digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at newsweek.com —

NEWSWEEK.COM: "Mind Reading Is Now Possible" (78% accurate.)

newsweek.com — (Using MRI technology.)"If what your brain does when it thinks about an igloo is almost identical to what mine does, that suggests the possibility of a universal mind-reading dictionary, in which brain-activity pattern x means thought y in most people. It is not clear if that will be true for things more complicated that pliers and igloos, however.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • iraq, on 01/13/2008, -4/+75Oh, I'd love to have these mechanisms placed on candidates during the Presidential debates!
    • Archeologist, on 01/13/2008, -4/+29Giuliani: "9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 ..."
      • dcbebop, on 01/13/2008, -4/+3actually, its: "braaaiiiiinnnnsssss..... braiiiinnnnsssss"
    • pbaehr, on 01/13/2008, -3/+40Giuliani: "Nine-eleven, nine-eleven, 9/11, september 11th, nine eleven, igloo, 9/11, nine eleven"
    • RAEP, on 01/13/2008, -1/+4hivemind oh shi-
    • pimpofpixels, on 01/13/2008, -0/+6The people deserve to know it their candidates are thinking about hammers of if they're thinking about pillars.
    • ShogunWarPig, on 01/13/2008, -2/+7Hilary: Can not compute....
      • KaiUno, on 01/13/2008, -0/+9More likely: "... cry damn you... cry... dead kittens... CRY!... "
    • MasterInsan0, on 01/13/2008, -14/+12Everyone on the Digg comments: "Ron Paul, porn, horse rape, Ron Paul, Apple, Mac, Steve Jobs' dick, Ron Paul, suicide" (repeat indefinitely)

      (except me, of course =P)
    • masterm1nd, on 01/13/2008, -4/+2We are lacking 911 911 911 911 comments.
      • meez, on 01/13/2008, -5/+2Nine eleven, Nine eleven.
        Nine eleven, Nine eleven.
        Nine eleven, Nine eleven.
        Ohhhh Nine Eleven...

        Nine eleven Nine eleven!!!
    • spacecoyote1966, on 01/13/2008, -0/+8Bush:
    • OneLess, on 01/13/2008, -6/+3Democratic candidates: "Change change change candidate of change change change change Iraq War change"
      Republican candidates: "terror terror terror terror terror 9/11 patriotism terror security terror terror"
      Ron Paul: "white power white power white power white power white power evil government white power"
    • linagee, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1Who says we shouldn't? 78% is good enough for me. Maybe next year it will be 80%, but I'd rather have 78% than base my voting on "empty promises". I'm all for sticking candidates under this thing. Where do we vote for that?
  • monospaced, on 01/13/2008, -2/+10FTA: "The more detailed the thought is, the more different these patterns get, because different people have different associations for an object or idea," says Haynes. "We're much closer to this than we were two years ago, but still far from a universal mind-reading machine." How far?
    A computer scans a stable brain and subjects are asked to think of certain items. The possibility of mapping the entire brain and how it forms conscious thought seems pretty weak to me.
    • Nichiren, on 01/13/2008, -0/+3Although the prospect of even accomplishing what they've done now wouldn't even have been thought possible 10 years ago. Who knows what they could do in another 10? Scientists seem to think that it has enough merit to further continue research in this field.

      I for one would welcome a device that would act as a universal translator... so I wouldn't have to try so hard at learning Mandarin as I am now...
    • spacecoyote1966, on 01/13/2008, -0/+0A couple of thoughts that may or may not be off topic: If I point to the top light of a stoplight, we would both agree that it is "red." Because each of us was taught to identify that color as "red." But what if each of our brains interprets that wavelength of light differently in our minds? Maybe what you define as "red" I might define as "orange" if I could "see" what your brain is seeing. Also: most of us "hear" words pronounced in our minds when we read. But what about people who have been deaf since birth and therefore don't know what any word is supposed to sound like phonetically?


      • ADHD, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1I've been pretty familiar with this theory, that our minds interpret the world around us differently, and after hours of thinking I've come to the conclusion that it is impossible.
        Heres my thoughts on why. For colors we are taught which color is which yes, but we aren't taught which ones go together yet their are certain colors (red and orange, black and red, white and black) that we know go together. For sound I say music, we all have different tastes in music but if we heard words differently what would sound on key and rhyme to one person wouldn't to another.
        Maybe there is variation to some degree but it cant be a very large one
      • linagee, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1It's true you could show 1000 people the color "red" under an MRI and their brain maps might be different. But what if you classified those people into genetic groups? You could further refine your results. It's very likely everyone in your family tree sees "red" the same way or close to the same way since your eyes were grown from the same DNA map. (except for mutations)
  • ninephoenixes, on 01/13/2008, -15/+7In b4 conspiracy *****.
    • mashw, on 01/13/2008, -1/+2You seem to have accidentally put a 4 there guy.
    • saisumimen, on 01/13/2008, -2/+2also, go back to 12chan.
  • trotskyist, on 01/13/2008, -1/+48I knew this tinfoil helmet would come in handy.
  • whatthefu, on 01/13/2008, -3/+4Why would you want it placed on candidates? Some may lie but they are all human and that would just be ***** creepy.
    • linagee, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1Are you saying they deserve to be able to lie? The leaders of our country should have the right to lie to us? WTF?
  • brainwash, on 01/13/2008, -3/+46Did anyone else think 1984 when reading this? We won't even have privacy in our own minds, great.
    • bs0l, on 01/13/2008, -0/+5How many fingers am I holding up?
    • oojamaflip2006, on 01/13/2008, -0/+6This made me think that George Orwell was on to something. Interesting how Newsweek is just a single letter away from Newspeak. (puts tinfoil hat on)
      • gfunk84, on 01/13/2008, -0/+9Uh.. it's 2 letters away.
        • oojamaflip2006, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1I cant spell when i wear my tinfoil hat.
      • Workster, on 01/13/2008, -0/+2It's two letters actually but nice try.
    • rarson, on 01/13/2008, -0/+2Privacy is thoughtcrime.
    • sotopheavy, on 01/13/2008, -1/+1Mind reading: "Girl you ain't got to say to much from the look in your eyes I can tell you want to *****"
    • ADHD, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1Yeah...I cant say I'm happy about this technology. Maybe the universal mapping of human minds is far off but the individual...now thats not a very hard one. Imagine all the stuff labeled as weird that would come out. Along with all the criminals we would catch but still I put this in the "creeps me the ***** out hope I die before it is created" category next to darth vader
    • Bodhidharmazen, on 01/13/2008, -0/+0Privacy is overrated. Most of the crimes we see as "normal" now would not exist in a world where EVERYBODY knows/can access anybody else information. Now, dont read me wrong, Im explicity saying that no authority should control this. Everyone would be able to see anyone else. We only need privacy in the bathroom and in our bedrooms, beyond that, the more people are able to watch the more secure we all are.
  • Wakuko, on 01/13/2008, -9/+0Read my mind: buried
    How many of us will follow the same pattern?
  • SomeImagination, on 01/13/2008, -0/+4oh *****! I'm screwed
  • bs0l, on 01/13/2008, -4/+3Please, they just watched Heroes too much.
    • linagee, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1But we already knew you watch Heroes because of your brain map...
  • a3r0, on 01/13/2008, -23/+4great, a new tool for the NWO/CFR order to use agains us citizens. next thing you know, theyll be locking you up for even thinikng about the constitution or what AMERICA used to be. going door to door to look for "terrorrists". waake up and open your eyes, sheeple. this is real. orwell warned us in 1984. YOU have to take aciton! vote Ron Paul to stop this ***** if you ever want to see your family!! im shocked that the MSM is even covering this you woould think they would keep it secret

    RP08!
    • trotskyist, on 01/13/2008, -1/+13The sad thing is, I can't tell if you're being serious or not.
    • Scheissen, on 01/13/2008, -2/+3You can't keep Pandora's box closed.
    • MasterInsan0, on 01/13/2008, -2/+8I wonder if Ron Paul's dick has gotten soggy at all from the number of mouths sucking on it?
    • 4DFX, on 01/13/2008, -4/+3For a moment there I thought I was gonna digg you up. But then you mention Ron Paul...
    • ryan83189, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1I don't think the sheeple are reading this, or giving ron paul too much consideration.
  • chrisinsocalif, on 01/13/2008, -1/+26I would be afraid to read peoples thoughts, especially the type of people who like that video 2girls1cup.
  • martinsulistio, on 01/13/2008, -0/+0wait, newsweek?
  • jwolcott, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1This works! I bet your thinking "Bury!" right now? RIGHT? This is so powerful...
  • phrozted, on 01/13/2008, -0/+3"...still far from a universal mind-reading machine."

