Rogue Keeper on 12/2/2007 at 07:37
(
http://www.precrime.org/)
NONONO wate ... THIS :
(
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2009217,00.html)
Quote:
The brain scan that can read people's intentionsCall for ethical debate over possible use of new technology in interrogation
A team of world-leading neuroscientists has developed a powerful technique that allows them to look deep inside a person's brain and read their intentions before they act.
The research breaks controversial new ground in scientists' ability to probe people's minds and eavesdrop on their thoughts, and raises serious ethical issues over how brain-reading technology may be used in the future.
The team used high-resolution brain scans to identify patterns of activity before translating them into meaningful thoughts, revealing what a person planned to do in the near future. It is the first time scientists have succeeded in reading intentions in this way.
"Using the scanner, we could look around the brain for this information and read out something that from the outside there's no way you could possibly tell is in there. It's like shining a torch around, looking for writing on a wall," said John-Dylan Haynes at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Germany, who led the study with colleagues at University College London and Oxford University. ...
Now, every issue of New Scientist is full of amazing discoveries like this, but hey, YOU KNOW you want to know if your spouse has a side affair or he/she intends to stab you with kitchen knife this evening? THIS is your opportunity.
After that useless ethical debate is finally over. And the other one about stem cell research. And the other ones about cloning and intelligent donuts.
Ethical debates are such useless brakes for human progress, don't you agree? :devil:
Briareos H on 12/2/2007 at 08:04
In addition to the ethical debate, I would like to know how they are going to overcome the methodological problems of training the system to recognize and generalize patterns across different people, and different states of mind in the same person.
If I have time I'll have a look into the reference papers.
Strangeblue on 12/2/2007 at 08:13
I wonder how they will feel about Mystery novelists.
Briareos H on 12/2/2007 at 08:23
Blam. Nothing to add.
Their use of imaging (fMRI) is scientifically interesting but impractical & doomed to fail for mind reading purposes.
It may however be very promising for brain-machine interfaces.
Rogue Keeper on 12/2/2007 at 08:28
Mr. Bell, this "telephone" of yours is an interesting curiosity, but I'm afraid - it's totally impractical! :nono:
dj_ivocha on 12/2/2007 at 08:37
Excuse me mister, before you go out to rob this store and kill 3 people, would you mind coming to our Pre-Crime department so we can map your brain and see if you are a murdering psycho? :D
Hidden_7 on 12/2/2007 at 08:42
Quote Posted by BR796164
Mr. Bell, this "telephone" of yours is an interesting curiosity, but I'm afraid - it's totally impractical! :nono:
Err... not really the same thing there, champ. The original designs of the telephone could conceivably be pressed into service for their intended function, all they needed was the infrastructure.
An MRI, or fMRI machine was never designed to be used as an omni-present brain scan device. It requires the subject sit inside a large, complex machine, and hold very still while it takes magnetic pictures.
The machine looks like this. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Varian4T.jpg) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Varian4T.jpg
At this point it's not really a matter of "oh, we don't have the technology yet to make it small and portable," the very nature of the device requires the item being scanned (brain) be fully encased. There is simply no way, using the technology they have chosen, to do this portably, or on an unwilling subject.
As such, as any kind of pre-crime brain reading device, this will not work. It IS interesting regarding other things, but it requires the subject to be willing, aware, and cooperative to work, as a matter of course.
Which, I think, kinda solves the ethical quanderies, does it not?
Rogue Keeper on 12/2/2007 at 08:55
Hey, what do you think I never saw a MRI scanner. Neverthless, after some further RnD, this might serve as an improvement for lie detectors.
Your portable MRI scanner is possibly on the way, too.
(
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-04/ns-hfp040605.php)
Regarding the "will" of suspicious subjects in detainment to cooperate, I think it's the least of a problem for professional interrogators.
demagogue on 12/2/2007 at 09:06
Reminds me of an article I read, (
http://www.cns.nyu.edu/~glimcher/PUBLICATIONS/abstracts/GarlandGlimcher.pdf) Cognitive Sci and the Law (pdf file).
I think there are things to be concerned about, but precrime isn't one of them. For one thing, a crime doesn't exist until you have some kind of criminal act, no matter what evil things you have in your head; even in conspiracy you have to be doing
something bad. Mental-state crimes can't exist any more than any other kind of "status" crime (like being a gang member, communist or whatever).
The concern is when prosecutors start introducing brain scans as evidence of intent in a trial. There's a lot to say about why we'd have to be really careful in accepting it, and why it'd be a bad idea in 9 cases out of 10, but maybe the article I posted says it better than I can here.
Rogue Keeper on 12/2/2007 at 09:10
Quote Posted by demagogue
any other kind of "status" crime (like being a ... communist).
I beg you pardon ??? :eek:
