Brain Scanner Can Read People's Intentions 338
Vainglorious Coward writes "Reality continues to catch up with Nineteen Eighty-Four with the announcement of the development of a brain scanner that can read a person's intentions. 'It's like shining a torch around, looking for writing on a wall,' said the leader of the project, Professor John-Dylan Haynes . Demonstrating his own mastery of doublethink, Haynes continued 'We see the danger that this might become compulsory one day, but we have to be aware that if we prohibit it, we are also denying people who aren't going to commit any crime the possibility of proving their innocence.'"
Pfft. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pfft. (Score:5, Funny)
*disappears in a puff of logic*
You forgot the analog hole. (Score:2)
You brain's all analog. DRM doesn't apply.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Synapse firing is a simplified approximation of the passing of chemical signals from one cell to another. All cells throughout the body continually emit and absorb various signaling molecules (lymphokines, chemokines, cytokines, to name three classes). Taken as a whole this can be called the language of cells (a particular interest of mine [slashdot.org]). There are many different chemicals involved in synapse firing, and not all (or even the same set) of them are used all the time. Think of brain s
Minority Report and other Sci-Fi (Score:5, Interesting)
As for interrogating people I guess it would not so much be their intentions as if whether they are telling the truth or not that is interesting.
A scanning would probably take quite some time and involve people being questioned at the same time.
Of course there are big ethical questions in this, I guess the anti-terror people in CIA and FBI would be quite interested in getting their hands on this technique, that is if they don't already use it.
One scary place this could be used was to check religious beliefs, in some countries you are prohibited to believe anything else than what the state dictates.
The intention part would also efficiently could be used for directing different robotics, as for example a fighter plane, which I seem to recall they have been working with something like this for the pilots for quite some time, to save the reaction time from the hand brain to pushing the button or whatever. I do remember some sci-fi movie about this at some point, but it is about to become reality also it seems.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
But then Mr. Eastwood would have missed out on the Oscar nomination for Million Dollar Baby and we would have missed out on such great films as Bird, Mystic River, High Plains Drifter, Outlaw Josey Wales, Play Misty for Me, Flags of Our Father, and Sands of Iwo Jima.
There is a serious argument for saying Eastwood is one of the greatest living American directors with Scorcese and Coppola. Certainly, hi
Re: Minority Report and other Sci-Fi (Score:4, Informative)
To clarify: Orson Wells made a little film about a newspaper publisher that some consider the greatest movie ever made. The film is "Citizen Kane". Wells directed, helped write, and acted in the film.
... but equally OT: (Score:2, Funny)
Now why does that remind me of the old joke about how to make a blonde's eyes light up?
[You shine a torch in her ears.]
Re: (Score:2)
The likely future for this (Score:4, Insightful)
I really look forward to seeing the results of this machine tested on clinically defined sociopaths, psychotics, and delusionals who will no doubt prove the machine incapable of accurate results on them. Once those with mental illness disprove it, most mental health spokesmen will be denouncing the technology because they believe almost all humans have varied degrees of these illnesses already.
Briefly about MR: I think there's another large separation here. Actually, a couple. First, Minority Report was only about preventing murder and rape. All other crime was untouched (and even rising). Another distinction is that Minority Report assumes the lack of lawyers and a courtroom, which might be more justified considering their technique relies on psychics, which are theoretically (in cinema) more accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to the other kind?
Sure, Scientists Offered Cash to Dispute Climate Study [slashdot.org] for example :)
There's real science and there's pop science. You can be certain that this tech will inspire boatloads of pop-sci for a while, especially when this will surely be used to (re-)prove what males want from females. Eventually there are going to be some people who do something useful and valid with this.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, what would happen if it turned out that the religious leader actually doesn't believe it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're not kidding. From the article, this is what they've actually done:
During the study, the researchers asked volunteers to decide whether to add or subtract two numbers they were later shown on a screen.
