Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Loren Pechtel · 03-17-2003, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Psycho Economist
Why bother with the fMRI, when you already know the answers you want to hear?

Now at the risk of dignifying this with a response... You can have good temporal resolution at the expense of spatial resolution and vice versa. While fMRI is at the optimum of the two dimensions with current technology, it's not good enough at measuring both to be used as a lie detector. There's a reason why these things aren't being mass-produced and shipped to every FBI field office already.

Added:
It worries me that this got picked up by the Washington Times. I doubt they retell it in the spirit Jack meant it (since he's apparently Mr. Objectivism, 1997)... and the administration consists of the type of people who take that paper seriously.

Yeah, the biggest problem with the use of torture is knowing if the guy is telling the truth or not. Last I heard the MRI wasn't up to this.

If you can FOR CERTAIN determine the truthfulness (at least to their own mind--no lie detector will ever be able to tell if someone is mistaken) of what someone says I don't see that it's that terrible a thing. The innocent tell the truth and walk out unhurt. The harm falls 100% on the guilty who try to conceal it. However, this requires a CERTAIN means of knowing if someone is telling the truth. Anything less than 100.00% is unacceptable.

Even when you *KNOW* the guy is a bad guy that doesn't mean he knows the answer to all of your questions.

emphryio · 03-17-2003, 02:21 PM

Ex-creationist
Are you aware that it appears a couple of the prisoners at Quantimo (sp) died recently possibly beaten to death? (I'll look for the article.)

emphryio · 03-17-2003, 02:54 PM

Quantanimo
I give up. Can't find it.
2 prisoners recently died. Many others have attempted suicide. Don't remember beyond that.

John Hancock · 03-17-2003, 03:24 PM

What makes you think torture is new to the USA? It's been over thirty years since I've seen it applied. Admitting to it well that's another matter. Today!

Martin Buber

excreationist · 03-17-2003, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Psycho Economist
Why bother with the fMRI, when you already know the answers you want to hear?

What if you're asking the terrorist/criminal to give the names of other terrorists/criminals they know of? Or you're asking them about the plans of their terrorist/criminal group?

Quote:

Now at the risk of dignifying this with a response... You can have good temporal resolution at the expense of spatial resolution and vice versa. While fMRI is at the optimum of the two dimensions with current technology, it's not good enough at measuring both to be used as a lie detector.

What about this:
New Scientist - Brain scans can reveal liars (Daniel Langleben, University of Pennsylvania)
More information at i-MedReview
BBC news
Philadephia Inquirer - also talks about detecting when people recognize a face
Washington Post

In the New Scientist article it says:

Quote:

Our study shows only an average difference in brain activity between lying and telling the truth in a group of young and healthy English-speaking people. In order to determine whether fMRI can be used to detect deception in any individual, much larger groups of different ages, cultures and socio-economic status should be studied."

Brain-fingerprinting used in a court case

Quote:

...In a 20-page ruling rendered on Monday, March 12, 2001, District Judge Timothy O'Grady rejected the motion for a new trial, stating that even though the brain fingerprinting technology was accepted in the scientific community, had been independently tested, had been subjected to peer review, the new evidence � including evidence of brain fingerprinting � was "unlikely to change the result of the trial." The judge also characterized the recanting witness, who has a long criminal record, as a liar and a perjurer. Judge O'Grady said, in part, "In the spring of 2000, Harrington was given a test by Dr. Lawrence Farwell. The test is based on the "P300 effect. . . . The P300 effect has been studied by psycho-physiologists, psychologists who measure human bodily responses to make inferences about what is going on in the brain. The P300 effect has been recognized for nearly twenty years. The P300 effect has been subject to testing and peer review in the scientific community. The consensus in the community of psycho-physiologists is that the P300 effect is valid. . . ."...

Brain Fingerprinting: Brief Summary of the Technology (note that this is a non-fMRI technique)

Quote:

...Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell has invented, developed, proven, and patented the technique of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting, a new computer-based technology to identify the perpetrator of a crime accurately and scientifically by measuring brain-wave responses to crime-relevant words or pictures presented on a computer screen. Farwell Brain Fingerprinting has proven 100% accurate in over 120 tests, including tests on FBI agents, tests for a US intelligence agency and for the US Navy, and tests on real-life situations including actual crimes....

Added:

Quote:

...It worries me that this got picked up by the Washington Times....

Well that's the first place I came across it. But as you can see, there are other, more reputable sources.

Quote:

There's a reason why these things aren't being mass-produced and shipped to every FBI field office already.

The FBI already is using Brain Fingerprinting technology... I don't know about fMRI machines... Brain Fingerprinting technology is about 20 years old - perhaps the FBI only becomes interested in things once they are pretty well-established (in late 2001 not many people had been tested). BTW, fMRI machines cost about US$3 or 4 million.

excreationist · 03-17-2003, 04:45 PM

Martin Buber/ emphryio:
Very interesting article about the U.S.'s support of human rights violations... the suffocation mentioned in my first post would only need to be used if you're in a hurry... and it might lead to them confessing much quicker... and with the fMRI you can see if they are telling the truth or not. (This isn't the case with regular torture) Suffocation is a kind of pain but the person isn't really being physically hurt (well a too great a lack of oxygen can cause brain damage though). So it is more humane than regular torture.

Loren Pechtel:

Quote:

...the biggest problem with the use of torture is knowing if the guy is telling the truth or not. Last I heard the MRI wasn't up to this....

See my last post about fMRI and brain-fingerprinting (another technique) - actual tests so far haven't used any type of torture (like suffocation).

Quote:

If you can FOR CERTAIN determine the truthfulness....of what someone says I don't see that it's that terrible a thing. The innocent tell the truth and walk out unhurt.

What if it was used by dictators to easily see if people were for them or against them?

Quote:

....However, this requires a CERTAIN means of knowing if someone is telling the truth. Anything less than 100.00% is unacceptable.

Well apparently many people sentenced to death in the U.S. were later found to be innocent. And I think even things like DNA evidence has a 1 in 100,000 chance of being wrong.

Quote:

Even when you *KNOW* the guy is a bad guy that doesn't mean he knows the answer to all of your questions.

Of course. But he would know if he has stolen things, used drugs, sold drugs, etc. If he did those things without his knowledge then I don't think he is really responsible for those actions - he could go to a mental hospital if he is a danger to society.

excreationist · 03-17-2003, 04:47 PM

Henry-Finland:
I'm glad you enjoyed reading it.

Loren Pechtel · 03-17-2003, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by excreationist
New Scientist - Brain scans can reveal liars (Daniel Langleben, University of Pennsylvania)

Brain-fingerprinting used in a court case

Note that both of these cases rely on special circumstances, it's not ready for general interrogation use.

Under special circumstances you can get basically 100% out of the polygraph, also. Used as an ordinary lie detector the stress of the situation can mask the response. However, it can also be used to do a guilty knowledge test--basically what they were doing in the University of Pennsylvania article. If your scene's information isn't contaminated it's basically foolproof.

Loren Pechtel · 03-17-2003, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by excreationist
See my last post about fMRI and brain-fingerprinting (another technique) - actual tests so far haven't used any type of torture (like suffocation).

You're reading far more into it than is there. It's not ready for the courtroom or the interogator yet.

What if it was used by dictators to easily see if people were for them or against them?

An unfortunate aspect of the technology when it's developed. I don't think it's a genie we can keep bottled up too long, though.

Well apparently many people sentenced to death in the U.S. were later found to be innocent. And I think even things like DNA evidence has a 1 in 100,000 chance of being wrong.

There's three things with DNA: False positives and lab errors. The chance of a false positive can be determined by the lab and generally is far less than 1 in 100,000--that sort of number normally comes from poor samples.
Second is the possibility of contamination in one form or another. Placing part of you at the crime scene doesn't prove you were there at the time of the crime.
Finally, the lab can screw up.

I don't see how numbers can be put on either of these.

Of course. But he would know if he has stolen things, used drugs, sold drugs, etc. If he did those things without his knowledge then I don't think he is really responsible for those actions - he could go to a mental hospital if he is a danger to society.

Even if he knew he might not be guilty. I know I've eaten a pot cookie. I found out two months after eating it.

excreationist · 03-17-2003, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Note that both of these cases rely on special circumstances, it's not ready for general interrogation use....
....You're reading far more into it than is there. It's not ready for the courtroom or the interogator yet.

Apparently they use polygraphs in integorations sometimes... and as I later explain, polygraphs aren't accepted by scientists and many other experts as being reliable.
Perhaps the technology/techniques aren't quite good enough at the moment... but I think it seems possible that they will be in the near future. That's my point about this thread... the very real possibility of a new kind of lie detector - one that works. The part about the suffocation is irrelevant really - unless you want to interogate them faster.

Quote:

Under special circumstances you can get basically 100% out of the polygraph, also. Used as an ordinary lie detector the stress of the situation can mask the response. However, it can also be used to do a guilty knowledge test--basically what they were doing in the University of Pennsylvania article. If your scene's information isn't contaminated it's basically foolproof.

Well http://antipolygraph.org/ says:

Quote:

"...the theory and methods of polygraphic lie detection are not rocket science, indeed, they are not science at all."

Professor Emeritus
David T. Lykken

"[Polygraph screening] is completely without any theoretical foundation and has absolutely no validity...the diagnostic value of this type of testing is no more than that of astrology or tea-leaf reading."

former Supervisory
Special Agent
Dr. Drew C. Richardson,
FBI Laboratory Division

"The US is, so far as I know, the only nation which places such extensive reliance on the polygraph....It has gotten us into a lot of trouble."

convicted spy
Aldrich H. Ames

"[The CIA's] reliance on the polygraph is truly insane"

former CIA Director
John M. Deutch

....

On this website, you will learn that polygraph "testing" is:

- Theoretically unsound and is not a valid diagnostic technique.

- Entirely dependent on the polygrapher lying to and deceiving the examinee.

- Biased against the truthful, resulting in many honest and law-abiding people being falsely accused each year.

- Easily beaten. The common notion that only sociopaths can beat the lie detector is nothing more than a myth. In fact, simple-to-learn techniques enable anyone to beat polygraph "tests." A full explanation of how to perform these techniques is provided in chapter four of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

That little book is free to download. There are also lots of other things at that site.

You seem to be implying that the success rate for the polygraph is just as good as fMRI.

From a New York Times article (note that this is on the brain fingerprinting site):

Quote:

....the most widely used lie detectors, known as polygraphs, have long been considered an embarrassment by many scientists. Polygraphy measures a suite of physical reactions to interrogation. The underlying premise is that people being questioned about crimes in which they were involved will involuntarily exhibit telltale increases in their pulse, blood pressure, breathing rate and sweat levels.

But polygraphy has been under fire ever since it was invented in the 1920's. Supporters say that experience in framing questions and the constant improvement in the monitoring equipment has made polygraphy highly reliable. Critics say such testing is flawed because it measures emotion rather than knowledge. They say the guilty can train themselves to respond in ways that deceive their questioners while many easily flustered people have been wrongly branded as guilty.

In 1988, Congress barred most businesses from using polygraphy or any other lie detection device to screen job applicants....

It also says that attempts to duplicate the high success rates of the brain fingerprinting researcher have been unsuccessful by other researchers... but I am really talking about fMRI based lie detectors here.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-17-2003, 02:21 PM	#12
emphryio Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: WV Posts: 4,369	Ex-creationist Are you aware that it appears a couple of the prisoners at Quantimo (sp) died recently possibly beaten to death? (I'll look for the article.)

03-17-2003, 02:54 PM	#13
emphryio Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: WV Posts: 4,369	Quantanimo I give up. Can't find it. 2 prisoners recently died. Many others have attempted suicide. Don't remember beyond that.

03-17-2003, 03:24 PM	#14
John Hancock Banned Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Mars Posts: 2,231	What makes you think torture is new to the USA? It's been over thirty years since I've seen it applied. Admitting to it well that's another matter. Today! Martin Buber

03-17-2003, 04:47 PM	#17
excreationist Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Australia Posts: 4,886	Henry-Finland: I'm glad you enjoyed reading it.

03-17-2003, 06:49 PM	#18
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by excreationist New Scientist - Brain scans can reveal liars (Daniel Langleben, University of Pennsylvania) Brain-fingerprinting used in a court case Note that both of these cases rely on special circumstances, it's not ready for general interrogation use. Under special circumstances you can get basically 100% out of the polygraph, also. Used as an ordinary lie detector the stress of the situation can mask the response. However, it can also be used to do a guilty knowledge test--basically what they were doing in the University of Pennsylvania article. If your scene's information isn't contaminated it's basically foolproof.

03-17-2003, 06:54 PM	#19
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by excreationist See my last post about fMRI and brain-fingerprinting (another technique) - actual tests so far haven't used any type of torture (like suffocation). You're reading far more into it than is there. It's not ready for the courtroom or the interogator yet. What if it was used by dictators to easily see if people were for them or against them? An unfortunate aspect of the technology when it's developed. I don't think it's a genie we can keep bottled up too long, though. Well apparently many people sentenced to death in the U.S. were later found to be innocent. And I think even things like DNA evidence has a 1 in 100,000 chance of being wrong. There's three things with DNA: False positives and lab errors. The chance of a false positive can be determined by the lab and generally is far less than 1 in 100,000--that sort of number normally comes from poor samples. Second is the possibility of contamination in one form or another. Placing part of you at the crime scene doesn't prove you were there at the time of the crime. Finally, the lab can screw up. I don't see how numbers can be put on either of these. Of course. But he would know if he has stolen things, used drugs, sold drugs, etc. If he did those things without his knowledge then I don't think he is really responsible for those actions - he could go to a mental hospital if he is a danger to society. Even if he knew he might not be guilty. I know I've eaten a pot cookie. I found out two months after eating it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.