Not signed in (Sign In)
  1.  (1305.1)
    Found this via disinfo:Interesting.

    Quote: "It's much more exciting than mind reading and police interrogation ... These people are finding how the brain codes naturalistic scenes. They understand what the brain is saying."

    Science, both good and bad.
    • CommentAuthorzenbullet
    • CommentTimeMar 7th 2008
     (1305.2)
    "It is possible that decoding brain activity could have serious ethical and privacy implications downstream in, say, the 30 to 50-year time frame," said Prof Gallant. "[We] believe strongly that no one should be subjected to any form of brain-reading process involuntarily, covertly, or without complete informed consent."


    Thirty to fifty huh?

    Well, now we know what time frame we're looking at till we have automated ticket givers/brain scanners at traffic intersections.


    {how did the philosopher put it? "science is more can we than should we"}
  2.  (1305.3)
    On the plus side, this will speed up airport security. On the down side, you will be marked as an enemy of the government for thinking it shouldn't murder so many people.
    •  
      CommentAuthorCyman
    • CommentTimeMar 12th 2008
     (1305.4)
    Sensationally scary.
    • CommentAuthorJoe B
    • CommentTimeMar 12th 2008
     (1305.5)
    The thing is, it can never be used to determine guilt. If you hate flying and visualize past plane crashes, that doesn't make you a terrorist.
    It would be difficult to use this to determine guilt in a court case. If you're questioned on a case that's already made the news, you may visualize what may have happened while they questioned you. In a sense, the police could lead an innocent party to a guilty verdict by providing enough information during an interrogation that he/she correctly visualizes what happened during the crime while being scanned.
    But then again, I'd love to see an actual working model used for swearing politicians into office.
  3.  (1305.6)
    Ag, I think this journalism is a bit sensationalist. I second Joe B's statement. Visual imagination is too subjective, skittish and suggestible to use legally (trying to do anything but pinpoint what the subject was seeing at the time of scan I'd imagine to be very tricky) so any government that tries has pretty dubious legal practices regardless. It's a far cry from monitoring thoughts.

    And no-one seems to be commenting on the Neurological impacts this could have! The study of dreams, hallucinations, hypnagogia/hypnopompia, agnosia... it could yield some truly ground-breaking knowledge on the human brain.
  4.  (1305.7)
    And no-one seems to be commenting on the Neurological impacts this could have!

    Exactly.
  5.  (1305.8)
    Exactly

    I don't think it's anything ominous. I just think if the press started talking about how this could, for example, potentially find a way to study and help patients with the inability to process visual information on a symbolic level, the majority of the public would stop reading and start yawning.
  6.  (1305.9)
    Incredible in the study of both linguistics and information technology (via studying how the brain records information directly).
    The scary stuff requires more exacting fidelity then this seems likely to have, while progressive uses actually seems very possible.
  7.  (1305.10)
    @PaulDuffield
    I don't think it's anything ominous.

    Oh, me neither; but ominous makes a better, catchier story is all (and you're right, most people would probably be yawning otherwise).
  8.  (1305.11)
    @SpiralTwist,
    ah, okay :) I think I misunderstood your 'exactly'.
  9.  (1305.12)
    Yes, but it's ok because my response still worked. ;)
    •  
      CommentAuthorJon Wake
    • CommentTimeMar 13th 2008
     (1305.13)
    It does make me wonder how long before some enterprising artist uses this technology to directly print their imagination onto a page.
  10.  (1305.14)
    @ Jon Wake

    I've longed to be able to do that. Reality falls so far short of the imagined image on so many occasions.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeMar 13th 2008
     (1305.15)
    One near-term application - there's a specific brain signal associated with recognition of a picture or object you've seen previously. Essentially it's your brain going "that thing out there is the same as this memory".

    It's been suggested that suspects in criminal cases could be shown pictures of crime scenes or victims to see whether their brain generates that signal.