Before the numbers flashed up, they were given a brain scan using a technique called functional magnetic imaging resonance. The researchers then used a software that had been designed to spot subtle differences in brain activit
Re: Minority Report and other Sci-Fi (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Minority Report and other Sci-Fi (Score:5, Informative)
Today apostasy is punishable by death in the countries of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, Mauritania, the Comoros and, most likely, Iraq. Similarly, blasphemy is punishable by death in Pakistan. In Qatar apostasy is a capital offense, but no executions have been reported for it.
Re: Minority Report and other Sci-Fi (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Minority Report and other Sci-Fi (Score:4, Interesting)
That's not quite true.
Okay, being Jewish gets you citizenship in Israel, making Jewish foreigners and their children the majority of current citizens. However, the Israelis did not ethnically cleanse all of the original inhabitants: a minority of Muslims, Christians and Druze still live there.
A better candidate for a state with a required religion is probably the Vatican, whose 600 citizens are all Roman Catholic, mainly clerics.
But this question of states with a compulsory religion is a bit of a red herring. The real danger with this technology is repressive states in general. What if all dark-skinned foreign nationals entering US airports have to take this glorified polygraph in order to check for unAmerican thoughts? What if Tony Blair decides that all new UK citizens need this machine to verify whether their oath of the allegiance to Liz Windsor is genuine?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Fortunately we as Brits aren't forced to swear an allegiance to the Queen or even to the country. That kind of indoctrination into patriotism is unknown here,unlike certain other countries I can name. I'd rather be proud of my actions and their outcomes rather than be proud of an accident of birth.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The above rights make me a citizen, and possibly also a subject of Lizzie. I'm not sure the two are mutually exclusive all.
Personally I'd like to abolish the monarchy altogether, but its existence doesn't stop me being a British citizen.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I want what you're smoking.
Re:Germany, for one (Score:4, Funny)
So if someone asked if you thought the holocaust happened you could just not answer if you didn't want to talk about it.
But thanks for playing the I think I know the law game.
Tom
Re: (Score:2)
And you know what, over 10 million people died because of the Nazis. I think maybe this is one of those situations where you just don't let the hatred build up again.
Tom
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You have to cause to be published, or presented, your views that the holocaust didn't happen [or support the Nazi party, etc]. If someone compels you against your will, e.g., by forcibly reading your mind, then you're hardly at fault.
Tom
Re: (Score:2)
Horrid, horrid Brits! Those lovely Germans would never have done anything [wikipedia.org] like [wikipedia.org] that, [wikipedia.org] would they. Poor little Germans. Remind me again, who started it?
The quote espouses a fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a scary, scary device. Props to the submitter for recognizing the professor's justification as doublethink.
Re:The quote espouses a fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
These two statements are not logically related. Did you mean them to be? Our verdicts are "guilty" and "not guilty" because under the U.S. system you must be indicted for a crime, at which point you are presumed innocent. The logical question at trial is not "is he innocent", but "is he guilty".
You can "prove" innocence to the same, imperfect degree that you "prove" guilt: by presenting evidence to that conclusion. A strong, defensible alibi is evidence of innocence, while eyewitness accounts are evidence of guilt. We never formally "prove" guilt in a court, at least not in the mathematical sense--even when sending someone to the Electric Chair, we're merely "pretty sure he's guilty". There's nothing stopping us from creating a hypothetical where U.S. courts presume guilt, and it's up to you to prove your innocence once you've been charged.
We don't do that because it's stupid in practice--we want to limit the power of those in government, and a "presumed guilty" system encourages abuses of prosecution. It's just too easy to put the mechanisms of the state in service of tyranny, which is kind of what the people that founded this country were trying to avoid. But this has *nothing* to do with whether guilt or innocence can be proven, formally.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You're both right to an extent. The people who founded our innocent until proven guilty system had in many cases themselves experienced the abuse of power the government/your neighbor could have by a presumption of guilt; by discovering the logical impossibility of proving their innocence. See the Salem Witch Trials which stayed fresh in the minds of Americans for generations, which are the gensis of the system.
The abuse of
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree. To a first approximation, "proof of innocence" requires the proof of the non-existence of evidence that you are guilty whereas proof of guilt requires to proof of existence of evidence of the same. It's a bit more subtle than that though. Consider the following cases:
(1) Three reliable witnesses saw you plunge the knife into the victim's heart. Guilt proven.
(2) Three re
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yep, you know they say: Life is what happens while you're planning a mass massacre.
Re:The quote espouses a fallacy (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
(of course wifes are useful for another thing as well, but this is
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the US has embraced a false binary choice doesn't mean it's a logical necessity.
Re: (Score:2)
We have "mistrials" and "hung juries" which may or may not be similar to the Scottish "not proven". But "guilty" or "not guilty" is not a false dichotomy. The purpose of a trial is not to establish innocence -- it is only to prove guilt, if possible, and to acquit in all other cases. If we had notions that acquitals equated to a proof of innocence,
Proving your innocence? (Score:2)
Innocence shouldn't need to be proven. Innocence is assumed until guilt is proven.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you can. (Score:2)
Actually, you can, and there is historical precedent for this. When DNA tests became available, many people who were previously found "guilty" by the courts were able to prove their innocence with the use of a DNA test on evidence that was previously used for the conviction.
(If you want to substitute "prove their not-guiltiness", feel free.)
Re: (Score:2)
So this device exposes the intentions of anybody but the makers of the device, their friends, and the secret service.
Re: (Score:2)
Except in a soap opera, of course.
-Jeff
Wake me when they invent a mobile MRI (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe I'm wrong though..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wake me when they invent a mobile MRI (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, it's the other way round: The signals that the detector needs to pick up are so incredibly faint that any radio transmitter within a few miles would cause the detection of complete garbage instead of a useful signal.
The magnetic field actually drops pretty quickly. You need to shield the MRI machine from the environment, not the other way round.
Other issues that complicate making a "portable" MRI machine include the amount of support machinery needed for the superconducting magnets (big-ass refrigeration)
Re: (Score:2)
Accesories (Score:2, Interesting)
If I carry out the act anyway after they read my intentions, will that make them (neuroscientists) accesories to murder (for example)?
I can see it now... (Score:2, Insightful)
DA: Your Honor, we are 70% certain that the defendant was thinking about maybe shooting the president.
Judge: Guilty! Take the defendant outside and have him shot immediately!
Damn, if there ever was a time to be wearing that tin foil hat...
Very Disturbing (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm no tinfoil-hatter, but wow.
Re:Very Disturbing (Score:5, Interesting)
I think about commiting crimes quite a bit. How would I rob a bank, for instance? Or "disappear" someone, without getting caught? If my country was occupied by a foreign army, what could I as an individual do to cause maximum damage to it?
These are interesting and fun mental exercises, and of course novel writers think about this kind of stuff all the time. I just do this stuff in my head, and that's where it will stay. It does worry me however that these days it seems the law is beginning to view talking about doing something as if it was proof you will actually do it. If I had a friend that also liked doing this kind of mental exercise, and we discussed this kind of stuff via IRC, for instance, in the not too distant future I could envisage getting a visit from the police, or even ending up in jail, just for talking about stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me fix that for you:
"I could envisage getting a visit from the police, or even ending up in jail, just for thinking about stuff."
There. You can already get a visit from the police, or end up in jail, or just disappear, for talking about the right stuff.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Only because thinking cannot (yet) be detected. There most certainly are laws against discussing the idea of committing a crime with someone else (i.e. conspiracy). If private thoughts could be detected, it would be a logical extension of this idea to criminalize thinking about a crime even if you planned to do it on your own.
In fact, this has been proposed already: in the UK I've read a suggestion that mentally ill people shoul
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if only you think about it but if a group of people are thinking about it, you're looking at conspiracy.