    Rats! And I was gonna buy one with my lunch money.
  • WarWithWords, on 01/13/2008, -12/+1I'm sorry ... I just don't understand how something can be "78 percent accurate." I always thought of accuracy as a dualist proposal — either it is or it isn't. Yesterday, on the front page, there was a story citing that WiMax will be partnering with Apple after Macworld in SF — with 60 percent possibility.

    40 percent chance of rain tomorrow!
    • 1forallallfor1, on 01/13/2008, -1/+0Well, I think it works 78% of the time 100% of the time, or something like that.

      If 100 people were to use this contraption, it would be possible to correctly identify the thoughts of around 78%.

      I've often thought of probabilities as binaries, but perhaps 78% actually = 22% failure rate with positive spin.
      • WarWithWords, on 01/13/2008, -3/+2Despite this being pure pseudoscience, it should be called "success rate" rather than "accuracy." Accuracy implies something else. But perhaps I'll get dugg down for everything I do anyway.
        • WarWithWords, on 01/13/2008, -6/+1PLEASE tell me what I'm doing wrong. I'm just trying to participate in this community and give my viewpoints. As a newcomer to Digg, why are you all so harsh?
        • baronbliss4, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1PLEASE don't cry.

          That's. Just. The Way. It Is.
        • rarson, on 01/13/2008, -0/+2Dude, chill out. It's not the end of the world if your comments get buried. It happens. If you joined digg to feel validated, you're going to be disappointed quite often.
    • rarson, on 01/13/2008, -0/+2It's called probability. Probability is the chance of an event occurring, like reading a mind accurately. How is that hard to understand?
  • lancert, on 01/13/2008, -0/+3I KNEW they were going to write this article...
  • Mikhail101, on 01/13/2008, -0/+5thats not true sylvia brown could always read my mind before this...

    *sarcasm*
  • ufia, on 01/13/2008, -0/+9I'm afraid I will get sued for mentally undressing the women.
  • searcade, on 01/13/2008, -1/+4I Was already paranoid about my girlfriend ready my mind sometimes, now that this came up...
  • hendrixlives64, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1yo if it actually worked out, that would be awesome though.
    • ADHD, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1um no it wouldn't be
      Less you wanna post your masturbatory schedual along with any fetish's and "weird" things you do. Then let every girl you like know that you like them, and what you wanna do to them. And every person you hate or have had thoughts of killing, let them know too.
      Its government control...STOP THE SCIENTIST(I cant believe I'm saying this but can some christians please help a brother out on this one, we need to stall science)
  • mattb5, on 01/13/2008, -1/+12Don't think about monkeys . . . you did it, didn't you? You thought about a monkey. I know you did.
  • smurfsahoy, on 01/13/2008, -8/+9Sweet! A tool that helps us convict people correctly 78% of the time!!! Justice will now truly be served.

    This whole concept is based on really faulty psychology. Maybe someday when we have cybernetic brains that track and record patterns of thought in all of us for a massive database, then yes, it could be reasonable. But as of right now, we are stuck with the rather significant problem that THERE IS NO BRAIN AREA NATURALLY DEDICATED TO HAMMERS! There's not even a specific brain area for language, or color. The face vs. place study they're talking about was not 100% either. Yet they think they can do hammers? It's BS. That 78% will never go up to 99% or above, like it needs to be fore criminal cases, without ridiculously advanced future technology tht has nothing to do with this study.

    This may come as a shock to some people, but brains are not all identical. Saying that you can look for a specific pattern that will match in two people's brains that you've never seen before and tell you anything useful is like saying, "When somebody looks down at you, they're guilty." without considering the fact that some suspects will be 6'5" and some will be 4'7", one of which is much more likely to be looking down at you. You cannot take static measurements, or patterns, and apply them to every vastly unique person while still avoiding reasonable doubt, no matter what. (Even saying things like "if they look you in the eye, they're telling the truth" doesn't work. Behavior is too unique as well, which is why, without people giving contradictory info, secret service agents are the only professional entity in the US that is able to consistently guess who is lying more than 60% of the time) DNA works because it compares a person's DNA to his OWN DNA. Individual differences therefore don't matter in DNA testing, which is why it makes sense. Same with fingerprints. This is not the same thing at all, and it will never fly.
    • megadan76, on 01/13/2008, -1/+3You should probably RTFA before you comment.
      • smurfsahoy, on 01/13/2008, -0/+6I did, and as a researcher in cognitive psychology, I am telling you that almost all of it is suggesting that there was a revolutionary breakthrough where there was nothing of the sort. Yes, they cover their bases, but when they say things like "this will have to be verified by independent labs, of course," it is implying that that's just a formality, and a matter of time. It is not. Those labs will not verify it, because it can't be done with anything near current technology.

        They say "if your brain does mostly the same thing mine does when I think of igloo..." Well it doesn't - not even close, so you can ignore all of the hypotheticals they string out after that.

        They also use horribly deceptive statistics. Guessing A vs. B correctly 78% of the time, pretty much in any branch of science, generally means you failed miserably. Remember, the default is not 0%. The default is 50% - that's what you get if you have no clue as to what the person's thinking. This is a common and well known tool used by newspapers to twist things into sounding sensational. A responsible article would word it as "this tool is 28% better at rooting out criminals than random guessing,"

        The whole thing is just full of half truths, deceptions, or things that are flat out wrong. And the end message that we will probably see this put to use sometime very soon (or that if we don't, it's only for ethical reasons) is especially wrong.
  • rickbauls, on 01/13/2008, -1/+5Welcome to 1984
    • mashw, on 01/13/2008, -1/+3Read the book moron.
    • slearwig, on 01/13/2008, -0/+3It's closer to "Brave New World" with the potential for "the feelies", or perhaps an electroneural Soma.
    • ADHD, on 01/13/2008, -3/+1I repeat...read the book...you ***** *****
    • rickbauls, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1I've read the book 3 times now, O'Brien reads his mind through looking at his face. Either way it's still mind reading and scary.
  • Stonekeeper, on 01/13/2008, -1/+4thought police
  • SiNN4R, on 01/13/2008, -0/+8This device violates my fifth amendment rights. BAN IT!
  • slearwig, on 01/13/2008, -0/+4Does anyone else think it's time to include telepathic devices in our privacy laws, for instance requiring the consent of the subject, just so it's in place before the irresponsible go overboard with this wonderful toy?
    As long as it is limited to use as an aid for the physically impared under license and regulation then I have no trouble with it, but I wonder who will be responsible for regulating its uses?
    Also, what's to stop the developers from recording human impulses and abusing
    others with them, like something out of Star Trek; the Vulcan Mind Meld, etc.?
  • dudefather, on 01/13/2008, -1/+1prepare to have your very mind taken! woooooweeeeeeewoooooweeeee....
  • thevelvetsun, on 01/13/2008, -0/+9Yeah you can force them into the MRI, but you can't FORCE a murder suspect to think about a murder weapon. If they know what the machine does, they will use every ounce of energy to think of anything BUT that thing. Baseball...food...Donald Trump naked (ew)....

    "Damn it! Sonofabitch is thinking in Japanese!" "Hey! Why are you thinking in Japanese?!?"
    • PandarenLord, on 01/13/2008, -0/+2Damn it! I should know the reference... Heroes?
  • DimensionalPunk, on 01/13/2008, -3/+2Does this mean we can't torture anymore?
  • koicho, on 01/13/2008, -0/+5"Minority Report" coming live 2020?
  • bwpayne, on 01/13/2008, -0/+6After they make a dictionary for thoughts then they are one more step to forcing patterns into the brain...

    The Matrix

    You are now breathing manually.
  • slearwig, on 01/13/2008, -0/+2[quote]It is not clear if that will be true for things more complicated that pliers and igloos, however.[/quote] Advanced interpretation could depend on using Google logic, or an advanced "thought sequencer", like the difference between "words" and "phrases".
  • blindhammer, on 01/13/2008, -0/+3I knew you were going to post this.
  • Majhem, on 01/13/2008, -7/+2This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have heard of in a long time, who the hell is giving these people research dollars?? J. Edgar back form the grave!
    Sounds like no member of this research team has any knowledge of psychiatry/psychology.and how different people use their brains in different ways, to reach the same result.

    Buried for the thought-powered-pew-pew-laser-gun factor. ROFL Igloo has its own brainwave!
  • tttam, on 01/13/2008, -2/+178% just isn't convincing to me.
  • nixfu, on 01/13/2008, -1/+1LUUUUUUKE..... Use the force luke!!!


