The Thought Police: Nanotechnology, Neuroscience, and Jurisprudence

Status
Not open for further replies.

Yorkist

Banned
Joined
Feb 10, 2012
Messages
1,974
Reaction score
572
Location
Navigating through the thorns.
Fascinating and frightening article from The Chronicle of Higher Education. It asks the question of whether we will have mental privacy once brain scans are good enough to interpret our actual thoughts - which, to a limited extent, they are already capable of.

Imagine that psychologists are scanning a patients' brain, for some basic research purpose. As they do so, they stumble across a fleeting thought that their equipment is able to decode: The patient has committed a murder, or is thinking of committing one soon. What would the researchers be obliged to do with that information?...

Under current doctrine, it might be consistent to accept all of those scans as permissible <in court>. After all, the scans are no more intrusive than a blood draw, and they measure physical characteristics, like blood flow and electrical impulses....

What's more, some scholars think that lie detectors, or concealed-information detectors, are already working far better than acknowledged by analysts or by courts, which generally but not completely forbid their use. The machines are far from perfect, but juries rely on all sorts of faulty folk wisdom in determining who is lying and who is telling the truth. (Crucially, courts have excluded the detectors not on principle but because they have not won the approval of scientists.)
 

dfwtinman

Cubic Zirconia in the rough
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
3,061
Reaction score
470
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
I *think* we are a very, very long way away from actual "mind-reader" technology.

Does anyone even know the "machine language" of the brain? Is it binary? What
do you do about "word pictures"? How does a scan "read" an image? Especially since the brain seems to have cached memory which fills in holes. And what about mis-remembered details? Or daydreams vs conscious thought? If I have a "fuzzy" picture of my third cousin, is there really any way of enhancing the image? What if I think in German? Can it be translated without losin anything?


I am pretty sure my best ideas are drawn from some external place, a collective unconscious perhaps. So, if you scan me before "delivery" you would have an impoverished view. I am sure someone here has some technological expertise to bring to bear on the issue of the current state of such "scan technology."

Mind reader technology would be a disaster of staggering immensity, IMHO
Consider these words:

It is by universal misunderstanding that all agree. For if, by ill luck, people understood each other, they would never agree.”

Charles Baudelaire
 
Last edited:

Zoombie

Dragon of the Multiverse
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Messages
40,775
Reaction score
5,947
Location
Some personalized demiplane
I'm more interested in the fact that we are beginning to figure out how the brain works, really...
 

Opty

Banned
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
4,448
Reaction score
918
Location
Canada
It's an interesting thought experiment but we're nowhere near having the scanning technology to read thoughts (which is even affirmed later in the linked article).

Even once we are able to map the entire brain, we'll still be quite far off from being able to analyze and interpret - via scanning technology - the complex electrochemical interplay of impulses and nitric oxide required to form thoughts and initiate actions.

For the moment, it's pure science fiction. But, when that day comes (we'll likely all be dead by then) it will pose serious ethical quandaries.
 
Last edited:

dfwtinman

Cubic Zirconia in the rough
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
3,061
Reaction score
470
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
I'm more interested in the fact that we are beginning to figure out how the brain works, really...

I have a friend who heads a prominent brain research institute. His lab focuses on analyzing addiction and mental illnesses, like BD and MDD, at a molecular level. While there have been some breakthroughs on addiction, depression and bipolar disorder at a molecular level remain mysteries. And this is just one very tiny piece of an immense puzzle.

Still, I share your interest.
 
Last edited:

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,140
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
We've got here one of the common problems in science and speculation.

When a new piece of science comes out speculation almost always goes in a straight line projection (If This Goes On). This leads to SF stories with all good utopias and scary dystopias.

But the world itself does not go in straight lines. Things are always deeper and more subtle than we think. What will actually come from this field of science is unlikely to be anything we've thought of.
 

mirandashell

Banned
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
16,197
Reaction score
1,889
Location
England
Besides which, humans are perfectly capable of thinking more than one thing at once. I'm presently thinking about what to say in this post, typing with my fingers, waving my right foot and listening to what the bloke behind me is saying to his collegue. All of which involves my brain. Which means different bits of my brain are firing at the same time. So how does a scanner sort all that out?
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
It's an interesting thought experiment but we're nowhere near having the scanning technology to read thoughts (which is even affirmed later in the linked article).

Even once we are able to map the entire brain, we'll still be quite far off from being able to analyze and interpret - via scanning technology - the complex electrochemical interplay of impulses and nitric oxide required to form thoughts and initiate actions.

For the moment, it's pure science fiction. But, when that day comes (we'll likely all be dead by then) it will pose serious ethical quandaries.
I'd just like to note that I knew Opty was going to say all of this because I CAN READ HIS MIND.
 

Myrealana

I aim to misbehave
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
5,425
Reaction score
1,911
Location
Denver, CO
Website
www.badfoodie.com
I don't know if this would ever be acceptable evidence.

Studies have shown that it is ridiculously easy to create false memories. I'm not just talking about the controversy over some therapists convincing people they were abused as children. If your significant other tells a story often enough, you can become convinced you were there when you weren't, or that it happened to you instead of him - down to the feel of the sun on your cheek or the tasts of a meal you never ate.
 

muravyets

Old revolutionary
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
7,212
Reaction score
974
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Website
www.facebook.com
I agree with Richard and Opty that this ethical speculation is nowhere near an alarm. It is very interesting, as an ethical question, but as a potential real application, it so far from realization that it is pointless to speculation what the future reality might turn out to be.

That said, I'll speculate for the moment, for the laughs, and say that, if we ever do realize thought-analyzing programs, they will be applied in the law and they will cause many years of chaos and injustice before they are declared unreliable and inadmissible as evidence and are never used again. After that -- very soon after that, if the breaking point comes from one particular spectacular case that captures public imagination -- society will be shocked and horrified at the idea that anyone ever considered such nonsense to have any scientific or legal validity.

In other words, I think mind-reading technology would likely follow the exact same legal trajectory as spectral evidence did in the 17th century, which once was considered perfectly legit, then gradually became more controversial, and was finally killed outright by the scandal of the Salem Witch Trials. And today, we're all like, "Man, how could people have been so ignorant and superstitious and gullible back then?"

I think this because I also agree with Miranda and Myrealana that the brain is far too complex to be "read" clearly enough by a computer program to reach any conclusions about the person. All such "evidence" will always be shaped by the biases and speculations of the human beings running the programs. I can predict that confidently because, while we have no historical record of mind-reading technology on which to base speculations about the future, we do have thousands of years of incredibly consistent human behavior to judge by.
 
Last edited:

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
Besides which, humans are perfectly capable of thinking more than one thing at once. I'm presently thinking about what to say in this post, typing with my fingers, waving my right foot and listening to what the bloke behind me is saying to his collegue. All of which involves my brain. Which means different bits of my brain are firing at the same time. So how does a scanner sort all that out?

As you say, different bits are firing - they're visible as they do so. We can currently see the separations between things like response being triggered, someone thinking of something particular, saying something, trying to think of something, etc. Have you ever watched neurosurgery with a patient guiding the surgeon? It's amazing.
 

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
I *think* we are a very, very long way away from actual "mind-reader" technology.

Does anyone even know the "machine language" of the brain? Is it binary?

Is it? You know that we have prosthetic limbs already that respond to thought directly? We have artificial eyes that help the blind see, and ears that bring sound to the deaf since the mid 1980's..

I can't find a Web link, but I recently saw an episode of Nova that illustrated a woman with a Lou Gehrig's Disease type of paralysis operating an arm through implants into her brain through the skull. And there are stories that researchers are on the verge of letting patients feel through these prosthetics.

This isn't today, but I don't think it's nearly as far away as you presume.
 
Last edited:

Yorkist

Banned
Joined
Feb 10, 2012
Messages
1,974
Reaction score
572
Location
Navigating through the thorns.
I don't know if this would ever be acceptable evidence.

Studies have shown that it is ridiculously easy to create false memories. I'm not just talking about the controversy over some therapists convincing people they were abused as children. If your significant other tells a story often enough, you can become convinced you were there when you weren't, or that it happened to you instead of him - down to the feel of the sun on your cheek or the tasts of a meal you never ate.

Myrelana, true, but then... why do we rely so much on eyewitness testimony? People in the justice system know it's terribly unreliable, but it's admissable anyway. And if we had a real live mind-reading machine, it would at least be more reliable than that, because the human factor would be taken out (i.e. no lying, hyperbole, exaggeration, etc.).

Also: I have learned to only be surprised at how stupid people aren't.

That said, I'll speculate for the moment, for the laughs, and say that, if we ever do realize thought-analyzing programs, they will be applied in the law and they will cause many years of chaos and injustice before they are declared unreliable and inadmissible as evidence and are never used again. After that -- very soon after that, if the breaking point comes from one particular spectacular case that captures public imagination -- society will be shocked and horrified at the idea that anyone ever considered such nonsense to have any scientific or legal validity.

In other words, I think mind-reading technology would likely follow the exact same legal trajectory as spectral evidence did in the 17th century, which once was considered perfectly legit, then gradually became more controversial, and was finally killed outright by the scandal of the Salem Witch Trials. And today, we're all like, "Man, how could people have been so ignorant and superstitious and gullible back then?"

I can totally see this happening.

I think this because I also agree with Miranda and Myrealana that the brain is far too complex to be "read" clearly enough by a computer program to reach any conclusions about the person. All such "evidence" will always be shaped by the biases and speculations of the human beings running the programs. I can predict that confidently because, while we have no historical record of mind-reading technology on which to base speculations about the future, we do have thousands of years of incredibly consistent human behavior to judge by.
Well, let's just say we can go with the technology that's already there (I think) and do something really simple: show an accused murderer a picture of the victim's face and judge his mental and physical reactions: anxiety, disgust, anger, hate, etc. That's not good evidence, but I could see it being used as evidence, and I can definitely see the average person considering it relevant. (See above.)

Also, for anyone who's all, "Pshaw, our legal system could never be this stupid, or enter evidence that's such obviously crap!" See the trial of the West Memphis Three. And weep.

ETA: I don't know about the science here. The article is soft on science, but hard on the legalistic theory, and the latter is what concerns me.
 
Last edited:

Myrealana

I aim to misbehave
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
5,425
Reaction score
1,911
Location
Denver, CO
Website
www.badfoodie.com
Is it? You that we have prosthetic limbs already that respond to thought directly? We have artificial eyes that help the blind see, and ears that bring sound to the deaf since the mid 1980's..

I can't find a Web link, but I recently saw an episode of Nova that illustrated a woman with a Lou Gehrig's Disease type of paralysis operating an arm through implants into her brain through the skull. And there are stories that researchers are on the verge of letting patients feel through these prosthetics.

This isn't today, but I don't think it's nearly as far away as you presume.
I've actually done a lot of research on how the brain processes sensory input and sends signals to limbs and how those signals can then be translated to memory.

The signals that make a limb move are relatively straight-forward compared to how the brain creates and later accesses a memory. Just the simple naming of an object as "apple" accesses knowledge from all over the brain. The color is perceived in one area, while the size is in another, roundness in yet another. Forget about how the apple tastes! You need another half dozen sections of your brain to remember that.

A lot of time, people refer to the brain as if it were a filing cabinet or a computer drive, filled with files. But it's not. Memory is more of a stimulus-response mechanism than a filing cabinet. (But even that is an imperfect description.) Your eyes see an red, round object about the size of a fist, and access half a dozen separate areas of your brain to name that object "apple." It might be attached to a memory of your grandmother's orchard, and you find yourself smelling her fresh apple jam, or remembering the sound of birds in the trees. And that might not be a memory you even realized was there.

Words play a part, too. There's evidence that the ability to put complex thoughts into words, signs or other speech-like communication plays a part in simply being able to understand and remember certain concepts.

The brain is a wonderful and amazing thing.
 

muravyets

Old revolutionary
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
7,212
Reaction score
974
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Website
www.facebook.com
Myrelana, true, but then... why do we rely so much on eyewitness testimony? People in the justice system know it's terribly unreliable, but it's admissable anyway. And if we had a real live mind-reading machine, it would at least be more reliable than that, because the human factor would be taken out (i.e. no lying, hyperbole, exaggeration, etc.).

Also: I have learned to only be surprised at how stupid people aren't.



I can totally see this happening.

Well, let's just say we can go with the technology that's already there (I think) and do something really simple: show an accused murderer a picture of the victim's face and judge his mental and physical reactions: anxiety, disgust, anger, hate, etc. That's not good evidence, but I could see it being used as evidence, and I can definitely see the average person considering it relevant. (See above.)

Also, for anyone who's all, "Pshaw, our legal system could never be this stupid, or enter evidence that's such obviously crap!" See the trial of the West Memphis Three. And weep.

ETA: I don't know about the science here. The article is soft on science, but hard on the legalistic theory, and the latter is what concerns me.
People thought spectral evidence was relevant, too, because they thought it was divinely inspired, or else the pre-existing belief in the supernatural was so strong that people were predisposed to believe someone when they said invisible spirits were attacking them.

Understand that I'm not saying our legal system would never be so stupid or enter evidence that is such crap. I'm saying the opposite, but I'm also saying this is an inherent risk in the legal system because it is at the mercy of human uncertainty. Eyewitnesses are unreliable. Polygraphs are unreliable. Fingerprints are unreliable. Even DNA comes into question when human error at the labs comes into play. The fact of the matter is that no type of evidence is ever going to be beyond question. That's why the standard for criminal guilt is not "beyond doubt" but "beyond reasonable doubt," and the standard for civil trials is not certainty but "preponderance of evidence." Doubt, uncertainty, and actual errors will always exist, and so judgments will always have to be made ultimately by human beings discussing all the accumulated evidence in a case and making up their own minds as to what is likely to be most true.

But it is also human nature to hate uncertainty and to look for something that will finally answer all questions. This road leads to countless troubles, and it's why we have courts of appeal.

That's why I say the ethical question is more interesting than the future of brain tech (not that brain tech isn't fascinating; I don't want to upset Zoombie ;), but I'm just talking about this particular topic). If the core questions are how intrusive is too intrusive, and is it possible to know another's mind, then this is already an issue in the law and one that should be debated constantly in the contexts of the judicial system and also by society at large and among legislators.
 
Last edited:

Myrealana

I aim to misbehave
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
5,425
Reaction score
1,911
Location
Denver, CO
Website
www.badfoodie.com
Myrelana, true, but then... why do we rely so much on eyewitness testimony? People in the justice system know it's terribly unreliable, but it's admissable anyway. And if we had a real live mind-reading machine, it would at least be more reliable than that, because the human factor would be taken out (i.e. no lying, hyperbole, exaggeration, etc.).
There's a big difference between relying on eyewitness testimony and arresting or convicting someone on the basis of what a brain scan says they remember doing or are planning to do - which was the scenario presented in the OP.
 

Yorkist

Banned
Joined
Feb 10, 2012
Messages
1,974
Reaction score
572
Location
Navigating through the thorns.
That's why I say the ethical question is more interesting than the future of brain tech. If the core questions are how intrusive is too intrusive, and is it possible to know another's mind, then this is already an issue in the law and one that should be debated constantly in the contexts of the judicial system and also by society at large and among legislators.

QFT. I find it scary that the evidence is inadmissable not due to the fourth and fifth amendments, but due to the fact that so far it's perceived as bunk science (no idea if it is or isn't). It won't always be bunk science, IMO, which renders the jurisprudence questions important.
 

muravyets

Old revolutionary
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
7,212
Reaction score
974
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Website
www.facebook.com
QFT. I find it scary that the evidence is inadmissable not due to the fourth and fifth amendments, but due to the fact that so far it's perceived as bunk science (no idea if it is or isn't). It won't always be bunk science, IMO, which renders the jurisprudence questions important.
Agreed, but the legal system wisely avoids deciding the future, or at least tries to. If it didn't, we'd be in the world of Minority Report right now, even without the technology. It's not as if predictive criminal measures have never been seriously proposed before, and it's not as if there are not already many people in the world who think people should be stopped from doing things, on the assumption they will do them, rather than punished after the fact.

The fact is that, right now, the science is bunk science. When -- if -- it stops being bunk science some day, then the ethical questions become relevant to it, as opposed to relevant in general.
 
Last edited:

Yorkist

Banned
Joined
Feb 10, 2012
Messages
1,974
Reaction score
572
Location
Navigating through the thorns.
There's a big difference between relying on eyewitness testimony and arresting or convicting someone on the basis of what a brain scan says they remember doing or are planning to do - which was the scenario presented in the OP.

I don't find it a big difference (providing the technology gets better) at all. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate and awful. Even if current forensic evidence, as Mura noted upthread, isn't 100% reliable, eyewitness testimony is a load of crap. And yet how many black men are in prison based solely on the eyewitness testimony of one elderly white lady at night?*

MMV. But I don't think "a big difference" is a matter of fact.

*Rhetorical question.
 

muravyets

Old revolutionary
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
7,212
Reaction score
974
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Website
www.facebook.com
Unfortunately, Yorkist, none of this is a matter of fact. The technology under discussion does not yet exist, and we're considering the ethics of doing something that cannot be done. At all. And despite the tremendous advances achieved already in brain imaging, there's no evidence that I see here that we will ever be able to do what we're discussing, i.e. "read" an individual's brain clearly enough to know beyond reasonable doubt what they are thinking or, more important for this topic, what they were thinking at some time in the past when the bad act was committed.

ETA: So to clarify what I think is important about this: It's not this technology. If we're betting, I have to put my money down on it's never going to do what we're talking about. Even if someday people think it can do what we're talking about, in reality it won't. If people ever do think it can, though, then that will result in the unjust conditions I mentioned. But to me, that's not important because it doesn't exist.

What is more important to me is how the legal system now deals with flawed evidence and the human factor, because that is what has made the difference in all historical examples, and I think it's what will make the difference in all future situations.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.