Slashdot Mirror
Brain Scanner Can Read People's Intentions
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.'"
Not without cracking my DRM, you bastards!
Well they still have some way to go before they reach Minority Report levels.
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.
You cannot prove innocence. That's why our verdicts are "guilty" and "not guilty". As much as you can prove anything about reality, you can only show that an event occured; you'll be hard pressed to show that it never did, and it's at least approaching the impossible to show that it wasn't /going to/ happen. Not to mention that intentions and actions are two very different things.
This is a scary, scary device. Props to the submitter for recognizing the professor's justification as doublethink.
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
Until then you're going to be sitting in front of a gigantic machine. MRIs aren't small portable or cheap at this moment.. and I don't see them following the computer timeline (from room sized boxen to the same power in a cell phone 30 years from now) any time soon.
Maybe I'm wrong though..
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
There is, as of yet, no laws prohibiting thinking about commiting a crime. The potential to change this is at least as scary as anything else the government or major corporations are doing to peel off our freedoms.
I'm no tinfoil-hatter, but wow.
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."
Ohh c'mon people. This is interesting from a brain research perspective but it hardly provides any reason to worry about arresting people for their intentions.
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'.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
I think this is misleading.
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.
Ok, I work as a post-doc in the field and actually know the work of Haynes. They are not predicting someone's actions. Their fMRI data can distinguish between their subjects' state of mind after the fact. There are several fundamental differences between this experimental set-up and real action prediction. One of them is that fMRI doesn't yield a reliable signal until 6 seconds after the decision has been made. Another one is that in this experiment the action was carried out, i.e. it was not a hidden intention. In this experiment, subjects had to hold on to their decision during a variable time; i.e., they had to wait for a signal before taking the action, but they had to perform it. So in reality, the experiment looked at the process of holding on to a certain intention, and that intention was rather artificial. And it still cannot be done without knowing the outcome of the action, i.e., a large number of samples has to be taken with the subject's cooperation before any "prediction" can be made. So I would conclude that, interesting as the outcome may be, the article is highly exaggerated.
If someone (say, the infamous "terrorist") walks around planning to do something bad, I'm sure in his mind it's recorded as doing something good. How is this system supposed to tell what's good and bad?
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
I hope that we never reach a time where the majority of people accept the idea of "proving one's innocence." That innocence is presumed while guilt must be proven is at the very bedrock of any free society and god help us if that ever truly changes.
P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
Seriously, once you ignore the helpful details of this technology (helping disabled people, or performing real scientific studies), you're only really left with a technology that's not far separated from a lie detector (and likely to have the same success rate and ease of cheating). The results of one of these things will not be admissible in court and it will be VERY easy to cheat it.
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.
- Nobody would know what RTFA meant if it didn't need to be said all the time
"It's not a lie, if you believe it"
Whats wrong with you guys? Where are the tin-foil hat jokes?
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).
Wrong. It's a crime to deny the holocaust. It's not a crime to not talk about it.
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
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
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.
Excuse the fuck out of me, but I don't have to prove my innocence. You have to prove my guilt.
-- Will program for bandwidth