Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

Search


Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

jr_114_9780195367195_bnr

jr_114_9780195383768_bnr

advertise-here4


FC-CO(SS)

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • RJ on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • TJ on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • Christa on Must Law Practice and Scholarship be Exciting?

    • AYY on Privacy and Tattletales

    • Lsat Prep on Improving the US News Rankings: A Wish List

    • Lsat Prep on Fantasy Law School League

    • Legal Fact Finder on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • Observer on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • RJ on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • RJ on Ricci and Briscoe as Disparate Impact Cases

    • Mike Rich on Negligent Corpse Mishandling

    • anon on Privacy and Tattletales

    • orly lobel on At CELS, Hoping to Blog

    • harry brooks on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • RJ on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

  •  

    Site Meter

Mindreading, Intent and Law

posted by Dave Hoffman

fmri.jpgWell, this is cool, or terrifying, depending on whether you sometimes have evil thoughts. The Guardian (UK) reports that:

A team of world-leading neuroscientists has developed a powerful technique that allows them to look deep inside a person’s brain and read their intentions before they act.

The research breaks controversial new ground in scientists’ ability to probe people’s minds and eavesdrop on their thoughts, and raises serious ethical issues over how brain-reading technology may be used in the future.

The team used high-resolution brain scans to identify patterns of activity before translating them into meaningful thoughts, revealing what a person planned to do in the near future. It is the first time scientists have succeeded in reading intentions in this way.

This sounds somewhat more advanced that the actual research results, which involved addition:

During the study, the researchers asked volunteers to decide whether to add or subtract two numbers they were later shown on a screen.

Before the numbers flashed up, they were given a brain scan using a technique called functional magnetic imaging resonance. The researchers then used a software that had been designed to spot subtle differences in brain activity to predict the person’s intentions with 70% accuracy.

The study revealed signatures of activity in a marble-sized part of the brain called the medial prefrontal cortex that changed when a person intended to add the numbers or subtract them.

Well, it isn’t the same as intent to commit a crime, but a slippery slope beckons.


In my private law fields, mens rea and the non-completed unlawful act aren’t particularly important modes of legal regulation. (We don’t punish attempted securities fraud civilly, or disloyal thoughts about one’s company. Indeed, the role of intent in civil corporate regulation is, I think a pretty underdeveloped field of study.) So, I’m sure I’m more sanguine than I ought to be about the promise of fMRI research. All things equal, wouldn’t it be a better world were we able to determine evil actions before the fact (to be able to find the likely recidivist, or those tempted to mis-account for revenue, for example). There are serious objections – some which the good folks at the Situationist Blog might develop further – but it doesn’t strike me that there are obvious legal objections to the use of neuro-imaging to provide evidence of intent, if the science develops is useful ways.

It is worth noting that between this story and today’s Wall Street Journal piece on regeneration of body parts using cells harvested from the large intestine, it feels like tomorrow’s paper should have brought news of a breakthrough in faster-than-light travel. No such luck. But we seemed to have nailed down why spikes form in ice cubes, which is a good second best.


 February 13, 2007 at 12:01 am   Posted in: Behavioral Law and Economics   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (4)

  1. Rick Garnett - February 13, 2007 at 9:46 am

    I’m not as up-to-speed as I’d like to be on the state of cognitive neuroscience, but it strikes me that — as Dave suggests — this article is overreading, considerably, the research results here. With respect to the described experiment, at least, it does not seem to me that from (a) an ability to predict, based on fMRI results, which of two presented options a person will choose we have (b) a general ability “to look deep inside a person’s brain and read their intentions before they act.”

  2. Patrick S. O'Donnell - February 13, 2007 at 10:05 am

    I would implore all readers to read two works that suggest these claims are symptomatic of widespread philosophical confusion in cognitive science and neuroscience and thus are (apart from being yet another instance of scientism), to put it mildly, rather extravagant and implausible:

    Sunny Y. Auyang, Mind in Everyday Life and Cognitive Science (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000) and M.R. Bennett and P.M.S. Hacker, Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003).

    See too the comments and titles referenced in the post at the Situationist on Steven Pinker:

    http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2007/01/30/time-changes-mind/#comments

  3. Daniel Goldberg - February 13, 2007 at 4:11 pm

    I’d echo Rick’s comments, and add that some of the claims advanced by some fMRI proponents as to their legal, ethical, and policy implications are often either overstated or even simply erroneous. Too many do not understand the significance of neural correlates as correlates, rather than the actual phenomena being consider (fMRI measures, among other things, blood oxygenation levels, which is not literally equivalent to the experience of consciousness, for example).

    There’s a lot of good discussion of this on the Neuroethics & Law Blog, and I’m personally hoping to spend some time discussing fMRI and pain in my dissertation.

  4. DH Marks, MD - March 18, 2007 at 1:01 am

    Although two companies are commonly referred to in trying to commercialize functional MR for interrogation – NoLieMRI and Cephos Corp, both use rather artificial questioning structures and limit their work to yes/no types of questioning. To effectively extract intelligence, a combination of scanning must be used, to collect truth/deception signatures, but to also look for recognition of faces, objects and places, emotional states, and underlying structural integrity of the brain. Cognitive Engineering, LLC www. Cognitive-Eng.org is employing this more robust approach, with application envisioned beyond criminal investigation , to include security investigations, pre-employment screening, national security, occupational suitability and effective mind reading protocols. Functional MR can be expected to be used with increasing frequency in the near future.

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Website
Understanding Privacy

Kaimipono Wenger

Website
SSRN Page

Dave Hoffman

Website
SSRN Page

Nate Oman

Website
SSRN Page

Frank Pasquale

Website
SSRN Page

Deven Desai

Website
SSRN Page

Danielle Citron

Website
SSRN Page

Lawrence Cunningham

Website
SSRN Page

Sarah Waldeck

Website
SSRN Page

Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Website
SSRN Page

Solangel Maldonado

Website
SSRN Page

Gerard Magliocca

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

Rachel Godsil
Alex Kreit
Anita Krishnakumar
Matthew Sag
Michael Zimmer






Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
John Ip
Kevin Johnson
Dan Kahan
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Frank Wu
Corey Yung
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress