King’s Research Portal

DOI:10.1177/1357034X15623363

Document VersionPeer reviewed version

Link to publication record in King's Research Portal

Citation for published version (APA):Rose, N. S. (2016). Reading the Human Brain: How the Mind Became Legible. DOI:10.1177/1357034X15623363

Citing this paperPlease note that where the full-text provided on King's Research Portal is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Post-Print version this maydiffer from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination,volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you areagain advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections.

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyrightowners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

•Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the Research Portal for the purpose of private study or research.•You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain•You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the Research Portal

Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact librarypure@kcl.ac.uk providing details, and we will remove access tothe work immediately and investigate your claim.

Download date: 08. Feb. 2019

TheMindTransparent?Readingthehumanbrain.NikolasRoseSeptember2015AcceptedforpublicationinBodyandSocietyAddressforcorrespondenceNikolasRoseProfessorofSociologyHeadofDepartmentofSocialScience,HealthandMedicineKing’sCollegeLondon,D.4,EastWing,King'sBuilding,LondonWC2R2LS,UKEmail:nikolas.rose@kcl.ac.uk

Abstract

Thehumanbodywasmadelegiblelongago.Butwhatofthehumanmind?Isit

possibleto‘read’themind,foronehumanbeingtoknowwhatanotheris

thinkingorfeeling,theirbeliefsandintentions.AndifIcanreadyourmind,how

aboutothers–couldourauthorities,inthecriminaljusticesystemorthe

securityservices?Somedevelopmentsincontemporaryneurosciencesuggest

theanswertothisquestionis‘yes’.Whilephilosopherscontinuetodebatethe

mind-brainproblem,arangeofnoveltechnologiesofbrainimaginghavebeen

usedtoarguethatspecificmentalstates,andevenspecificthoughts,canbe

identifiedbycharacteristicpatternsofbrainactivation;thishasledsometo

proposetheiruseinpracticesrangingfromliedetectionandsecurityscreening

totheassessmentofbrainactivityinpersonsinpersistentvegetativestates.

Thispaperreviewsthehistoryofthesedevelopments,sketchestheirscientific

andtechnicalbases,considerssomeoftheepistemologicalandontological

mutationsinvolved,explorestheecologicalnicheswheretheyhavefounda

hospitableenvironment,andconsiderssomeimplicationsofthismaterialization

ofthereadable,knowable,transparentmind.

Keywords

Mindreading,neuralliedetection,brainimaging,P300wave,thought

identification,theoryofmind

1

"Lecerveauc'estl'écran"

GillesDeleuze1

DoyouknowwhatIamthinking?DoIknowwhatyouarethinking?CouldIeverreally

knowwhat’sinyourmind-yourthoughts,yourintentions,theimagesplayinginthat

internalcinema?AndifIcouldknowthis,whataboutothers–whataboutthosewho

governus,ourauthorities?Couldtheygobeyondknowingourintentionsprospectively

fromourstatementsorretrospectivelyfromouractions,topredictingouractionsfrom

somekindofpriorknowledgeofourthoughts?Andcouldthatpriorknowledgearise,

notfromtheexteriorcomportmentofourbodyortheexpressionsonourface,orfrom

psychologicalinvestigationsprobingourstateofmind,butfromthebrainitself?Isit,

coulditeverbepossibleto‘read’thoughtsinthehumanbrain?2Mightwe,assome

believe,be“sleepwalkingintoaMinorityReportsociety”where‘brainreading’is

deployedtoidentifypotentiallydangerousindividuals–pre-criminals-withinthose

practicesofprediction,prevention,preclusionandpre-emptionthathavebecomeso

salientinourcurrentsecuritystates.3

IntheUS,theDepartmentofHomelandSecurityisalreadypilotingaprogrammeknown

asFAST-theFutureAttributeScreeningProgramme–toidentifyindividualswho

harbourterroristintentions.4AreportinthejournalNature–accompaniedbythe

almostobligatoryreferencetothefilmMinorityReport-wasentitled“Terrorist‘pre-

crime’detectorfieldtestedintheUnitedStates”(Weinberger,2011).FASTdoesnot,in

fact,seektoreadbrains,butfocusesuponphysiologicalindicatorsassessedata

distance-measuresofsuchfunctionsasheartratesandthesteadinessofthegaze-to

trytopredictintentions.Thishasnotstoppedsomefromdreamingofatimewhenmore

directtechnologieswouldbedeployedtoidentify‘malintent’–technologiesthatdonot

relyonmeasuringsurrogateproxiesofintentinthebody,butgostraighttothebrain.

In2007,therewasaflurryofpublicityaboutsomeexperimentsbyJohn-DylanHaynes

andhisgroupwherefMRIscanningappearedtoenabletheresearcherstoidentifythe

intentionsoftheirsubjectsbeforetheyacted(Haynes,Sakaietal.,2007).Theheadline

intheGuardianinFebruaryofthatyearread“Thebrainscanthatcanreadpeople’s

intentions”andHaynescommented“Usingthescanner,wecouldlookaroundthebrain

forthisinformationandreadoutsomethingthatfromtheoutsidethere'snowayyou

couldpossiblytellisinthere.It'slikeshiningatorcharound,lookingforwritingona

wall."5AndinJuly2014,aBBCwebsitepublicizedtheworkofJackGallantandhisgroup

undertheheadline“Ibuiltabraindecoder”:“Whatareyoulookingat?ScientistJack

Gallantcanfindoutbydecodingyourthoughts.”6

Whathashappenedheretothoseageolddistinctionsbetweenbrainandmindthathave

sotroubledourphilosophers?7Ofcourse,humanshavealwayshadtheirmethodsto

discernthebeliefs,feelingsandintentionsofothers.Theirreadingsoftheeyes,faces,

voices,gestures,comportmentofothers–usuallythroughmethodsthatarenot

consciousorcalculated-appearstounderpinsympathy,empathy,compassion,love,as

wellassuspicion,andfearandnodoubtmuchelse.Theseabilitieshavebeenthestuffof

livesandofstoriesoflivesformillennia.Thefacilityofmosthumanstoreadtheminds

ofotherstodetectdeceptionandguiltisutilisedinpracticesofinvestigationand

systemsofcriminaljustice,andtakenforgrantedincrimethrillersandnovelsof

betrayalineverydaylife,inloveandmarriage,inespionageandwar.Overthelast

twentyyears,developmentsinthebrainsciences–inthefieldknownas‘social

cognition’-havesoughttouncovertheneuralmechanismsthatunderpin–or

‘subserve’astheyoftensay–suchascriptionsofcontentstootherminds.8Arguments

thatthereareevolvedbrainregionsthatarespecialisedforreadingtheintentionsand

emotionsofothers,andindeed‘feelingtheirpain’,aremovingoutofthelaboratory,not

onlyintothepsychiatricclinic–explainingdisorderssuchasautismintermsof

anomaliesinthemindreadingcapacitiesofthosediagnosed9–butalso–hesitantly

andoftencontroversially-intoforensicpsychiatry,notablyindebatesabouttheneural

basisof‘psychopathy’.10

Butwhilesocialneuroscientistshavesoughttoestablishtheneurobiologicalbasisfor

thehumancapacitytoreadintentions,beliefsoremotionsinthemindsofothers,andto

characterisethepathologiesthatresultfrombraindamageorotheranomaliesinsuch

capacities,theyhaveusuallystoppedshortofsuggestingthatanother–yourconspecific,

yourspouse,yourboss,yourgovernment–can‘read’yourbraintoaccessthespecific

contentofyourthoughtsorofyourmemories,theprecisedetailsofyourbeliefs,the

natureofyourintentions,theexactformofyourdesires.11Asfarasmemoriesare

concerned,everystudentofneuroscienceknowsofKarlLashley’ssearchforthe

locationoftheelusive‘engram’inrodents(Lashley,1950),andWilderPenfield’s

experienceswithhisepilepticpatientswhoseemedtorecallsomememorieswhen

certainlocationsontheircortexwereelectricallystimulatedduringoperationstoablate

theirfocallesions(Penfield,1952).Theexistenceofidentifiablecerebrallocationsof

suchmemorytraces–eveninratsletaloneinhumans-haslongremainedcontested.

Recently,however,anumberofneuroscientistshaveclaimedthattheyareabletouse

neurotechnologiestoidentifynotjustmemories,butalsospecificthoughts,beliefsand

intentionsinthebrainitself.Althoughmostoftheresearchersresisttheapplicationof

theterm,popularreportshavebeenquicktodubtheseendeavours‘mindreading’.12

Theseattemptstoidentifythoughtsandmemoriesinthebrainitselfaredirected

towardspracticalapplicationsindiverseareas:securityandcrimecontrol,the

developmentofprosthesesformilitarypersonnelinjuredinbattle,andclinicalsites

wherepatientsareunabletoexpresstheirthoughtsandintentionsinnormalways.13

Theyareclearly‘dualuse’technologies,thatistosaytheycanbeutilisedforcivilianand

therapeuticpurposes,aswellasinmilitaryandsecuritypractices,insurveillance,

warfightingandevenmind-control.However,overandbeyondthesespecific

deployments,andthefamiliarethicalconundrumsthattheygenerate,Iwanttosuggest

thatthisnewcapacityto‘read’mentaleventsinthetissuesofthebrain,mayhave

consequencesforourveryunderstandingofwhatweareashumans–thatistosay,itis,

potentially,aneventinhistoricalontology.Philosophers,psychologistsand

philosophicallymindedneuroscientistshavelongdebatedissuesofdualismand

materialism,andthatdebatewillundoubtedlycontinue.Criticalscholarsfromscience

andtechnologystudiesandelsewherehavepointedtothefactthatmuchcontemporary

neuroscienceattributescapacitiestothebrainonthebasisofexperimentalfindingsin

highlyartificiallaboratorycontexts(e.g.Cohn,2008;Cohn,2008),withoutaddressing

therealitythatbrainsareconstitutivelyembodied,saturatedbyanddependentupon

theirconstanttransactionswithinputsfromwithout.Theyhaveargued,correctlyinmy

view,thatbodiesareinandoftheworldwithallthatthisimplies,14andthat‘thought’is

impossibletounderstandwithoutrecognisingitsdependenceonacomplex

transpersonalmilieuoflanguage,meaningandculture.15Sociologistsof‘expectations’

havepointedtothecharacteristicoverclaimingthataccompaniesmanynew

technologicaldevelopments,andrightlyarguedthatmanysuchdevelopmentsfailin

translationfromthepurifieddomainofthelabtothemessyandcomplexexternalworld

(e.g.Hopkins,Martinetal.,2007).Butdespitethemanyunresolvedquandariesthat

hauntthosedebates,andthemanycriticismsthatcanbe,andhavebeen,levelled

againstthem,thisnew‘materialist’ontologyofthoughtistakingshape,notthrougha

philosophicalresolutionoftheageolddilemmas,butthroughdevelopmentsin

technology.Notwithstandingtheexplanatorygap–thedauntinggulfthatexists

betweenaknowledgeofmoleculareventsintheneuronsofthebrainandan

explanationofhowthementaleventsthatare‘subserved’arise–anddespiteallthe

critiques-thesetechnologiesembodyandenactthepremisethatthebrainistheplace

wherementaleventsarelocatedandthattheremust,therefore,bematerialtracesof

suchmentaleventsinthebrainitself.Andifthosetracesexist,itmustbepossible-both

inprincipleandnowitseemsinpractice-tomakethemlegible.Myaiminthispaperis

descriptionandnotcritique:itistocharacterizethesewaysofthinkingandtoconsider

themutationinourunderstandingsofthehumantowhichtheyarecontributing.

Seeingthemind

Thesedays,phrenology,theattempttoreadhumancharacteristicsbymeasuringthe

contoursoftheskull,ascribingdifferentmentalfacultiestospecificareasandmeasuring

thembyassessingtheenlargementsorindentationsineach,isusuallyridiculedasa

pseudoscience.IntheformpopularizedbySpurzheimandCombe,itprobablydeserves

thisfate.ButasproposedbyFranzJosephGall,itentailedtwotheseswithlasting

impactonthesciencesofmindandbrain(Gall,1810).First,thatthebrainwastheseat

ofthemind.Secondthatthebrainwasorganizedinsuchawaythatdifferentmental

functionswerelocatedinspecificareas.Thesetheseswereheretical:despiteGall’s

famousSpinozistattempttoreconcilehisviewswiththoseoftheCatholicChurch–as

inhisfamousphrase“Godandthebrain.NothingbutGodandthebrain”(Rieber,2006)

–histeachingswerebannedinhisnativeAustriabecauseoftheirmaterialismandhe

wasforcedtofleetoParis.Butthethesisoflocalisationremainedfoundationalforlater

brainresearchers(Hagner,1997;Hagner,2001;HagnerandBorck,2001).Nineteenth

centuryneurologists–Broca,Wernicke,Fleschigandmanymore-dissectedthebrains

ofthosewhohadsufferedbraininjuries,criminalsandthemadintheattempttofindin

thedeadbrainthecerebralrootsoftheirmentalpathologiesinlife.Theytried,with

somesuccess,tocorrelatedisordersofspeech,thought,memoryorconductshownin

lifewithlesionsinthepost-mortembrain,butwerelesssuccessfulwhentheysought

thecorporealsignsofinsanityinthetissues–intheshapeorsizeofthebrain,the

configurationofitspartsandfolds,orthepresenceoflesionsinthenervefibresorthe

whiteorgreymatter.16Broca,likeGall,wasamaterialist,afoundermemberofthe

SocietyforMutualAutopsywhichexaminedthebrainsofthewiseandvirtuousinthe

attempttoidentifythecerebralunderpinningsoftheirgreatness.JenniferMichael

Hecht’saccountofthisworkmakescleartheriskymaterialismespousedbythese

figureswhoaresometimesmockedasnaïveormalign(Hecht,1997;Hecht,2003).17

Butthelivingbrain,protectedbytheopaqueskull,remainedinvisible–itcouldbe

imaginedbutitcouldnotbeseen.Intheearlyyearsofthetwentiethcentury,anumber

ofcliniciansattemptedtorenderthelivingbrainamenabletovisualizationbyX-Rays

(cf.Kevles,1997).Thefirstattempts–byWalterDandyandthenbyEgasMoniz-

workedbyinjectionofair,ordye,intotheventriclesofthebrain,orthebloodvessels

withinit–apainfulprocessbutonethatcouldrevealgrossabnormalities,lesionsor

tumoursandsohadalimitedbutimportantclinicalrole(Dandy,1918;Moniz,1933).18

Butfromthatpointon,aseriesoftechniquesweredevelopedthatseemedtobeableto

rendervisiblethelivingbraininaction.Thefirstmeasuresofbrainactivitythatcould

bemade‘non-invasively’withoutpiercingtheskullwereelectrical.Theideathatthere

wereelectricalcurrentsinthebrainwasgiventechnologicalforminthe1920sbyHans

Bergerwithhisinventionofelectroencephalography:hisclaimin1929thatonecould

identifycharacteristicrhythms,wavesandspikesofthiscurrentbytheuseofelectrodes

placedontheexterioroftheskullwasinitiallymetwithindifferenceifnotscepticism

(Haas,2003).19However,developedbyothersnotablyEdgarAdrian,itseemedto

enableresearcherstocorrelatethepathologiesoflivingsubjectswithpatternsof

activityindifferentregionsofthebrain–althoughtheEEGwasusedasadiagnostictool

andmadenoclaimstoreadspecificmentalstatesletalonethoughts-atleastinitially

(AdrianandMatthews,1934;Haas,2003).TheEEGwasfollowedbyarangeofother

analogousmethodsthatsoughttorevealtheactivitiesofthelivingbraininrealtime,to

makementalactivitylegiblebyplacingsensorsofonesortoranotherontheexteriorof

theskull.ThemostrecentoftheseisNIRS–nearinfraredspectroscopy–involvesthe

subjectdonningakindof‘helmet’withmultiplesensorsthatuseinfra-redlightthancan

penetratetheintactskull.Theseareusedtomeasurechangesinbloodoxygenationin

thebrainwhichisthoughttocorrelatewithbrainactivation.Althoughthemainusesof

NIRSwereinitiallymedical,itisnowbeingusedtostudyvision,languageandmany

other‘functional’propertiesofthebrainsuchasvision,hearing,andtheperformanceof

cognitivetasks(VillringerandChance,1997).Toquotethetitleofareviewofthis

technology,NIRSenablesonetogo‘BeyondtheVisible’byimagingthehumanbrain

withlight(ObrigandVillringer,2003).Asearlyas2006,ScottBunceandhiscolleagues

atDrexelUniversity,supportedbyfundsfromtheUSDefenceAdvancedResearch

ProjectsAgency(DARPA)AugmentedCognitionProgram,theOfficeofNavalResearch

(ONR)andHomelandSecurity,pointedoutitsmanypracticaladvantagesoverother

methodsofbrainimaging,becauseitenabledthesubjectstomoveabout,andtocarry

outtasksinarelativelynormalenvironment.Morerelevantforpresentpurposes,

Buncesuggestedthatbecauseoftheseadvantages,NIRShadsignificantpotentialinthe

detectionofdeceptionandotherinvestigationsthatneededtobedoneinclinicaloffices

orenvironmentsotherthanlaboratories(Bunce,Izzetogluetal.,2006).20Iwillreturnto

theseneurotechnologiesofliedetectionlater.

TheideaunderpinningNIRS-thatlevelsofbloodoxygenationindicatebrainactivity

becauseactivebrainregionsandcircuitsrequireincreasedoxygenation–was,ofcourse,

thebasisofthemostprominenttechnologyclaimingtomeasurebrainactivity,

functionalmagneticresonanceimagineorfMRI.PositronEmissionTechnology(PET)

wasthefirstapparatusthatseemedtodoforthebrainwhatX-Rayshaddoneforthe

body–toletthemindwalkamongthetissuesthemselvesasanearlyenthusiasthad

exclaimedaboutX-Rays(Kevles,1997:2;forthehistoryofPET,seeNutt,2002).

Howeveritisadifficultmethodtouseasitinvolvesthepreparationandinjectionof

short-livedradiolabelledmoleculesinamedicalcyclotronclosetothesiteofthe

imaginglab.Theuptakeofthoselabelledmoleculesindifferentbrainregionsis

measuredusingascannerthatimagedmultiplesectionsthroughthebrainandcompiled

themtogetherusingversionsofthealgorithmsthathadpreviouslybeendevelopedfor

CT(computerisedaxialtomography)structuralimagingoftissues(Dumit,2003).21But

despitetheselogisticaldifficulties,andtherecognitionofthegreattechnical

achievementsthatwereentailedinPET,amorefundamentalshiftwaslessinterrogated.

TheinventionofPETenabledvisualizationtoslipalmostimperceptiblyfromone

epistemologyandontologytoanother–itseemedalmostasifthecharacteristicsofthe

gazewereunalteredwhenitmovedfromimagingbrainstructuretoimagingbrain

function.Inbothcaseswhatwasrenderedvisiblebythe‘enginesofvisualization’

(Maynard,2000)weresimulations,butsimulationsoffunctionembodiedverydifferent

technicalandneurobiologicalassumptionsthanthoseofstructure.Inthecaseof

function,thoseneurobiologicalpremisesincludedathesisaboutlocalization–thatit

wasbothpossibleandimportanttoidentifyspecificregionsorlociinthebrainthat

‘subserved’particularmentalfunctionsorstates–andathesisaboutmeasurement–

thattheselocimightbeidentifiedbymeasuringtheamountofactivitywithinthem

whenanindividualundertookatask,bymeansofaproxy.22Thesetwoassumptions,

alongwithmanyothers,underpinnedthedevelopmentandinterpretationoffMRI.This

usedtheprincipleofmagneticresonanceimaging,asuperbtechnicalachievement

involvingpioneeringworkofmanyinventorsandresearchers–toimageaproxy

measureoffunction–changesinbloodoxygenation(Raichle,2009).Itdidnotrequire

anydirectinvasionsintothebodybydyesortracers,butworkedontheprinciplethat

oxygenatedbloodhaddifferentmagneticpropertiesthannon-oxygenatedblood,and

thatwhenanindividualplacedhisorherbraininascanner,thiswasabletoidentify

thoseregions–actuallythosevoxelsinathreedimensionalspacewithinwhichthe

brainwassituated–wherebloodoxygenationchangedduringatask–whetherthatbe

identifyingapatternonascreenormerelysimulatingamentalstate.

Thefirstpapersusingthistechnologywerepublishedin1980–thirtyyearslaterthey

wererunningataround10,000peryear.23Interpretingtheresultsfromtheuseofthis

BOLDtechnique,24asitwascalled,raisedamultitudeoftechnical,epistemologicaland

ontologicalquestions(Logothetis,2008).Notjustthosemultitudeofassumptions

‘blackboxed’intheincrediblysophisticatedcomputerpackagesthatturneddatafrom

voxelsinathreedimensionalspaceintosimulatedimagesthathadacompellingrealism.

Notjustthoseconcerningthethesisoflocalisation:‘blobology’–assomehavederisively

termedit25-seemstoignorethecomplexcircuitryofthehumanbrainandthefactthat

anymentalfunctionentails,anddependsupon,activityinmultipleregionsandcircuits

ofthehumanbrainanditsintegralconnectionswithinputsfromthewidernervous

system.26Notjustthoseconcerningthemeasurementtechniques,whichinvolve

‘subtractingout’allactivityinthe‘restingbrain’–thatistosayignoringanythingexcept

measurablechangesinbloodoxygenationwhiletheindividualinthescannercarriesout

theinstructionsoftheresearcher(RaichleandSnyder,2007;CallardandMargulies,

2011).Butalsothoseofscale:Logothetisestimatesthat atypicalvoxelsizeinfMRI

“contains5.5millionneurons,between2.2x1010and5.5x1010synapses,22kmof

dendritesand220kmofaxons”(Logothetis,2008:875)leavingtoonesidealltheother

complicationsthatwillshapethebloodoxygenlevelvariationswithinthiscubeofbrain

tissue,notablythebalanceineverysingleneuronbetweenexcitationandinhibition.

Butitisnotonlythatthistechnologyisimagingheterogeneousneuralactivity,tosay

theleast,itisalsobecauseweactuallyhavealmostnoideaoftheappropriatescaleto

imagementalfunction–atthecellularlevel,atthelevelofspecificcircuits,atthelevelof

thewholebrain,atthelevelofthewholenervoussystem….27And,ofcourse,the

technologyitself,inescapablydependentonwhatcanbedoneinascanner,imposes

verysevereconstraintsonrecognizingthatineverydaylife,mentalactivityoccursin

persons,inbodies,spacesandinteractionsthatwehavecometocall,forshorthand–

social.

Butnonetheless,itbecamewidelyacceptedthathere,atlast,wasatechniquetorender

theactivitiesoftheworkingmindvisibleinthelivingbrain.28Anditwasonthebasisof

thatclaimthatbrainimagingingeneral,andfMRIinparticular,movedoutofthe

laboratoryinwhichitwasborn,andoutofthepsychiatricandneurologicalclinicwhere

itfounditsinitialhabitat,andstartedtooccupyalltheecologicalnichesthatpsychology

hadalreadycolonised–whichistosay,allthoseplaceswherehumanconductseemedto

beshapedbytheactivityofthehumanmind.Andwhilepsychology’sproxiesformind

reading–itsprojectivetests,itsscales,itsinterviewsandinductionsfromlaboratory

experiments–weresooftencriticisedandevenparodiedfortheirclaimstoreallyknow

whattheirsubjectswerethinking,theproxiesusedbythebrainimagers,andthe

elaboratestatisticalandothertransformationsentailedinrenderingthosecompelling

simulations–thosepicturesofmentalactivityinthebrain–largelyslippedunnoticed

intothebackground.Anobjectiveandmaterialisttechnologyfor‘readingthemind’now

seemedtobepossible.

Deception:whatisalie?

Perhapsthefirsttoclaimtobeabletoidentifyspecificthoughtsormemoriesinthe

brainwerethosewhobelievedtheycouldidentifytheneuralsignaturesofdeception–

todetecttheliarandthelie.29LawrenceFarwell’s‘brainfingerprinting’technique

measuresaparticularpatternofelectricalbrainactivity–theP300wave–andFarwell

arguesthatthisrespondsdifferentlywhenasuspectedliarisexposedtoimagesor

words,dependingontheirpriorknowledge–forexample.whenasuspectinacrimeis

shownanimageofthecrimesceneortheweapon,thepatternsofbrainactivitywill

differaccordingtowhetherthatinformationis‘stored’intheirbrain.30Whilein

Farwell’stechnology,asinthesearchfortheengram,thebrainisconstruedasakindof

storagedeviceformemories,twoothercommercialcompaniesintheUS-NoLieMRI

andCephosCorporation-basetheirtechnologiesonfMRI,andseektheneural

signatureofthewayinwhich–intheirview-thebrainactivelymanagestheprocessof

deception.Forexample,NoLieMRIInc.“providesunbiasedmethodsforthedetection

ofdeceptionandotherinformationstoredinthebrain….ThetechnologyusedbyNoLie

MRIrepresentsthefirstandonlydirectmeasureoftruthverificationandliedetectionin

humanhistory!...NoLieMRIusestechniquesthat:Bypassconsciouscognitive

processing….Measuretheactivityofthecentralnervoussystem(brainandspinalcord)

ratherthantheperipheralnervoussystem(aspolygraphtestingdoes).”31

Theseclaimstobeabletoidentifyspecificpatternsofbrainactivitywhenanindividual

islyinghavebeenmuchcriticizedonbothtechnicalandlegalgrounds(Simpson,2008;

BrownandMurphy,2009;Rissman,Greelyetal.,2010;ShenandJones,2011).32Despite

theendeavoursofentrepreneurialneuroscientists,thecourtsandlegalsystemseem

abletorecognisethemultipleproblemsinextrapolatingfromlaboratorybasedstudies-

whereindividualsareinstructedtolieortellthetruth-toreallifesituationswherethe

veryfactofbeingaccusedofacrimegeneratesunknownpatternsofbrainactivity,and

wherethosewhoaregenuinelyguiltyarelikelytoemploymultipletechniquesto

disguisetheirdeception.But,aswiththepolygraph,33thereisapotentialmarketfor

thesedevicesoutsidetheagonisticandrulegoverneddomainofthecourtroom,in

industry,inthemilitary,intheinvestigativeprocessitself,anditisherethatthe

purveyorsofneuralliedetectionareseekingamorecredulous–orlessscrupulous-

marketfortheirwares.

ItappearsthatthisishowtheinfamousBrainElectricalOscillationsSignature(BEOS)

testisbeingusedinIndia.34TherewasmuchpublicitywhentheBEOStest-a‘guilty

knowledge’testdevelopedbyanIndianneuroscientistChampadiRamanMukundan

whichoperatesonthesameprincipleasFarwell’sP300method-wasusedin2008to

convictAditiSharmaformurder–givingherhusbandsweetslacedwithpoison-onthe

basisofher“neuro-experientialknowledge”:itwasclaimedthatcharacteristicbrain

patternsshowingsuchknowledgewereelicitedduringanEEGexaminationwhenshe

heardstatementsconcerningtheactofpoisoning.Itwasnotherwordsthatwereused

toconvicther–sheremainedsilent–buttheevidenceofthebrainitself.Therewas

ratherlesspublicitywhenshewasreleasedonbailpendingappeal,aftertheNational

InstituteofMentalHealthandNeuroSciences(NIMHANS)declaredthatbrainscan

evidencedidnotmeetappropriatecriteriaofscientificityandcouldnotbeusedincourt.

In2010,inarulingalsoconsideringtheadmissibilityofevidencefromthepolygraph

andfromnarcolepsy,theIndianSupremeCourtruled–largelyonthegroundsofthe

rightsnottoself-incriminate-thatnoindividualcanbeforciblycompelledtotakealie

detectortest,whetheratraditionalpolygraphoraneuralliedetector–andthat

evidencefromsuchtestswasinadmissibleinIndiancourts.35ButaccordingtoAngela

Saini,theBEOStestisstillwidelyusedinIndia,notinthecourtroombutinthe

investigativeprocess,whereitapparentlyhasinducednumeroussuspectstomake

confessions.36

NoLieMRInowalsoimaginesitspotentialcustomersoutsidethecourtroom:security

firms,insurancecompanies,banksandfinancialservicecorporations,concernedabout

deceptionbyemployees,butcurrentlyforbidden(intheUS)fromusingthepolygraph

ontheiremployees.37Similarly,theyask,whyshoulditnotbeusedbygovernments

concernedaboutcorruption,byindividualsconcernedtodiscoveriftheirpartnersor

potentialdatesaretellingthetruth–indeedanywherewheredeceptionisaproblem,

fraudisapossibility,orconfidenceistobemaintained,neuralliedetectioncanplayits

part.IntheUSinparticular,thesecurityapparatusprovidesonepotentiallyhospitable

ecologicalniche.ThusLarryFarwelliskeentosuggestthecrucialroleofbrain

fingerprintinginidentifyingpotentialterrorists,detectingwhethertheyhaveamemory

ofaparticulartrainingcamp,codeword,bombmakingprocedureorwhatever.38As

MelissaLittlefieldhasshown,muchoftheoriginalimpetusforfundingofresearchinto

brainbasedliedetectioncamefromtheCIAandrelatedagencies:assheargues,the

terroristattacksontheUSinSeptember2001created“anicheofheightenedanxiety”

amenabletotherhetoricofbrainbasedliedetection(Littlefield,2009:383).

Thethesisthatisbeginningtoacquireplausibilityisthatwhiledeceitfulwordsare

cheapandeasy,andbodiescanbetrainedtodeceive,thebraincannotlie.39Butfrom

thelabtotherealworldisaratherlongerandmoredifficultjourneythantheinventors

suggest–forintherealworld,innocentindividualsbeingtestedareawashwith

confusingandcompetingaffects,thepotentiallyguiltyarealerttotheneedfor

countermeasures,and,atleastasfarasthelawisconcerned,eachdefendantmusttobe

judgedasanindividualratherthanonthebasisofprobabilities(althoughthislast

provisodoesnotapplytothosedetainedatbordersonthebasisofalgorithmsof

riskiness).40Andwhatisalie–forifamistakenbelief,genuinelyheld,isalie,who

amongusisnotaliar.Weshouldnotbesurprisedtofindanemergentneuroethical

discourseonthenatureandlimitsofneuralprivacy(Wolpe,Fosteretal.,2005;

LanglebenandMoriarty,2013;Farah,Hutchinsonetal.,2014).Yetdespitethe

aspirationsofthespooks,therhetoricoftheentrepreneurs,andtheworriesofthe

ethicists,weremainaverylongwayfromthesciencefictionscenariosofbrainscanners

attheborderstoscreenthosepassingthroughforlyingabouttheirintentionstocommit

terroristacts.41

Intention

Despitetheabidinginterestofthedefenceandmilitaryestablishmentespeciallyinthe

US(TennisonandMoreno,2012),neuralliedetectionremains,inthemain,the

questionableaspirationofenthusiasticandoftensomewhatmarginalentrepreneurs.

Butthedesiretoreadthecontentsofthemindinthebrainitselfremainsunquenchedin

theheartlandofneurobiologicalresearch,eventhoughmostprefertermssuchas‘brain

reading’or‘thoughtidentification’todemarcatetheirscientificresearchfrompopular

mythology.IhavealreadyreferredtothemediareportsoftheresearchbyJohn-Dylan

HaynesattheMaxPlanckInstituteforHumanCognitiveBrainSciencesinLeipzigwhich,

inthewordsofIanSample,therespectedsciencecorrespondentoftheGuardian

newspaper,broke“controversialnewgroundinscientist’sabilitytoprobepeople’s

mindsandeavesdropontheirthoughts,andraisesseriousethicalissuesoverhow

brain-readingtechnologymaybeusedinthefuture.”42Usingthescanner,said

ProfessorHaynes,enablesustolookaroundthebrainforinformation“It’slikeshininga

torcharound,lookingforwritingonawall”.Scaryindeed,scaryenoughtoprovoke

ProfessorHaynestospeculateabouttheimplicationswhenthecriminaljusticesystem

usesthetechniquetoidentifypre-criminals,andtoleadvariousneuroscientistsand

neuroethiciststoreachfortheirpenstoexpresstheiranxietiesaboutthepotential

implications.