Picture this if you will....
brain-scans reveal two or more unrelated people thinking about the same crime(e.g. say cheating on taxes). Same crime, more one than one person thinking about it... round them up on conspiracy charges(conspiring to defraud the gov't). Nevermind they have never met or even know each other.
Check ou
Re:Very Disturbing (Score:5, Interesting)
Strictly speaking, this is no doubt true. After all, how could you frame such laws, and how would you determine if anyone were guilty of breaking them?
On the other hand, conspiracy is a crime and may be a very serious one, punishable by long periods in prison. What is a conspiracy? It may be no more than two people discussing some things that they *might* do some time in the future. No criminal act, you see. But still deemed to be a crime. Why is conspiracy a crime and not intention? I believe the real reason is simply that intentions have not previously been detectable or provable.
There is a deeper, far more worrying implication. These and other similar experiments have shown that researchers can sometimes know exactly what another person is going to do *before that person himself knows*. (We'll ignore that 70 percent accuracy rate for the time being). I think you will agree that drives a coach and horses through the idea of free will, and hence of criminal responsibility. If you can know, before I make up my mind, that I am going to commit a crime, and you arrest me for that intention - or just to prevent the crime - how can anyone possibly argue that I made a decision to commit the crime? I never got that far!
I have always thought that the dichotomy between free will and predestination was fallacious, based on a lack of imagination or accurate language. I have an apple; I can either eat it, or leave it. Which will I do? Imagine God, who knows everything past, present, and future. He knows if I am going to eat the apple, just as he also knows when and how I shall die. If you prefer a non-religious alternative, consider the universe as a four-dimensional space in which all future events are just as fixed as past ones. Either way, the future is predetermined.
Yet, at the same time, we have free will from our own point of view - because we don't have any way of knowing what will happen in future, even the things that we are going to do. Until I have either eaten the apple or put it away, I may not know what I am going to do. Similarly, armed with a knife and faced with someone who has wronged me, I may either stab them or not. Do I "choose"? Well, yes, or the word "choose" means nothing. But there isn't a little man in my head making decisions for me. In short, when we say someone chooses to do something, it is mostly a "black box" description that is useful for talking about other people. Look inside yourself for choice, and it isn't really there. It's like a rainbow - visible only from a distance.
Experiments like these will eventually force us to confront the fact that punishing people for their "moral choices" is inconsistent with our scientific knowledge. We may well *choose* to go on doing so anyway, of course. Or we could shift our ground a little, and say that punishment is a way of conditioning people not to commit crimes - adjusting the expected outcome so that it is less likely to be an attractive one.
Hmmm (Score:2, Interesting)
In a country that follows the principle of "in dubito pro reo" I shouldn't have to prove anything to be regarded as innocent. In the contrary, in such a country the governments ignorance is my bliss.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, why, if they are NOT GOING TO commit a crime, would they need to prove innocence ? Until a crime HAS BEEN committed the police just carry on eating donuts, same as always. You remain innocent b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would have added those numbers... (Score:2, Informative)
From TFA:
During the study, the researchers asked volunteers to decide whether to add or subtract two numbers they were later shown on a screen.
Before the numbers flashed up, they were given a brain scan using a technique called functional magnetic imaging resonance. The researchers then used a software that had been designed to spot subtle differences in brain activity to predict the person's intentions with 70% accuracy.
Seems like a
Scene: A Police Lab... (Score:4, Funny)
Doctor Tinkle: "He intends... 'to get out of this bloody MRI scannner as soon as possible'. Funny, that's exactly what the last twenty seven suspects intended as well."
Don't Scaremonger (Score:5, Insightful)
We already have a much more reliable and convenient way to judge people's criminal intent, namely their body language and facial expression. Evolution has nicely provided us a way of distinguishing between your loving significant other who is absently gesturing with the knife he was using to cook and your jilted lover who is coming after you with it. Shop owners pick out people who look like their about to steal all the time. We are just sane enough not to throw people in jail for 'looking suspicious.'
Besides this machine is only set to measure what someone is currently preparing to do (as in seconds) trying to decode someone's long term plans is similar only in that both would require looking at the brain. This story shouldn't really raise anyone's estimate of the feasibility of reading someone's long term plans, or their eventual actions. It's nothing but an excuse for someone to spin a scare story.
In any case if the goal is to jail future criminals decoding their future plans seems wholly besides the point. It would be more effective to try and predict how much impulse control someone has or their resistance to temptation than to figure out if they currently have a plan to commit a criminal act.
--
As an aside I don't see what the doublethink in that comment was. It is true, if we did have a means to demonstrate a lack of intent to say blow up a plane then people who did so wouldn't need to be inconvenienced by all the crazy carry on restrictions. It might not be a compelling argument to use the technology but it isn't 'doublethink'.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you been living in a cave since Sept. 11, 2001?
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe the better question is.... is that you Osama?
Re: (Score:2)
Short of an actual memory dump, these t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still not convinced it qualifies but I'll admit it's certainly an arguable usage.
Timing issues (Score:5, Informative)
Functional MRI measures changes in blood oxygenation, which are indicitave of changes in neural activity. However, the hemodynamic response is slow, peaking about 6 seconds after the changes in neuronal firing rates. The decisions described in the article probably happen within milliseconds. The article is short on details, but what they probably did was analyze the data from the decision moment after the fact and see if they could use it to predict the subsequent action. This is different from actually knowing what someone is going to do before they do it, which is something that is practically impossible with fMRI due to the timing issues.
Perhaps even more fundamental issues (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting but exaggerated (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
For a BCI to do what you want, you have to train. It takes many hours to get an accurate decoding even of a few simple actions (up, down, left, right, enter, that's just five
Don't be Paranoid... (Score:2)
-Sensing what people without means to normally communicate want to do by being provided with yes/no, outside/inside, feed/don't feed me gruel, etc.
-Fine tuning the discovery of what functions use certain brain patterns to better develop an idea of conciousness
-Strap a monkey in and do the same
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dear God (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice. (Score:2)
Droids!! (Score:2)
Obligatory George Carlin quote (Score:2)
"It was a sin to WANT to feel up Ellen, it was a sin to PLAN to feel up Ellen, it was a sin to take her to the place where you were gonna feel her up, it was a sin to TRY to feel up Ellen, and it was a sin to FEEL her up - there were FIVE SINS in one feel, man." - George Carlin
--
BMO
Sounds good, but only for politicians (Score:2, Insightful)
If only we could guarantee that our so-called elected servants are not without conscience, that would be revolutionary. It's not something that gets a lot of press time, but there are people who are defective, who don't feel compassion, who view others in the same way we view objects, who have no empathy. Oh to have a leader who feels that murdering children in the name of war is utterly nauseating, and won't bomb civilian sites (& fyi, there is no such thing as a smart bomb); a leader who doesn't vie
Re: (Score:2)
I would add only that in the advent of revolutionary technologies useful to fascism, there is an obvious remedy. Use the tech on the fascists, first. We should put our pols, chattering classes, captains of industry and marketing whizzes under these scanners before they do so to us.
The only problem with my proposal is one I freely admit. Not enough people will be bothered by what turns up. While I would gladly have the leaders you envision, this is a minority tast
Whats wrong? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Whats wrong? (Score:4, Funny)
I guess you're not up on the latest research... here's a summary in common language.
It's the science man!
By making the joke and acknowledging the hat you weaken its mental reflection capabilities. Tin foil hats actually work (queue the non-believing corporate servants) by combining the radiated electromagnetic energy from your brain with the conductive qualities of the tinfoil. Over time, usually three to six months, the tinfoil's electromagnetic field begins to take on the qualities of the brain waves its been receiving, this build-up of energy results in a perfect mask for your particular brain patterns... true mental reflection. To take a term from pipe smoking... the hat is seasoned. By thinking about the hat and concentrating your mind on it existence you begin to create a specific energy pattern that counteracts the seasoned fields you've already created. The hat will still work, but there will be small holes in the energy field that are weaker and that will allow external monitor devices to measure your brain activity. The results are still fuzzy, but given secret technology the government may have now or a large enough computer (Blue gene based system would be fine) a good psychoanalysis team could read you like a book.
Best practices
Although there is some debate in the psycho-obfuscation and privacy communities about the shape of the hat, the real issue is mental blindness to the existence of the hat. Most people can't forget that they have a large pointy tinfoil hat on their head, but they can forget that they've placed a layer of tinfoil with a small (1cm diameter or less is best) criss cross pattern of wires inside of their baseball cap.
It goes without saying that you should never share a tinfoil hat with someone else. The combination of brain patterns will weaken the overall effectiveness of the hat and will make you susceptible to brain scanning and false thought recognition (caused by latent electromagentic patterns from previous wearer).
Doublethink (Score:2)
Heres a hint: it's not pointing out different sides of the same coin.
Obligatory Costanza Quote(?) (Score:3, Funny)
Night Out (Score:3, Funny)
1) Get Brainscanner and go to pub
2) ???
3) Pleasure
Proving your innocene? (Score:2)
You have to prove your innocence before actually doing anything right now? Eeek...thought crime, just like in that novel. What was it called again? 2007?
"If my thought dreams could be seen..." (Score:5, Interesting)
Quite apart from the ethical concerns this technology poses, the following tidbit is truly fascinating:
I'd like to see if the technology could be harnessed for monitoring creativity, which is in one sense "passing thoughts." Suppose you could decipher activity that amounts to what we call inspiration. Now, with a feedback loop mechanism, you could see what affective states produce your best ideas.I want one of these to play with before the Thought Police get them.
Sign me in (Score:2)
thought-police (Score:2)
That's strange, I didn't know people had to prove their innocence when they weren't going to commit any crime. In most normal countries the legal practise is, one is presumed innocent, untill proven otherwise. Some recent exeptions that are becomming aparent in USA 'justice' not withstanding, it's not necessary to prove anything about one's thoughts about something, as long as one didn't act on it.
...proving their innocence... (Score:2)
They subject they've chosen to highlight is criminal justice.
OK, I'll bite:
In some jurisdictions, you don't prove your innocence. You establish reasonable doubt of your guilt.
Should we expect the new standard to be reversed?
For practical purposes, I think that it already has been reversed.
A trial may determine how bad you take it, but by the time it gets that far, you've already grabbed your ankles.
In
Proving Innocence? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which voices will they be 'reading'? (Score:3, Insightful)
So this little voice has told me to steer my car into oncoming traffic, maim people, and all manner of things, but because my 'real' self is pretty sane, it just ignores these stupid requests and does the 'right' thing in each situation. That doesn't mean the 'little voice' will stop coming up with ideas though. I just see this as part of being an introverted objectivist who doesn't see
If they can read our inner thoughts in future, I'd suggest we'd ALL be in jail, because I don't think I'm the only one who subconciously thinks about nasty things without ever entertaining the thought of
Re: (Score:2)
Mmmm... Natalie Potman and Hot GITS.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
No, your precious DHS dollars are safe. Go and fund your own research now.
Re: (Score:2)
European though (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
f you have to think hard about the answer then obviously you're not recalling from memory and are therefore lying or at least editing out parts.
You're always editting - this is how memory works. It's also why eyewitnesses are horrible.
Imagine what it would be like if - like mandatory drug testing - you were ordered into a room and attitude-checked with a helmet?
Well, lie detectors are illegal save when done by the government or used for a specific investigation. Of course, those things are voodoo an
Re: (Score:2)
Unless your government becomes a totalitarian dictatorship you are free to despise and hate them. Under a democracy the governme
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)