  • ideaash, on 01/13/2008, -1/+2Singularity is Near....
  • megadan76, on 01/13/2008, -0/+4This is pretty enormous. 10, 20 years ago, this would have been 100% science fiction. Now we're close to making it reality. The future really will be complex. I can't wait.
  • ithejosh, on 01/13/2008, -2/+4Finally I can understand girls...
    • NOFXY, on 01/13/2008, -0/+6dobut it, the machine will probably break or the computer will crash.
  • tehstyles, on 01/13/2008, -4/+4Scary. They need stop working on this technology.
    • Stevethegreat, on 01/13/2008, -0/+2Why? That would be a disastrous notion. Every technology that is being suppressed fall ALWAYS on the wrong hands. You would like best for Chinese to have it, a dictatorship?

      I think I have nothing to fear from technologies, but I have everything to fear from people who fear technologies, the day that we'll stop innovating we'll die and that's a rule of the thumb for the human specie.
      • slearwig, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1We certainly need disclosure and regulation, though how the hell will "a potential victim" prove they are a target of it?
    • linagee, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1Do you have something to hide?
      • slearwig, on 01/14/2008, -0/+1You bet I have something to hide. I have the trust of my friends and loved ones and I do not need anyone who needs a telepathic device probing my brain and abusing that trust. I am an honest man. Unless I am incapacitated in a hospital, if you can't ask me to my face then you have no reasons for telepathy but trouble. This reminds me of the story several years ago about the security scanning device that was so precise that people passing through it appeared nude on the inspection monitors. How do you feel about your Mother/Father or Girlfriend/Boyfriend/Wife/Children being inspected by personnel operating this device? Do you have something to hide?
  • ref-d, on 01/13/2008, -0/+3http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF160-The_Dreamcatcher3 ...
  • rivasj, on 01/13/2008, -1/+1Foil hat renders this technology useless.
    • MWeather, on 01/13/2008, -0/+2Actually, it amplifies the signal. You need a hamster-ball faraday cage.
  • hadigoal, on 01/13/2008, -1/+0we can no longer lies if this becomes mass developed, and then life will be like a plain paper... all truth, no more lies or mystery.... no more fun.... haha...
    • linagee, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1Who says you can't have fun? It would just be public knowledge. Sort of like a wiki-on-steroids.
  • fixedcoma, on 01/13/2008, -1/+1Here's a pocket full of asbestos, it's about all i've got!
  • neurophyre, on 01/13/2008, -0/+3In 2004 I wrote a paper for a comparative literature class, actually a survey of dystopian fiction starting and ending with Huxley, that broached the idea of electronic telepathy. Open source, no less -- see the OpenEEG project and open source games written for it that you can play with your mind.
    I contend that the combination of
    1. sufficiently advanced sensing technology such as a "wearable fMRI"
    2. sufficiently advanced 'writing' technology such as BrainPort
    3. a high bandwidth personal area network which can automatically link with nearby persons
    4. assistive signal-processing software possibly using some kind of 'brain dictionary' as mentioned in the article and
    5. people that grow up wearing such devices such that their brains learn to interpret the input much as a child learns a language,
    could lead to the development of a form of electronically assisted telepathy. Before you dismiss me as a crackpot, read the paper: http://neurophyre.livejournal.com/233254.html
    (It would help if you had read The Translator by John Crowley since this is technically a comp-lit paper, but whatever.) Bring on the abusive comments!
    • slearwig, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1It doesn't need the subject to wear anything. It can work on the transmission of individualistic resonance frequencies and be target-specific, the same as how the sound of fingernails scraping a chalkboard will send some people up the wall while others are unaffected. The suseptible are sympathetically resonant to the sound.
      There may already be a correlation between the specifics of an individual's DNA (or body mass) and resonance frequencies which will allow targeting of a subject via a broadcast carrier frequency containing impulse data tuned to the subject's resonance frequency(s) while others are unaffected, possibly in the ultrasonic or supersonic range.
  • MartinR, on 01/13/2008, -0/+0I'm a bit uneasy about the other 22%...what if someone gets convicted based on this.
    • Bodhidharmazen, on 01/13/2008, -0/+0I can tell you, it is MUCH WORSE with the current patetic system, based on religious "right" and "wrong" concepts and in human interpretation!
  • jamminjulez, on 01/25/2008, -0/+0so now even "freedom of thoughts" will soon be just a past time
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.