At What Point is Manipulation Mind-Control?

[mike3]

Of course I think this is a bad idea as it would only be a matter of time before the scope of this would expand.

However, what if there exist serious world-problems for which the most effective solutions have a high potential for "expansion"? In that case, it would seem we would need to find some way to prevent or minimize that. How many world-problems go unsolved because of this possibility for the "expansion" of the solution (and also, for which this absolutely cannot be prevented or mitigated enough so as to be less of a problem than the original problem)? And how many cause massive harm from going unsolved for so long?

 

[The Man]

Uh, yes... I don't see how my layman's explanation was any different...

The parts of the brain that are lit up would be fed into some futuristic computer that would tell you what that brain was thinking at the time of the scan.

Your “layman's explanation” isn’t even close to the operational parameters and as Jeff Corey notes is basically just Sci-fi speculation. His suggestion about “detecting subvocal speech by monitoring the larynx” is actually much closer to the mark.

I guess maybe I confused MRI scan with EEG scan? Simple mistake, I think. I'm not a doctor.

That was just the start; from there the divergence increased until it no longer resembled the functionality of such a system.

Exactly who are you arguing this point against?

Your assertion as quoted above, which also seems to be INRM's inclination that it “would tell you what that brain was thinking at the time of the scan”. The interface simply allows the operator to control a computer with certain brain wave patterns as measured by a EEG that can be used to represent words and thus for communication. It does not “tell you what that brain was thinking at the time of the scan”. As yet only the person themselves can do that and as not every thought is conscious or readily expressible they will have some limitations in even doing that.

 

[MikeSun5]

Some futuristic computer? Even Star trek with FTL, transporters, holodecks, alien interfertility and Vulcan mind melds stretch the suspension of disbelief less that that. You'd be better off speculating about detecting subvocal speech by monitoring the larynx.

That was just the start; from there the divergence increased until it no longer resembled the functionality of such a system.

Jeez, you guys are picky. It's unfortunate that unless a post comes with like 19 smiley emoticons, than nobody can accept sarcasm/irony/flippant responses, etc. I've been accused of over-simplifying things before, but your reactions are quite silly. Both my post and the explanation of the synthetic telepathy technology boils down to this: A machine scans the brain, then sends the scan to another machine that decodes the scan into readable data.

You quoted the functional part of the technology yourself earlier, so I won't repost it. I will, however, quote the bass player from the Eagles:

"You make it harder than it has to be."

 

[The Man]

Jeez, you guys are picky. It's unfortunate that unless a post comes with like 19 smiley emoticons, than nobody can accept sarcasm/irony/flippant responses, etc. I've been accused of over-simplifying things before, but your reactions are quite silly. Both my post and the explanation of the synthetic telepathy technology boils down to this: A machine scans the brain, then sends the scan to another machine that decodes the scan into readable data.

You quoted the functional part of the technology yourself earlier, so I won't repost it. I will, however, quote the bass player from the Eagles:

Well the devil is in the details and, heck, before my first post on this forum I decided that I would not use smileys in any of my posts. However, I made no such restriction on my use of “sarcasm/irony/flippant responses”. So whatever I might be picky about it certainly ain’t that.

I don’t think either of us accused you of “over-simplifying things” (it seems that was just your own assertion), we were however pointing out that you were just off target and way out in left field. Even if deliberately so, I don’t have any problem with that, but as it seemed INRM was starting to get concerned about solders being court-martialed for not getting ‘implanted’ I thought it best to point out the actual details. Since I’ve already pointed out that it is just a control interface (a non-invasive one at that) to control a computer or other system and provided a link anyone can look at for themselves, I’ll just quote this exchange between Lt. Col. Charles R. Codman (played by Paul Stevens) and Gen. George S. Patton Jr. (played by George C. Scott) from the 1970 movie “Patton”

Lt. Col. Charles R. Codman: “You know General, sometimes the men don't know when you're acting.”

Patton: “It's not important for them to know. It's only important for me to know.”

 

[INRM]

The Man

It is no more mind reading than talking is (which one also has to learn).

Yeah except you require a computer to read your thoughts to work right. If you even read the article you would see that it actually does discuss the various ethical issues I raise...


mike3

However, what if there exist serious world-problems for which the most effective solutions have a high potential for "expansion"? In that case, it would seem we would need to find some way to prevent or minimize that.

How would you do that when the government does all sorts of things covertly without our knowledge?

