The Brain Scan that Can Read People's Intentions

[Duppers]

The Brain Scan that Can Read People's Intentions

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.

more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2009217,00.html





Well, we knew this was coming and I love it. Who can lie now?!

[plcdude]

1. of course this assumes

that one has those higher faculties present in their brain so this is of no use with *.

[Duppers]

5. LOL!

You're so right! :rofl:

[The2ndWheel]

2. Who can think now?

That's the better question.

[donsu]

3. sounds like baloney to me

nt

[Duppers]

4. JERKy? nt

nt

[havocmom]

8. Sounds like the possibility of pre-emptive incarceration to me.

Hell, the powers that be won't fund PROVEN treatments for KNOWN mental health problems that are manifested, not thought about! But there are people looking into what people might be thinking?

Yeah, I trust that little package scanner will be put to good use....

NOT!

Sorry, all you Liberals have bad intentions... the machine told me so. You all have to be locked up for your own good... Tool for justifying the ultimate 'free speech zone' round-up?

Sometimes a bit of paranoia just plain makes sense.

[Divine Discontent]

16. exactly..

I don't believe it, but some right wing bush apologists will probe it around in some criminal's mind and say it proves it works, and start using it to take people into incarceration, hey, It wouldn't surprise me!

we will be forced to protect our constitutional rights to be free, eventually, I can feel it! and you don't need to shine a light around my head to find that out!



www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- antibush prodem stickers/shirts

[Casablanca]

24. Sounds like a research group looking for government funding to me.

I'm no Einstein (I just play one online), but basic sense tells me that knowing someone's thoughts doesn't tell you their intentions.

If I look at a picture of 16-yesr-old Britney Spears and think "That's a nice butt.", does that indicate an intention to go out an rape a 16-year-old girl? Of course not.

On the other end of the spectrum, if I look at a picture of George W. Bush or Cheney smirking and think "The world would be better off without them." does that indicate that I'm going to try to assassinate them? Wellllll ... no, of course not.

This 1950's-era religious belief that, sooner or later, we'll be able to do anything thorugh the miracle of science is such propagandistic horseshit.

And if a machine can tell the truth to you about the thoughts of others, it can also be designed to lie to you about it. The credibility of the machine over the credibility of a person is the key issue, and the machine doesn't care one way or the other.

[western mass]

15. Baloney, all right.

As a researcher in this corner of science, this article is laughably misleading. Trust me, we're nowhere near being able to read complex thoughts with brain scanning. In our lifetimes, we'll probably get as far as developing good (but not completely accurate) lie detectors and the ability to read broad feelings like "I'm really mad" or "I'm horny". The Professor at Cambridge is just being an idiot to be talking about Minority Report.

[Redbear]

6. So no need for the pre-cogs?n/t

[politicat]

7. Sorry, but I don't believe it.

First, the initial work was done with a very simple concept -- adding and subtracting numbers. Actual behaviors are far more complex, and criminal behaviors are even more so.

Second, it requires a baseline set of scans because brain activity differs so much between individuals, so they may eventually be able to do a small amount of this work on a small subset, but the rest of us aren't going to voluntarily line up for a couple of weeks' worth of brain scans.

Useful imaging work, but the Planck Institute needs to really evaluate where they're going in terms of research.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. i can see it being used on prisoners, to determine the level of

their rehabilitation (as if that was what prison was about!). They'd get a baseline scan upon initial incarceration, then do regular scans thereafter to see what stimulus trips their trigger.

shades of Clockwork Orange.

[LeftishBrit]

12. Fully agree with Politicat!

An finding which is interesting to researchers, but pretty small-scale, is being thoroughly sensationalized here.

We have mechanisms for detecting intentions already: e.g. observing people's movements, gaze, and facial expressions. It's not at all clear to me that such brain scans will do much more from this point of view than confirm what we already know by these methods.

I'm interested in neuroscience, and wouldn't for a minute suggest that research into what the brain does is a waste of time; but I also wouldn't go to the other extreme and imply that this sort of research will give us amazing powers of mind control.

Perhaps the greatest practical use will turn out to be as an aid to communication with severely disabled people who cannot express themselves in the usual ways.

[Maeve]

9. What was that SF movie a few years ago like this? Minority Report!

Tom Cruise--arrest 'em before they can commit 'em!

No chance of that being misused....

[pepperbear]

11. reminds me of this article from a couple of years ago...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173500,00.html

...about a remote control for the human brain

[daleo]

13. Even if this is true

A tin foil hat should be an effective shield.

[kysrsoze]

14. Double-plus good, don't you think, comrades? The thought police could use this wonderful tool!

[truthisfreedom]

17. Maybe we could use this on cheney to find out when they plan to attack Iran.

Personally, I believe a crime is a crime, and a thought is a thought. What on earth would happen with writers, who have to think all sorts of bizarre things to be creative?

[cigsandcoffee]

18. As much as I like science, it also spooks me out.

I'd like to see both it and religion being a little more closely watched. The extremes of both pose a great risk to society.

[bobthedrummer]

19. Related cross-posted thread

"Jon Ronson's 'The Men That Stare At Goats' was published in 2004." started 9-19-2006 (still open to post in)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x236278

[dipsydoodle]

20. I guess this was their first trial

[Megahurtz]

21. Pretty Soon They'll Have These

at the four corners of every intersection underneath the Cameras. :sarcasm:

[Kelvin Mace]

22. Here is the key point of this artticle

which shows these people are clueless.

The use of brain scanners to judge whether people are likely to commit crimes is a contentious issue that society should tackle now, according to Prof Haynes. "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."

It is not up to me to PROVE my innocence. It is up to the state to PROVE my guilt. Once you reverse the presumption of innocence, you have thrown civil rights under the train.

This technology, like polygraph tests, must NEVER be admissible in a court of law.

[Duppers]

26. GREAT point.

I see all kinds of problems with this.

These researchers are a LONG way from reaching a working model, which is a good thing given this statement. The political implication of that statement are dangerous.

[lovuian]

27. Minority Report

its stopping a crime before it happens like stopping a war by starting one

[Trillo]

23. It makes the claim this has just been discovered.

Have these tools been known by the few for years? Can they invade the walls of our homes with their scanners?

Regardless of the above tinfoil, me thinks we need a tool to probe the minds of our leaders' intentions, and make the details available to all, transparently. Just imagine. When Bush was telling the world that Iraq had WMD, the scanner could be used to transmit the concept that 'oil' was the underlying intention.

Could cell phone towers be useful for this? Satellites? Does it HAVE to happen only within the confines of a medical resonance scanner? Could it happen remotely?

[bobthedrummer]

25. Some definite answers can be found at Cheryl Welsh's website

http://www.mindjustice.org/

[struggle4progress]

28. As far as I can tell, Haynes' publication list doesn't support claims like this

[Vidar]

29. I can't imagine this being abused, can you?