'Thoughts read' via brain scans

[Sean]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4715327.stm

Scientists say they have been able to monitor people's thoughts via scans of their brains. Teams at University College London and University of California in LA could tell what images people were looking at or what sounds they were listening to. The US team say their study proves brain scans do relate to brain cell electrical activity. The UK team say such research might help paralysed people communicate, using a "thought-reading" computer. In their Current Biology study, funded by the Wellcome Trust, people were shown two different images at the same time - a red stripy pattern in front of the right eye and a blue stripy pattern in front of the left. The volunteers wore special goggles which meant each eye saw only what was put in front of it. In that situation, the brain then switches awareness between both images, sometimes seeing one image and sometimes the other. While people's attention switched between the two images, the researchers used fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) brain scanning to monitor activity in the visual cortex. It was found that focusing on the red or the blue patterns led to specific, and noticeably different, patterns of brain activity.

[Jack]

I have no doubt that brain activity can reveal the subject of your thoughts (thinking about sex would appear different in scans than thinking about mathmatical equations) but I suspect we're a long way from being able to determine exactly what your thoughts are (thinking about 6x465x53).

[Starboy]

I agree, it is a long way off, especially when you consider that half the time most people are not aware of what they are thinking themselves.

Starboy

[Milton Bradley]

Herr Bush has already called for this type of science to be used to brain scan criminals for possible implications.


Why does it seem that all the new technology seems to ultimately work towards reducing ones liberty, or individuality?


Scary stuff. Not the science, the people in charge of using it.

[Charles]

I Agree. I am a firm beleiver that in a lot of cases there is always too high a price to pay. Its a shame too many people are unable to see that : besides, could it go as far as making violent thoughts against another illegal??

[Chris]

Semi related subject. I was watching something on PBS's Innovation back in Sept 2004 and they spoke of something exciting called Brain Fingerprinting. It is an important forensic tool. I talked about this at the board I used to post at (of close minded, self proclaimed open minded conservatives) and they all screamed "big brother" and flatly refused the idea. I would like to see what the neo cons and uber libertarians of this board think of the science. Basically they are measuring brainwaves via an EEG looking for a P300 response to certain probes to find out if someone has knowledge of a particular crime. This is exciting and innovative technology for use as an investigative tool and could be used as a tool against terrorism. Something better than torture. (A whole other subject) Also I think it is quite cool to firstly help keep guilty people in jail and keep innocent people from going to jail. It has and has now been admitted as scientific evidence in court.

[YourTokah]

Quote by: Isherwood I have no doubt that brain activity can reveal the subject of your thoughts (thinking about sex would appear different in scans than thinking about mathmatical equations) but I suspect we're a long way from being able to determine exactly what your thoughts are (thinking about 6x465x53).

I guess that would depend on how much you like math, eh?

[SteveA]

Quote by: Isherwood I have no doubt that brain activity can reveal the subject of your thoughts (thinking about sex would appear different in scans than thinking about mathmatical equations) but I suspect we're a long way from being able to determine exactly what your thoughts are (thinking about 6x465x53).

It depends on how many samples you have and what sort of processing power is available to correlate things.

It would vary from individual to individual but it's not impossible to roughly "read someones thoughts". The main difficulty is that other than some general areas of the brain, details would vary a lot from person to person, so you'd have to expose someone to a lot of stimuli to correlate what areas match what inputs and build up a map for that person. I agree that it's not likely we have the technology to do this to great detail ... yet.

Yes, spooky, huh?

Like I said before, I think technology's gonna kill us first. It could also save us in many ways, though. As usual, I think decentralizing things is a good idea so that mistakes people make in one place aren't forced on others and that gives time for people to learn and adapt.

Here's something even spookier though ... instead of monitoring brain activity, what if brain activity could be stimulated instead? Sounds like a storyline for a new movie.

[Lisastar]

Sean

Which part of the brain signalled when the person looked at red. I'd love to know, or am i the only person who can't read words if they are on a red background, it really glares.