-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204/">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO: N48 04'14.8'' E11 36'41.2'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 04:49:08 -0700 From: J. R. Molloy <jr@shasta.com> Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org To: extropians@extropy.org Subject: Threat Recognition Testing Brain fingerprinting: What you thought, what I meant David Coursey http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10738,2816429,00.html The name: "Brain Fingerprinting" is a particularly unfortunate name that suggests an ability to somehow gather the contents of someone's brain for identification. It is also painfully close to "brain washing." For this discussion, I will propose a more accurate, descriptive term: "Threat Recognition Testing," or when used in criminal investigations, "Evidence Recognition Testing." What the test looks for: Threat Recognition Testing seeks to determine whether the subject being tested recognizes certain items--which may be images of physical items, pictures, or terminology. If the subject being tested recognizes enough specific items, he or she can be assumed to have certain training or experience. In actual testing, the technique was used to find 100 percent of the FBI agents in a test group without falsely selecting civilians as FBI agents. How was this done: The subjects were shown words and images that only an FBI agent would recognize. The non-FBI agents did not recognize these images and words. How the test works: Subjects are hooked up to a device that measures brain activity (the cerebral equivalent of a heart monitor) and shown a series of images. An image or word the person recognizes presents a distinct brainwave pattern when compared with an unrecognized image or word. The person cannot consciously control this response. The test does not care who you are, where you are from, your gender, religious beliefs--anything other than whether you recognize a specific word or image. All of the words and images can be given to the subject in advance without affecting the test result. When good people recognize bad things: It is obvious that a bank robber and an FBI agent who investigates bank robberies would recognize many of the same things. For that reason, additional images can be presented to subjects in order to more precisely understand the context in which an object is recognized. In an interactive testing system, this could be done automatically, with the test adapting itself to probe more deeply into areas of concern. Does the test "read" someone's mind? The test does not determine what someone is thinking, or even whether they are lying or not. It does, however, determine if a person recognizes specific things. The test does not plant any ideas or images into the subject's mind. Here's an example of how the test might be used: Take one murder suspect, add images only the murderer would know--faces of victims, locations, weapons, etc.--and you should be able to separate the innocent from the potentially guilty pretty quickly. In a terrorist-screening scenario, you'd look for recognition of items related to terrorist training and organizations. Score enough positives and you'd become very interesting to the authorities. This is not a technique for discovering things like whether you cheat on your taxes or spouse (or both). It also won't tell whether you are a Republican, Democrat, or something else, though it could determine whether you attended one of the parties' national conventions (by testing you on what you would have seen there). The strengths: The test is excellent at clearing the innocent and, properly given, can determine, if not always guilt, then at least what knowledge a subject possesses, allowing for further investigation. The testing is computerized, could require no human intervention, and is not racially, ethnically, or culturally biased. Testing could take as little as 10 minutes, but could be expanded to cover more items, thus adding the detail necessary to separate security risks from non-risks. The limitations: This technology has been tested and accepted by courts, though additional testing certainly makes sense. There are also some technical hurdles which today make the technique more suited for longer testing of specific individuals (suspects) than quick testing of the general public (screening). This specifically relates to the devices used to record brain activity. With digital signal processing, it should be possible to improve the signal-to-noise ratio (which shortens the time needed for testing). Actually creating the tests is a non-trivial matter, especially when screening for potential problems rather than investigating an actual crime or incident. --- --- --- --- --- Useless hypotheses, etc.: consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind, free will, qualia, analog computing, cultural relativism, GAC, Cyc, Eliza, cryonics, individual uniqueness, ego, human values, scientific relinquishment We move into a better future in proportion as science displaces superstition.