Hi Paul,

Yes very interesting!  Thanks!  Not perfect images yet from brain waves but much much much better than one might expect.  Things really are advancing very quickly!

All the best. - Kim

Hey Kim,

I saw this article and I thought it will make your day better:

Psychic 'mind-reading' computer will show your thoughts on screen

Hi Carol,

Research on thought identification technology so far indicates that how we represent concepts in the brain is to some extent stable from person to person. But there is still considerable variation among us. Symbols mean different things to different people, absolutely. And so, in alignment with the Deconstructionist movement, we can expect different neural representations of a given concept from person to person. Research thus far has indicated a combination of recognizable patterns and variation for even simple concepts like ‘hammer’.

That being said, the success of machines recognizing a single concept over a broad range of people in the future is hard to predict. The surprising and exciting component of this research is the relative success in translating neural patterns to symbols—of identifying the neural correlates of conscious experience. Previous decades saw more uncertainty in the relationship between the mind and the brain than we have today, and seriously questioned whether subjective thought correlated so closely with observable and identifiable neural patterns, as well as whether or not we could 'read off' neural patterns to predict the subjective visual and intentional experience of the subject.

For a number of reasons, the technology employed in doing more involved mind reading will have to be relatively flexible. For one, what a given symbol means changes over time. September 11th for instance, probably stored and represented in the brain like many other days before 2001 now represents something quite different to many people. If there were to be a ‘database’ of neural correlates of thought used by machines to interpret fMRI, the database would have to be consistently updated.

Also, in order to account for and anticipate individual variation in concept representation, the computer would have to take contextual information, like age and gender, from a person’s brain into consideration, factoring it into interpretation accordingly. For instance, an adult and a child likely represent the word ‘book’ differently. As would a librarian and a travel agent.

Initially this may seem like a massive and impossible task, with too many variables to consider. However, with faster computers, and better ways to scan the brain that should come along, it is not unrealistic to assume that a more prolific mind reading technology will come to fruition.

The data mining of e-mail to surmise a person’s interests etc. is a lower scale example of how software can account for context in determining facts about a person. Research into information architecture and the proliferation of a more semantic Web will contribute to our understanding of how ideas are grouped together and patterned.

So you are very right! The crossing of disciplines will be a crucial component to the revelations about the mind that are to come!

Could you provide information on Harold Bloom’s categorizing of desires? Sounds very interesting!

All the best. - Kim

Also, Harold Bloom has been working on the taxonomy of desire.  Once you have defined a taxonomy, you can start digitizing it and having computer programs operate on it.  What a boon to marketing people!  

Additionally, there is a whole NBIC revolution going on (Nanotech, Biotech, IT and Cognition).  The overlap of these different fields is going to be enormous.

I mean,will we get an Opt-In on this one?Or is it going to go the way of Consumer Privacy Browsing Issues online(Non-existant).

When do we decide and say enough is enough is enough?

It frightens me allright.

Ashish.

If it were an opt-in thing, I think I'd actually want my mind read sometimes. I'm an intuitive person and I do get really tired when I have to explain things to other people who aren't the intuitive type. Would be glad if I could just place a scanner over my head and have someone read my explanation so that I won't have to figure out how to say it.

Ok, maybe I'm just avoiding the flourishing philosophical debate here, which has so many nuances that my intuition keeps on pointing out to me. Headache...

Hi Princess Dascho and others,

The thought identification studies  come very close to answering the age old philosophical questions of dualism but of course the studies to date do not prove that all feelings and thoughts have a physical basis.  It will be very exciting indeed if we find out that certain thoughts or feelings have a pattern of localization quite radically different from others or perhaps no localization at all!

Throwing out dualism radically re-arranges how we look at the 'afterlife'. Physicalism is not convincing in this regard. The one thing that remains is meaning, right? And this is where Chalmers Hard Problem of Consciousness steps in. Even if we do explain consciousness in terms of physical matters, we still haven't explained WHY we have these qualitative mental experiences, why we have an 'I'.

Although some notions of human purpose could be revealed by a more complete neuroscience, others will not, and new mysteries about human beings will be revealed.

We live in very exciting times with this kind of science on the forefront. It is our job in discussions like these to stimulate thought on these matters, to embrace these changes and help steer our efforts with the information we have into a more favorable direction. 

All the best. - Kim

The web that could read someday my thoughts? Why should we go that far?  If the answer seems to be obvious through the different explainations given so far, I still don't have the answer to this question: If someday technology could read someone thoughts until predict people 's intention, what would be the place of God for human beings? A technology that allows someone to read or to predict someone else thoughts scares me even though it could help somehow human beings. I wish that we could know our limits and not allow technology to go far away from what it should be.

We can determine which it will be and make it a force for good by creating the proper context and regulations for its use.

I wish we could. The idea of somebody or a machine reading my mind scares me and when I agree that it could be used for the good, we should not forget that  many would attempt to use it  to do evil. And a I think (as you said), a good regulation context for its use should be created before any wide scale adoption, someday.  

You bring up an excellent point, Hounhosp, when you cite the parallels between thought-identification technology and nuclear technology. Just as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the later development of nuclear reactors for power generation changed everyone's thinking, we could expect here also to see an existential shift, a change in how we think about our human species' purpose, potential, limits, and responsibility given this powerful new technology and associated threats and possibilities.  And, like nuclear technology, thought identification technology will indeed reveal some unpleasant things about human nature, and the human condition.

But, with this in mind, we can, in recognizing the potential of the technologies we are fostering, play in role in shaping and regulating what we create.  It begins neutral, neither good nor evil.  We can determine which it will be and make it a force for good by creating the proper context and regulations for its use.

All the best. - Kim