History of Thought Identification
A dossier about Mind
Reading, Part I (2006-2015)
Massimo Opposto
September 2015
Download as PDF
Index
Abstract
The modern neuroscience is able to read people's mind: the process is called "thought identification".
The process involves brain scanners and sophisticated computer algorithms.
The research takes place in advanced reasearch facilities like Universities and corporation's labs, with the help of the biggest IT corporations and is mainly financed by the government and the militaries (DARPA above all).
To fulfill the goal of having an accurate knowledge about the functioning of the mind, a huge initiative has been launched by the Obama's administration.
The official reports about ethical issues that can be brought by this research are denying the existence of issues about the "thought identification" process and the possibility of process itself.
1. Thoughts Identification ?
1.1. Since 2006, the contemporary neuroscience claims that it is possilbe to detect lies and covert attitudes using mind scanners, like fMRI. [1]
1.2. In February 2007 a team of scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, in Germany, "read" participants’ intentions out of their brain activity. This was made possible by a new combination of functional magnetic resonance imaging and sophisticated computer algorithms. [2]
1.3. There are proofs that the outcome of a decision is encoded (and so detected) in brain activity up to 10 seconds before it enters awareness. [3]
1.4.
At the beginning of 2008, it was already possible to detect
thoughts of familiar objects, by the use of
mind scanners in
conjunctions with a computer's algorithm.
[4]
1.4.1.
The thought of specific objects have been mapped
to specific
brain activation patterns by a group of researcher
at the Carnegie
Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Unites States.
[4]
1.4.2.
The same researchers claimed that there is a commonality
in how
different people's brains represent the same thought.
[4]
1.5.
Since 2009, neuroscientists in the United States are
cataloguing brain patterns to match up with actual words,
sentences
and intentions.
[5]
1.5.1.
John-Dylan Haynes, of the Max Planck Institute, explains,
"The
new realization is that every thought is associated
with a pattern
of brain activity and you can train a
computer to recognize the
pattern associated with a
particular thought."
[6]
1.6.
The Intel Lab at Pittsburg works in partnership with the
Brain
Image Analysis Research Group at Carnegie Mellon
University to
identify the brain's thought patterns
through fMRI technology.
[7]
1.6.1.
The Intel Lab at Pittsburg is part of Intel Research division,
that was created in 2000, under the leadership of
David L.
Tennenhouse. Tennenhouse aimed to model
his new research
organization based on DARPA, where
he had previously been director
of the Information
Technology Office.
[8]
1.7.
In 2010 the DARPA’s budget for the fiscal year
included $4
million to start up a program
called Silent Talk. The goal was to
“allow
user-to-user communication on the battlefield
without the use
of vocalized speech through
analysis of neural signals”.
[9]
1.7.1.
Before being vocalized, speech exists as word-specific
neural
signals in the mind.
[10]
1.7.2.
Darpa wants to develop technology that would detect
these
signals of “pre-speech,” analyze them, and
then transmit the
statement to an intended interlocutor.
[9]
1.8 In 2011, due to the "zero-shot learning method", by utilizing semantic knowledge mined from large text corpora and crowd-sourced humans, it has been shown that training images of brain activity are not required for every word, in order to be recognized: it is possible to predict words (identify thoughts) that people are thinking about, from functional magnetic resonance images (fMRI) of their neural activity, even without training examples for those words. [11]
1.9.
On September 2011, the 22nd a group of researcher from Berkelay University published an article about "Reconstructing visual experiences from brain activity evoked by natural movies".
Using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) and computational models, UC Berkeley researchers have succeeded in decoding and reconstructing people’s dynamic visual experiences – in this case, watching Hollywood movie trailers.
[12]
1.9.1.
A student from the same group had the same succesfull results applying the same technique to the audio experience, on Jannuary 2012, the 31th.
[13]
2. The Brain Atlas. ?
2.1 In 2003 Paul G. Allen, co-founder of Microsoft in 1975, founded the Allen Institute for Brain Science (AIBS), supporting it with 41$ million (to date: $500 million). [14]
2.2
The inaugural project of the Allen Institute is the
Allen Mouse
Brain Atlas, compelted the 26th September 2006:
[15]
2.2.1.
The Allen Mouse Brain Atlas is a gene expression map for the
mouse (and human brain, as
people and mice share the 90% of brain
genes) that, as well
as functional imaging techniques, permits
researchers
to correlate between gene expression, cell types,
and
pathway function in relation to behaviors (or phenotypes).
[16]
2.3. On May 24, 2010, the Allen Institute announced it was expanding its Atlas from the mouse into the human brain with the launch of the Allen Human Brain Atlas. [17]
3. The BRAIN initiative ?
3.1.
On April 2, 2013, the US president Barack Obama unveiled
the
“BRAIN” Initiative (Brain Research through
Advancing Innovative
Neurotechnologies): a collaborative,
public-private research, with
the goal of supporting
the development and application of innovative
technologies
that can create a dynamic understanding of brain
function.
[18]
3.1.1.
In other words, the aim is to produce the first map of
brain
function to explore every signal sent by every
cell and track how
the resulting data flows through
neural networks and is ultimately
translated into thoughts,
feelings and actions: to have a
computational model of the
human brain.
[19]
3.1.2.
The BRAIN Initiative has been developed by
the White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP),
with proposed
initial expenditures for fiscal year 2014 of
approximately $100
million: $50 million from
the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA),
$40 million from the National Institutes of Health
(NIH),
and $20 million from the National Science Foundation (NSF).
[20]
3.1.3.
Private sector partners also have made important commitments
to
support the BRAIN Initiative, including: $60 millions
from the Allen
Institute for Brain Science and $30 millions
from the Howard Hughes
Medical Institute.
[19]
3.1.4.
On September 30, 2014, the Obama administration announced
two
more federal agencies were partecipating
the BRAIN Initiative: the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
and Intelligence Advanced
Research Projects Activity (IARPA).
The President’s FY15 Budget
proposed to double the Federal
investment in the BRAIN Initiative
form $100 millions
to $200 millions.
[20]
3.2. In 2015, a number of companies, foundations, patient advocacy organizations, universities, and private research institutions are making investments and announced commitments to align more than $270 million in research and development efforts with the goals of the BRAIN Initiative. [21]
3.3. On January, 17, 2013, a meeting was held at the California Institute of Technology was attended by the three government agencies DARPA, NIH and NSF, as well as neuroscientists, nanoscientists and representatives from Google, Microsoft and Qualcomm. According to a summary of the meeting, it was held to determine whether computing facilities existed to capture and analyze the vast amounts of data that would come from the project. The scientists and technologists concluded that they did. [22]
3.4.
In April 4, 2013 Qualcomm Inc. announced to took part
in the BRAIN
Initiatives and unveiled it has been quietly
working at the
frontiers of neuroscience since 2009 at
“ Brain
Corp.”
[23]
an independent venture that Qualcomm has kept mostly
under
wraps.
[24]
3.4.1.
Founded in 2009, Brain Corp. set out to develop
radically
different computer systems and software,
based on algorithms that
emulate the “spiking neuron”
processes of the human brain.
[24]
3.4.2.
In 2010, DARPA, provided an undisclosed amount of
funding to
Brain Corp. “to design an artificial
nervous system for UAVs”
(unmanned aerial vehicles).
[25]
3.4.3.
On Feb 13, 2012 Todd Hylton joined Brain Corp. as a
top
executive last year, after resigning from DARPA,
where he spent
nearly five years as a program manager.
[26]
3.5. On September 30, 2014 it has been announced that Google engineers are building tools and developing infrastructure to analyze petabyte scale datasets generated by the BRAIN Initiative and the neuroscience community to better understand the brain’s computational circuitry and the neural basis for human cognition. Google is working closely with the Allen Institute for Brain Science to develop scalable computational solutions to advance scientific understanding of the brain. [21]
3.6.
On June 21, 2012, on the #74 of Neuron, one of the most
influential and relied upon journals in the field of
neuroscience,
some ethical considerations about the
BRAIN initiative (former Brain
Activity Map Project) are pointed
out: amongst them,
issues of
"mind-control".
[27]
3.6.1.
On April 2, 2013, the Office of the Press Secretary
informed
that the DARPA will engage a broad range of
experts to explore the
ethical, legal, and societal
issues raised by advances in
neurotechnology.
[18]
3.6.2.
On March 2015, the US Presidential Commission for the
study of
Bioethical Issues published the second volume
of the Bioethics
Commission's two-part response to
President Obama’s request related
BRAIN Initiative.
[28]
3.6.2.1
In the commission's report, the "mind-control" issue and the
concept itself, are re-shaped in the term of
"neural modifiers", to
refer to a wider array of
mechanisms of brain and nervous system
change,
and ignored in its peculiarity.
[28]
3.6.2.2
In the commission's report is stated that
"protecting mental
privacy is a forward-looking
concern that neuroscientists and legal
decision
makers might need to evaluate as technology
continues to
advance."
[28]
3.6.2.3
The commission's report denys that neuroscience's achievements
could lead to "mind-reading". It is stated that "today,
and in the
foreseeable future, neuroscience does
not enable us to read minds.
Technology remains
extremely limited and cannot reveal the true
inner
desires, psychological states, or motivations that
are worthy
of the term mind-reading."
[28]
Conclusions
It is absurd to deny the problems of integrity of privacy caused by the achievements of computational neuroscience.
The fact that to deny this problem, it is precisely the Bio-Ethics Presidential Committee of the US largely financed and controlled by DARPA, it is dramatic.
The world's governments are deeply influenced by the military-industrial-scientific complex that is breaking the integrity of the privacy of mind.
Actually, this powerful political-financial complex conceives the internal affairs as a matter of military-strategic warfare.
This contemporary polical framework is characterized by a “fourth generation warfare (4GW)” ? carried on the states's internal front, i.e. the citizens, in order to Win hearts and minds of its own population.
Throughout contemporary history the psychological warfare has become highly sophisticated, relying on the scientific research achievements, amongst them, the mind-reading technology.
This scenario highlights that civil rights and social justice supporters must defend the privacy of thought from being threatened by the abuse of the mind-reading technology.