Philosophy@Utah State

Home » Uncategorized » Brain reading

Brain reading

Advertisements

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 108 other followers

Old Main, USU

T-shirts


You need a Philosophy T-shirt! For more information, please click here.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

* Interested in presenting a paper at an UNDERGRADUATE PHILOSOPHY CONFERENCE or publishing in an UNDERGRADUATE PHILOSOPHY JOURNAL? You should consider it! To see what options are available, both in state and out of state, click here.

PHILOSOPHY BOWLING RESULTS

• Is the world eternal? YES
• Do humans have contra-causal free will (i.e., can humans do otherwise)? NO
• Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? YES
• Do humans have souls? YES
• Are there natural rights? YES
• Is it morally permissible to eat meat? NO
• Is the unexamined life worth living? NO
• Is truth subjectivity? YES
• Is virtue necessary for happiness? YES
• Can a computer have a mind? YES
• Can humans know reality as it is in itself? YES
• Is hell other people? YES
• Can art be created accidentally? NO
• Can we change the past? NO
• Are numbers real? NO
• Is it always better to know the truth? YES

Blog Stats

  • 196,253 hits

My brother alerted me to a “60-minutes” segment that aired last night about reading content from brains. (It’s the second story, just after the first commercial break.) The first part of the report is sort of interesting. A scientist has been brain imaging a bunch of people, asking them to think about certain objects, and recording the results. Then he takes a new person, asks her to think about certain objects (without telling the computer), and lets the computer guess what they were thinking (in a limited form; you ask the computer “Was it a barn or a screwdriver?”). The computer was right 100%. That’s pretty impressive, and scary when you think about possible consequences.

Those consequences emerge in the second part of the story, when the possibility is raised (through another line of research) of analyzing a suspect’s brain to determine if they had special knowledge of where/how a particular crime was committed. It’s there that the 5th-amendment right against self-incrimination collides with the state’s right to gather evidence (such as DNA samples).

Advertisements

1 Comment

  1. source says:

    Wow. Very “Ghost in the Shell”-y.

    Personally, I doubt that researcher’s claim that we’ll be able to read complex thoughts in 3-5 years. It’ll be interesting to see, however, because this is just so far from my expertise and experience I really have no idea what will be possible or how I’ll feel about what’s possible when we get there.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: