet fitted with sensors.[2] The technology is still in the early stages, but they got rid of t…

This is further info because I think it’s interesting rather that any sort of correction but fMRI doesn’t quite measure blood flow - at least not directly.

Oxygenated and deoxygenated blood have slightly different magnetic properties. So the fMRI is trying to detect from that how oxygenated the blood is, with the assumption that active areas are using more oxygen which causes a small dip then blood flow increases so then there’s an increase that follows over about 5-6 seconds. I don’t know if more advanced things are used now but when I messed about with it you’d measure the change then apply a 6s linear convolution to the signal to estimate activity.

There’s an interesting set of layers of assumptions in all this, and to me the idea that the mri part works at all seems like wild magic.

Re: If a Meta AI model can read a brain-wide signal, why wouldn't the brain?

#57

Post by ggm »

rpastuszak wrote: post #52
ggm wrote: post #8

Contrast this with trans-cranial magnetic stimulation and claims this can induce the feeling of religiosity in people: you may believe in god, because your ferromagnetic particles align to believe in god in the right magnetic field.. (not really.. but still. the thing about induced states of mind by TCMS is true)

FWIW that’s debunked

Good find. Here's a paper reference: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7887692_Sensed_pres...

Re: If a Meta AI model can read a brain-wide signal, why wouldn't the brain?

#58

Post by Borrible »

This reminds me of Dr. Adrian Thompson's interesting findings from the mid-1990s on the influence of electromagnetic phenomena in evolvable hardware on FPGAs.

https://www.damninteresting.com/on-the-origin-of-circuits/

Of course, the substrate being researched back then is different from human wetware.

Re: If a Meta AI model can read a brain-wide signal, why wouldn't the brain?

#60

Post by K0balt »

baq wrote: post #50
bitwize wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When improper use of a statistical model generates bogus inferences in generative AI, we call the result a "hallucination"...

It should have been called confabulation, hallucination is not the correct analog, tech bros simply used the first word they thought of and it unfortunately stuck.

Undesirable output might be more accurate, since there is absolutely no difference in the process of creating a useful output vs a “hallucination” other than the utility of the resulting data.

I had a partially formed insight along these lines, that LLMs exist in this latent space of information that has so little external grounding. A sort of deeamspace. I wonder if embodying them in robots will anchor them to some kind of ground-truth source?

Post reply on HN