It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mind reading, Brain fingerprinting and the Law = NeuroLaw

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   

What if a jury could decide a man's guilt through mind reading? What if reading a defendant's memory could betray their guilt? And what constitutes 'intent' to commit murder?

Neurolaw, also known as legal neuroscience, builds upon the research of cognitive, psychological, and social neuroscience by considering the implications for these disciplines within a legal framework. Each of these disciplinary collaborations has been ground-breaking in increasing our knowledge of the way the human brain operates, and now neurolaw continues this trend.

One of the most controversial ways neuroscience is being used in the courtroom is through 'mind reading' and the detection of mental states. While only courts in New Mexico currently permit traditional lie detector, or polygraph, tests there are a number of companies claiming to have used neuroscience methods to detect lies.

Methods include:
*EEG - electroencephalography
*BEOS - brain fingerprinting and brain electrical oscillations signature
*fMRI - functional magnetic resonance imaging


"Some proponents of neurolaw think that neuroscience will soon be used widely throughout the legal system and that it is bound to produce profound changes in both substantive and procedural law," conclude the authors. "Other leaders in neurolaw employ a less sanguine tone, urging caution so as to prevent misuses and abuses of neuroscience within courts, legislatures, prisons, and other parts of the legal system.
Link

Introducing a growing new field of Science and Law - NeuroLaw

It's looking like a brave new world, folks...





ed: to fix link

[edit on 22-1-2010 by LadySkadi]




posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Neuroethics at the World Science Festival




In this clip, Nikolas Rose expresses doubts that the field of neuroethics will have any radical implications for jurisprudence, to which both Patricia Churchland and Francis Collins agree. Paul Nurse then brings up the problem of freewill, an issue which Daniel Dennett has written extensively on.


Full Discussion - Here



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Thanks for the link. I am very interested in this. I am studying to be a court reporter so I will update anything that comes up. Also, I bookmarked the link so I will view it tomorrow. Thanks again, S&F



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by eazyriderl_l
 

Very interesting! Please feel free to contribute any information you have or find in the future.

Definitely an interesting discipline.





[edit on 21-1-2010 by LadySkadi]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Resource

The Law and Neuroscience Blog


... the members of the MacArthur Law and Neuroscience Project (LANP) can share their ideas and interact with not only other researchers but also with the interested public more generally. One of the main goals of the blog is to provide people with a resource for finding out about cutting edge research at the cross-roads of neuroscience, law, and philosophy. Hopefully, readers will be as interested in the recent and future developments in the growing field of neurolaw as we are.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I just don't know...

I believe some people have the ability to receive readings of future events. Some have this ability more than others IMHO. I believe some are more sensitive. But I highly doubt one could build a case on someones "mind Reading" abilities.


Brain fingerprinting now that's interesting.


[edit on 22-1-2010 by SLAYER69]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Funny how life imitates art.




posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   
One step closer to the apocolypse.

Hold on to your hats and try not to get suicidal.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by timewalker
 


That was the first thing I thought of.



Really, it's kind of creepy. Memories incriminating you? How can they be sure that you're thinking what they think you're thinking? Maybe I'm feeling guilty for telling someone off and not apologizing before they were killed and they mistake it for me feeling guilty about killing them. Definitely interesting to think about, and yet frightening at the same time.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

Not talking about someone's psychic ability as much as it's about somethings ability to interpret brain wave patterns... Brain fingerprinting has to do with recognition of events via personal experience.









[edit on 22-1-2010 by LadySkadi]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by timewalker
 

Yep, I thought about this movie too.

It is a bit different from what the researchers are doing, but still...




posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Michael S. Gazzaniga on the Law & Neuroscience Project




Michael S. Gazzaniga, Professor of Psychology, University of California at Santa Barbara & Director of the MacArthur Foundation's law & neuroscience Project.


www.lawandneuroscienceproject.org...