 

[The Man]

The Man



Yeah except you require a computer to read your thoughts to work right. If you even read the article you would see that it actually does discuss the various ethical issues I raise...

What? Again the computer does not "read your thoughts" it simply responds to control inputs that can be from EEG (non-invasive) or neural action potentials (invasive). Don't just read news articles, read the current scientific research.


http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~vidal/Real_Time_Detection.pdf


http://jn.physiology.org/content/103/4/1843.full.pdf+html


http://jn.physiology.org/content/100/4/2397.full

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/27/28/7498.full

http://jp.physoc.org/content/579/3/621.full

http://jp.physoc.org/content/579/3/571.full

http://www.neurology.org/content/64...5da9142ae4d5f949ad2edaa0&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

http://www.neurology.org/content/67...45f85b6bd640d8d25f8f37a9&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0014488678902522

The computer needs to learn (record) input patterns to associate to the desired function and the subject still needs to learn how to use the interface (like learning to use a mouse, keybord and software) in order for it to "work right"...


From the eighth paper linked

Patients with completely locked-in syndrome are conscious and alert, even though they have lost the ability to control their muscles.1 These patients require a communication channel independent of the motor system. EEG-based brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) are an available communication aid, but aside from the intensive training that most of them demand, not all patients achieve proficiency in EEG control. Here we report an alternative method to re-establish communication in a 46-year-old woman with ALS.

...but unlike a a mouse or keybord perhaps need to learn how to use it agian.



From the fifth paper linked

A third source of difficulty in achieving reliable control may come from employing adaptive decoding schemes. Although such adaptive algorithms are intended to automatically optimize control, they create a moving target for volitional modulation; the neural activity pattern that worked at one time may subsequently become less effective, requiring the learning of new patterns.

Finally, the ability to learn optimal control may be limited by the short and intermittent exposure times, dictated by the need to tether the subject to the requisite instrumentation. For example, a paraplegic subject that could practise neural control of a cursor only several hours a week demonstrated remarkable success in controlling a cursor movement, but nevertheless achieved a limited degree of accuracy (Hochberg et al. 2006). Intermittent sessions also involve possible changes in the recorded neuronal population, requiring the subject to relearn the task with a slightly different population of cells. These factors suggest that the range and reliability of neural control in BMI might increase significantly when prolonged stable recordings are achieved and the subject can practise under consistent conditions over extended periods of time. This would involve implantable circuitry that can monitor the same neural activity over many days.

Our brains change and the patterns that were recoreded berfore may not be as applicable later.

Also from the fifth paper linked

The idea of ‘reading thoughts' has been mentioned since Berger et al. (1929), with the possibility of processing EEG waveforms using sophisticated mathematical analyses. Grey Walter, the brilliant EEG pioneer who described the contingent negative variation (CNV) often called the ‘expectancy wave', built the first automatic frequency analyser and the computer of ‘average transients' with the intention of discriminating covert thoughts and language in the human EEG (Walter, 1964). Fetz (1969) published the first paper on invasive operant conditioning of cortical spike trains in monkeys. Only the recent development of BCIs, however, has brought us closer to the dreams of these pioneers of EEG research.

Closer to that dream but still just a dream.

 

[INRM]

The Man

What? Again the computer does not "read your thoughts" it simply responds to control inputs that can be from EEG (non-invasive) or neural action potentials (invasive).

And if you can reliably determine and "decode" with sufficient accuracy, your brain signals -- it can read your mind.

 

[The Man]

The Man



And if you can reliably determine and "decode" with sufficient accuracy, your brain signals -- it can read your mind.

James Doohan as Montgomery Scott in the 1984 movie "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock"

"Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon!"

That's the problem INRM , we've leaned a lot about the complexity of the brain since 1929 when that possibility was proposed. We've also learned a lot about the plasticity of the brain, its ability to change and shift functions to other areas as needed. So instead of trying to overcome the possibly insurmountable difficulty of the former we are currently focused on manipulating the latter (as indicated in the pervious linked papers). However, that also has its problems (as indicated in the quotes from those papers) as that very plasticity can be a source of unreliability without perhaps sustained conditioning or direct conscious feedback.

In order to fulfill the fantasy of "reading" your mind I basically have to model your mind and have you actively confirm the applicability of that model. Now perhaps with some sufficient (future) computer capability, accurate scanning, your willing and concerted participation I might just be able to model your mind sufficiently for my needs at some particular point in time. Unfortunately, your mind is not static and that model will begin to diverge over time. It actually comes down to aspects of efficiency. If I have an effective model of your mind that does what I need it to do and also that I can fine tune to that need, why do I need you after I have that model? Alternatively, if I do need you, for whatever reason, there are already a multitude of ways to manipulate you or just circumstances surrounding you without having to go through all that rigmarole of modeling and hopefully reliably "reading" your current mind (even with your concerted participation).

 

[INRM]

The Man

Well, with fMRI's they are able to determine intent, episodic memory, what a person's looking at, listening to with increasing accuracy -- and this seems to factor in the fact that despite various subtle differences in people's brains, there is enough in common to be able to still make sense of.

 

[The Man]

Where did you pull that out of? If you have any actual studies please post them and we can go over them in detail.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_magnetic_resonance_imaging

Disadvantages of fMRI
• The images produced must be interpreted carefully, since correlation does not imply causality, and brain processes are complex and often non-localized.
• Statistical methods must be used carefully because they can produce false positives. One team of researchers studying reactions to pictures of human emotional expressions reported a few activated voxels in the brain of a dead salmon when no correction for multiple comparisons was applied, illustrating the need for rigorous statistical analyses.[28]
• The BOLD signal is only an indirect measure of neural activity, and is therefore susceptible to influence by non-neural changes in the body. This also means that it is difficult to interpret positive and negative BOLD responses[29]
• BOLD signals are most strongly associated with the input to a given area rather than with the output. It is therefore possible (although unlikely) that a BOLD signal could be present in a given area even if there is no single unit activity.[30]
• fMRI has poor temporal resolution. The BOLD response peaks approximately 5 seconds after neuronal firing begins in an area. This means that it is hard to distinguish BOLD responses to different events which occur within a short time window. Careful experimental design can reduce this problem. Also, some research groups are attempting to combine fMRI signals that have relatively high spatial resolution with signals recorded with other techniques, electroencephalography (EEG) or magnetoencephalography (MEG), which have higher temporal resolution but worse spatial resolution.
• fMRI has often been used to show activation localized to specific regions, thus minimizing the distributed nature of processing in neural networks. Several recent multivariate statistical techniques work around this issue by characterizing interactions between "active" regions found via traditional univariate techniques.
• The BOLD response can be affected by a variety of factors, including: drugs/substances;[31] age, brain pathology;[32] local differences in neurovascular coupling;[33] attention;[34] amount of carbon dioxide in the blood;[35] etc.
For these reasons, Functional imaging provides insights into neural processing that are complementary to insights of other studies in neurophysiology.

Again for a large part people are generally the same and certain things tend to get processed in specific areas (like the visual cortex), but it is still not reading some ones mind. The fMRI is used to measure hemodynamic response or blood flow in the brain.

 

[INRM]

The Man

Again for a large part people are generally the same and certain things tend to get processed in specific areas

That is what I said.

The fMRI is used to measure hemodynamic response or blood flow in the brain.

Which is used to determine the activity of the brain, which in turn can be used to determine a person's intentions, what they're looking at, listening to, and so forth.

 

[The Man]

The Man

That is what I said.

That’s not entirely what I said.

Which is used to determine the activity of the brain, which in turn can be used to determine a person's intentions, what they're looking at, listening to, and so forth.

Again…

If you have any actual studies please post them and we can go over them in detail.

 

[Jeff Corey]

The Man



That is what I said.



Which is used to determine the activity of the brain, which in turn can be used to determine a person's intentions, what they're looking at, listening to, and so forth.

No, anyone who tells you that is a crackpot (or head).

 

[INRM]

Jeff Corey

So scientists involved with fMRI research are crackpots?

 

[MikeSun5]

No, anyone who tells you that is a crackpot (or head).

crackhead or pothead?

INRM, I think what they mean by "activity of the brain" is just what regions are active during a scan, and they know which regions are active during certain functions... not somehow deciphering that activity into readable data about what the person's thinking (although it seems like that's a goal ).

 

[INRM]

MikeSun5

There has been work on fMRI's to try and decipher brain activity as I described earlier...

 

[INRM]

Interesting there has been at least some work with NASA using a helmet that could project near IR and IR light. The idea is that it would illuminate the blood vessels and fluid in the skull to determine brain activity as IR/Near IR light is absorbed differently by oxygenated and deoxygenated blood.

The purpose of this device was to help create cockpits with low workload and for this to work brain activity was monitored using this device.

 

[INRM]

Bump

 

[INRM]

bump

 

[INRM]

bump