# Science decodes 'internal voices'



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

> Researchers have demonstrated a striking method to reconstruct words, based on the brain waves of patients thinking of those words.
> 
> The technique reported in PLoS Biology relies on gathering electrical signals directly from patients' brains.
> 
> ...


BBC News - Science decodes 'internal voices'


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

This article sure is gonna drive a lot of Sixes crazy


----------



## zomberlover (Sep 17, 2011)

Oh....My god.

This means they can more or less read our minds....?

What the hell???
So many problems with this! You cant control your thoughts!!! I most definitely do not want my most inner thoughts revealed to anyone who can interperate the waves. Eh.

The other side of me is ecstatic about this news. Reading minds????? I want to!


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

Of course they're saying it's just to help people with speech disorders communicate properly -- of course there's *noooo* desire to use this for interrogation and surveillance purposes _(yeah right)_. When the means to scan this part of the brain remotely is developed -- goodbye privacy for good. I think this is something that should be seen exactly what it is.


R.C.
Remember to read and understand my signature down below...


----------



## MXZCCT (May 29, 2011)

Aw, man.
Now I'm really going to piss people off.


----------



## Obsidean (Mar 24, 2010)

This is awesome!


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

Soon Google will give everyone a computer for free. All you have to do in return is a quick and easy electrode implantation.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

Why until now has nobody seen this as having seriously dangerous consequences?

R.C.
Remember to read my signature below...


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

RobynC said:


> Why until now has nobody seen this as having seriously dangerous consequences?
> 
> R.C.
> Remember to read my signature below...


Because we aren't you and some of us find it too depressing to go around finding the problems and dangers of EVERY INVENTION.


----------



## Sheppard (Jul 4, 2011)

Nice to see how they are slowly but surely refining the process further and further. A solid step towards the human - machine interface. 

Recording dreams, downloading knowledge, it's a fun future ahead. 

Also, it's kind of interesting thinking about the ethical consequences. Think about it... no more guilty people ending up free. No more innocent people ending up in jail. Is that enough reason to justify it's use... hm.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@sprinkles



> Because we aren't you and some of us find it too depressing to go around finding the problems and dangers of EVERY INVENTION.


Most of the technology that I tend to be leery of tend to be technology related to surveillance, brain-scanning technology, nanotechnology, and artificial intelligence. I'm not worried about every single invention created.



> Nice to see how they are slowly but surely refining the process further and further. A solid step towards the human - machine interface


And the end of privacy...



> Also, it's kind of interesting thinking about the ethical consequences


That's what I generally worry about: I assume this would be used for abusive purposes far more so than beneficial ones. I'm also worried that so few people realize how dangerous this is.



> Think about it... no more guilty people ending up free.


Actually that's not necessarily true. After all algorithms would interpret the activity of the brain to determine what a person was thinking. One could use an algorithm to alter the readings to a pre-determined result calculated to show guilt?

Here is some other food for thought

1.) The technology allows a section of the brain to be scanned as to decode the activity in the region, and translate the internalized thoughts as speech. It doesn't specify that an fMRI is the only means to do it. If a means is developed that allows this to be done from a distance _(and keep in mind 10 years ago many people here would have thought mind-reading was possible)_. Once the technology to do this remotely can be done, the government could use this technology covertly to identify those who hold views it doesn't like.

2.) Government won't be the only people to use this technology -- companies could easily use it to screen out employees they don't like _(even if the questions asked are those they have really no right to -- like where do you stand on abortion)_

3.) Guilt is the function of having violated a law. The law doesn't have to be fair, or even remotely reasonable -- all it has to do is be passed by Congress. Would this technology lead to the passing of thought-crime legislation? There was already a law proposed a few years back which focused on extremist ideology -- thoughts, not actions. The bill ignited a furor because it amounted to a thought-crimes bill and empowered the government to decide what is and what is not a radical ideology _(effectively allowing them to label virtually anything they don't like as being a radical ideology)_. Though the law wasn't passed, another law along the same lines could always be passed again, and while in 2007, one could only infer thought from writings, words and statements; with this they could actually determine who holds certain views by scanning their brain. Who's to say the government would define

Holding views critical of banks and corporations
Having doubts as to the veracity of the government's explanations regarding a particular event
Holding views critical to the government's involvement in a war started on possibly dubious grounds
Believing the Constitution should be adhered to
as being radical ideological views?

This is _*waaaay*_ more likely to be used as a tool for the powers that be to hang on to power than to help people with speech disabilities speak properly: It would allow them to monitor our every thought, our every action, allow them to mentally outmaneuver us in every way possible. Though the amount of data is massive, ever increasing computer processing speeds, cheeper and more voluminous storage space, and improved algorithms to organize all this data allow the means to construct impeccably organized profiles on each and every one of us and even the means to answer questions in essay form

There would be ample desire for the powerful and the unscrupulous to use this technology in this manner -- they know there are a lot of individuals who are unhappy with the status quo and want to change things for the greater good, but they also know that isn't good for them: Therefore, these people _(which probably make up 95-99% of the population and most likely includes you)_ down.

I'd like to also note that there is also something else that most people don't seem to recognize: The first step to be able to control a mind is to be able to read a mind -- to be able to monitor every significant detail of brain activity and understand what it means. Once you can do that, the activity can be manipulated to suit one's purposes. True and absolute mind-control.


R.C.
_Remember to read my signature below and seriously make sure you understand..._


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

RobynC said:


> @sprinkles
> 
> Most of the technology that I tend to be leery of tend to be technology related to surveillance, brain-scanning technology, nanotechnology, and artificial intelligence. I'm not worried about every single invention created.


Right, and I apologize. It isn't your fault. It's just that the list of things to be concerned about grows too long for me.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@sprinkles



> Right, and I apologize. It isn't your fault. It's just that the list of things to be concerned about grows too long for me.


It is admittedly exhausting the number of things that are going wrong these days. The problem is though is by giving up, things only get worse. Not all progress is good _(it simply means to advance as towards a goal)_ and all it takes for some seriously bad things to happen is that good people to stand by and do nothing.


R.C.
Remember to read my signature below and seriously make sure you understand...


----------



## Brainteaser (Jan 20, 2010)

Any such mind reading device still won't work regardless. Not that I can even explain why that is.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@Brainteaser

I find your assertions naive...


R.C.
Remember to read my signature below and seriously make sure you understand...


----------



## traceur (Jan 19, 2012)

RobynC said:


> And the end of privacy...


 yes



RobynC said:


> I assume this would be used for abusive purposes far more so than beneficial ones.


yes but probably not the way you think: the cost and resolution of any brain scanning technology is tied down to Moore's law of exponential returns, which means after a short while the crap only huge superpower governments could afford to use selectively with limited applications - quickly becomes dirty cheap and hacked versions become staple in every garage.

by the time the government can finally afford using it for interrogations on a political prisioner out of every 100,000, there's a reported contact in the whitehouse working on brainleaks, and the perv next door who wants to know your dirtiest thoughts will get the hand of this before the average cop.

but governments are slow moving beasts. google advertisement on the other hand... that's the one that's gonna be scary.


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

Can we use this to compose music just by thinking the tune? What about mathematical concepts? I'd imagine that sort of thing would be helpful for say, Stephen Hawking.



RobynC said:


> If a means is developed that allows this to be done from a distance _(and keep in mind 10 years ago many people here would have thought mind-reading was possible)_.


I'm willing to bet money that won't happen in my lifetime. Though if I'm wrong, I'd be happy to donate towards activism/advocacy so the bet isn't entirely impartial. :wink:


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@traceur



> the cost and resolution of any brain scanning technology is tied down to Moore's law of exponential returns, which means after a short while the crap only huge superpower governments could afford to use selectively with limited applications


The cost wouldn't be an issue -- government's are funded by taxpayer dollars and can borrow debt from other countries -- there's no limit.



> but governments are slow moving beasts. google advertisement on the other hand... that's the one that's gonna be scary.


Covert-operations and black-operations groups are a serious issue as they aren't burdened by the complex bureaucratic processes that the rest of the government is burdened by. They are also highly compartmentalized so thousands of people can be working on a task with a handful actually knowing the full details.


@Snow Leopard



> Can we use this to compose music just by thinking the tune? What about mathematical concepts? I'd imagine that sort of thing would be helpful for say, Stephen Hawking.


Wouldn't it be better if we could figure out how to cure/prevent ALS?


R.C.
Remember to seriously read my signature below and be sure you understand what I mean by it...


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

RobynC said:


> Wouldn't it be better if we could figure out how to cure/prevent ALS?


Absolutely. I was being facetious.


----------



## intrasearching (Jul 15, 2011)

God fucking damn it. I wrote a long reply to this and pressed the backspace key when the cursor was not in the text field. And so I lost everything. Fuck.

Anyway, I wanted to comment to Snow Leopard that the littler progresses (helping those with ALS to communicate through this technology) are not nullified by the awareness that ALS could conceivably be cured one day. I agree with you that this technology could very liberating in this regard. I also agree that the possibility of composing music through some sort of mind reading device would be spectacular. Sure, there are endless negative implications for such technology. One can spend all their time focusing on such things, and while their perceptions may largely be accurate, their perceptions would not be inaccurate if they focused on the endless positive implications.

I don't want to step on anyone's toes or jump into an argument. But I think that it is important to spend more time focusing on the positive. This isn't to say that one should be unrealistic. It is most important to be realistic. But, indeed paranoia and pessimism are different from realism. Surely there is some benefit in being somewhat "paranoid." One is prepared for the worst and is perhaps less likely to be compromised. But... one can choose where to put their energy. Of course it's good to be aware of those trying to steal your freedoms. Just personally I wouldn't want to let the possibility of being wronged keep me thinking negatively and fearfully.

I'll probably regret posting this later.


----------



## ParetoCaretheStare (Jan 18, 2012)

I think it's unnatural, and it can drive people to insanity. Some are stronger than others, but if the internal voices are backtracks of responses to the reading of what we're saying simply for the study, that's not cool. Healthy people don't have "communication disorders". There can be language barriers, but speech disorders can be overcome with the person's decision to get help. What are we, trying to get the whole world to speak English? I think it's ridiculous, and people will abuse the devices to get into the minds of people to seek revenge. It's true that speech boundaries can make it difficult to interact with some people, but only with the ones who are ignorant and not open-minded. This kind of technology should be used with caution, and only on the participant's behalf.


----------



## lightened (Mar 24, 2012)

i doubt this. 
you can't measure internal thoughts. thoughts are being processed and constructed at an impossible rate.


----------



## Agent Blackout (Mar 1, 2012)

skycloud86 said:


> BBC News - Science decodes 'internal voices'


Omg... they can explain and prove the voices in my head?


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

There's only so many times a person can take a whatever before they either explode in rage or stop screening my inner voice.

Either way is fine with me, as it gets rid of 'em just fine :mellow:


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

Sheppard said:


> Nice to see how they are slowly but surely refining the process further and further. A solid step towards the human - machine interface.
> 
> Recording dreams, downloading knowledge, it's a fun future ahead.
> 
> Also, it's kind of interesting thinking about the ethical consequences. Think about it... no more guilty people ending up free. No more innocent people ending up in jail. Is that enough reason to justify it's use... hm.



Yes, exactly. I think a lot of people are missing the implications of this.

It's not just for handicapped people. It's for everyone.

One day, humans will strap their cellphones directly onto their heads, and *think* their thoughts across the globe. It's been inevitable since the invention of the internet... which was probably also inevitable.

Don't worry, they'll get cell phones small enough that it wont look silly or give us brain cancer.

And yes, hackers will hack onto your cellphone and read your thoughts.

The government may even install thought monitoring software in certain occasions, but I do hope the people of the future have enough wherewithal to fight that one every inch of the way.

At best, the government will be stuck with their current system of monitoring the traffic itself... which at least gives the person the choice of transmitting their thoughts before they can be read.

(Though, it wont be me, should this ever happen in my lifetime. I hate cellphones and normal phones. I sort of like not being readily available for other people to contact.)


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

I heard somewhere, that there was capability in taking a "snap shot" of what you were thinking about, and reproduce the image, but the image quality wasn't all that great. :/ 

I think, if this were ABLE to happen, technically, we could transfer the thoughts, and imaginations of everyone into one super computer. That would have to be useful for something, right? And people know the processing speed of computers is about a billion times faster than the human mind. Just imagine all our thoughts live jacked up on a computer. We'd probably be able to spew out a blue print for just about any invention we want. 

Honestly though, I think people would agree, that's it's about 100x easier and faster, to destroy something, with this power, I think we'd end up destroying the world either by ignorant experimenting or malintentions, (it'd take one bad apple), before we used the stuff for any good. We don't know what the hell we are doing with these inventions. And as powerful as they are, we're gonna fuck up eventually.

Nothing we could do about it really though, it's a snowball effect, and the snowball is getting bigger and bigger. Some people are trying to be advocates against technological advances (myself included) but it's like trying to push the snow ball back up to the hill. But it's an uphill battle with a giant snowball already in motion. *Shrugs*


----------



## wiarumas (Aug 27, 2010)

My initial thought was:

Good, maybe we can replace voice commands someday soon. I really hate the thought of shouting commands in public.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

In this thread on Post #11 I wrote this



> Would this technology lead to the passing of thought-crime legislation? There was already a law proposed a few years back which focused on extremist ideology -- thoughts, not actions. The bill ignited a furor because it amounted to a thought-crimes bill and empowered the government to decide what is and what is not a radical ideology _(effectively allowing them to label virtually anything they don't like as being a radical ideology)_. Though the law wasn't passed, another law along the same lines could always be passed again, and while in 2007, one could only infer thought from writings, words and statements; with this they could actually determine who holds certain views by scanning their brain. Who's to say the government would define
> 
> Holding views critical of banks and corporations
> Having doubts as to the veracity of the government's explanations regarding a particular event
> ...


Well, just recently a DHS report was released declaring some of the following things as being potential signs of terrorism

Being fiercely nationalistic
Being anti-globalist
Suspicious of centralized federal authority
Reverent of individual liberty
Believe in conspiracy theories
Possess a belief that one's personal way of life is under attack
Possess a belief that one's nation is under attack
Are opposed to nuclear-weapons
Having critical views of banks and corporations, having doubts as to the veracity of government explanations of events, holding critical views over the governments involvement in a war started on dubious grounds, and believing the Constitution should be adhered to would fall under "believing in conspiracy theories", "anti-globalistic", "suspicious of federal authority" and "reverent of individual liberty".

Effectively this new report labels all the things I mentioned as being radical views -- potential terrorism in fact. 

I should note that all the items I listed are thoughts and ideas, not actions. This is not potential terrorism -- this is thoughtcrime: All of this brain-scanning technology would essentially allow for the thought police


R.C.
_Remember to seriously read my signature down below and be sure you understand what I mean by it..._


----------



## DestinieMarie (Apr 14, 2012)

When this technology develops, I hope my inside mind voice is appealing. I think it sounds rather godly and echo-y.


----------



## CataclysmSolace (Mar 13, 2012)

Wow, I knew it was being researched/tested and stuff. It's amazing to see how far we've come and how far we still have to go as a species in general. Nothing is impossible it seems like anymore...
The Ultimate Secret


----------