[edit on 22-1-2010 by LadySkadi]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 
Yeah, no Pre Cogs yet. We have to rely on technology for now. Machines malfunction. We rely on them too much. I can see it now- Supreme Court ruling, juries are too emotional, our machines (that we all have stock in the parent company) are perfect. UNTIL THEY COME FOR YOU.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


Personally, I already see the potential for abuse through "brain imprint planted" evidence.

All it would take is for someone with an agenda, political or otherwise, to pay off someone.

Like the movie "Minority Report" we have a choice in what actions we will take.

Anything delving into having to do with the mind of a human and proving their intent, is highly questionable, because of the fact that like lie detectors, this will not be admissible in court.

Do we, instead of "Pleading the 5th", now have to "Plead the 3rd Eye Clause"?

That will be what it comes down to at least as far as I see it.

The human mind is our last place to have our own sanctity and no one will ever get inside mine, especially not Government because I do not trust them, more so than I do not trust the criminals they claim to protect us from, because the majority of the time it is Government itself acting higher than the law, in breaking the very laws they claim they are trying to hold us accountable to.

Neuro-law is nothing I will have anything to do with because it will be linked to the bio-chip through Verichip and Digital Angel, and being "Jacked In" like the pseudo-scientific Johnny Mnemonic and Matrix style electronic plug.

While I respect you, LadySkadi, and many other here on ATS, people need to think about both the potential for good and benevolence, as well for the evil and detriment to society.

When I look at any technology, I see both sides of the coin, the good, the bad, and often a third side no one bothers to see, the ugly, wherein lies the hidden agenda of those introducing these new technologies, because those in power will not let it will not stop at "reading someone's mind", they will as well want the power eventually to be able to wipe someone's mind clean.

The problem with this is it will not be limited to people like Charles Manson, Ted Kaczynski, or the alleged mastermind of the Oklahoma City Bombing Timothy McVeigh, eventually it will spread like a virus to anyone who disagrees with Government through some new sedition and treason laws.

Up until people either wholeheartedly buy the lies being told as "official versions", or until they keep pushing agendas like this as a scientific endeavor where they can eventually pump the "official story" straight into our minds, the Government will not quit telling lies to us as citizens, and I for one will never support these people in broadcasting anything straight into my mind.

Before anyone says that's not what the article is about, it is where I see it leading.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
isn't that unconstitutional? i would think it would fall under the right to not self incriminate.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
I was thinking of something similar yesterday.What if reincarnation was proven to be real and a technology was developed to read past lives in future civilizations.Now that would be a scary thought.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
While reading this I could not help but think of all the people I have met who have that blank stare in their eye. I know we have all hear that the eyes are the windows to the soul. Well, what do they read when the lights are on but there's nobody home.
You know kind of like a Republican!! HA-HA (LOL)



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
How could they tell if it is a real memory of something you did, or perhaps just a "fantasy memory" -- one that never happened, but you think about it anyway?

There was a Twilight Zone Episode ("A Penny for Your Thoughts") in which a man suddenly had the power to read minds...
While he was at the bank in which he worked, he read the mind of a long-time employee and found that employee was plotting to steal money from the bank. It turned out that this long-time employee wasn't really going ti steal money from the bank, but he always fantasized about it -- just as most people who worked around a bunch of money all day would. Even though he thought of this often, he would never go though with his plan because he knew it was wrong -- it's just a fantasy of his.

Twilight Zone - A Penny for your Thoughts


[edit on 1/22/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by optimus primal
isn't that unconstitutional? i would think it would fall under the right to not self incriminate.


Yes -- it would be unconstitutional in the United States. The 5th Amendment protects someone from self-incrimination -- i.e., a person has the right not to admit to committing a crime or be a witness against himself, which is why some people are said to "plead the 5th".

A person on trial is not ever required to testify (although he/she can be cross-examined if he/she decides to testify)

The Fifth Amendment (with the protection from self-incrimination part highlighted):

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Constitution would need to be amended to allow this -- and it is very difficult (but not impossible) to amend the U.S. Constitution



[edit on 1/22/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 

Really good question!

Food for thought...




new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join