Ofcourse,weshouldnotbesurprisedtofindthattheexperimentwasratherless

dramaticthanthisreportsuggests.Eightvolunteerswhometcertaincriteria

(handedness,vision)wereaskedbytheresearchersinalaboratorytodecidewhether

theywouldaddorsubtracttwonumbersthattheywouldlaterbeshownonascreen

(Haynes,Sakaietal.,2007).Bothbeforetheywereshownthenumbers,andduringtheir

completionofthetask,theywerescannedwithfMRI,whichfocussedonactivityinthe

medialprefrontalcortex.Therewasatimedelayofbetween2.7and10.8seconds

betweenthetimewhentheywereinstructedtoformtheirintentionandthetimewhen

theywerepresentedwiththematerialtocarryoutthetask;inaroundtwothirdsofthe

cases,theresearcherswereabletopredictfromthebrainsignatureinthescanwhether

theindividualwouldaddorsubtractthenumbers.Hence,thepaperconcluded,itwas

possibleto‘decodeintentions’frompatternsofactivityinthemedialprefrontalcortex.

Whilethisparticularpapergainedthepublicity,itdrewonalongertrajectoryof

previousresearch;Haynes,workingwithothersincludingGeraintRees,43hadpublished

anumberofpaperssuggestingthatitwaspossibletodecodementalstatesfrombrain

activityinhumans,andthatthisinprinciplewouldmake‘brainreading’possible

(HaynesandRees,2006;Haynes,Sakaietal.,2007).Andinaseriesofsubsequent

experimentson‘volition’,Haynes-whowastobecomeDirectorofBerlinCenterfor

AdvancedNeuroimaging(BCAN)-andothershaveattemptedtostudythenon-

consciousneuraldeterminantsoffreedecisions,arguingthatfMRIstudiescanidentify

distinctpatternsofactivityinthebrainduringtheperiodofanticipation,beforean

individualisawareofhavingmadeadecision(Kahnt,Heinzleetal.,2010;Tusche,Bode

etal.,2010;Haynes,2011;Haynes,2015).44WhenHaynesgaveatalkattheWorld

ScienceFestivalin2009,itwastagged“Itsoundslikeyouaretalkingaboutmind-

reading”.45

Inarelatedlineofresearch,anumberofinvestigatorshavesuggestedthat‘though

identification’inthehumanbrainispossiblebecausethebraindevelopsspecialisedneurons

toreacttospecificimages.Thus,forinstance,ChristophKoch,ItzhakFriedandtheir

colleagueshavearguedthatspecificneuronsencodeveryparticularmemories:

“Wehavepreviouslyshownthatneuronsinthehumanmedialtemporallobe(MTL)

fireselectivelytoimagesoffaces,animals,objectsorscenes…Herewereportona

remarkablesubsetof[medialtemporallobe]neuronsthatareselectivelyactivated

bystrikinglydifferentpicturesofgivenindividuals,landmarksorobjectsandinsome

casesevenbyletterstringswiththeirnames.Theseresultssuggestaninvariant,

sparseandexplicitcode,whichmightbeimportantinthetransformationofcomplex

visualperceptsintolong-termandmoreabstractmemories.”(Quiroga,Reddyetal.,

2005:1102).

Moststrikingly,fortheresearchers,wasaneuronthatselectivelyfiredwhenthe

individualwasexposedtoapictureofanactress.Makinguseofintracranialelectrodes

implantedinthebrainsofeightpatientsundergoingsurgeryforepilepsy,theyfound

thatasingleneuronintherightanteriorhippocampuswasactivatedbypicturesofHalle

Berry,drawingsofHalleBerry,imagesofHalleBerrydressedasCatwomanandbythe

letterstring‘HalleBerry’.Inanothersubject,asingleneuronintheleftposterior

hippocampuswasactivatedexclusivelybydifferentviewsoftheactressJeniferAniston

whichperhapsexplainswhyTheNationalGeographicalMagazine’sfeaturearticleon

‘SecretsoftheBrain’initsApril2014issuewasprefacedbyaphotomontageofdozens

ofpicturesofJenniferAniston.46

Otherresearchersalsoarguedthatitwaspossibletousebrainscanningtechnologyto

identifyspecificthoughts–inthiscase,notbyactivatinganeuronthatencodedaspecific

visualmemory,butbymappingtheneuronsthatfireduringacurrentthoughtofa

particularobject.In2004,TomMitchellandMarcelJustandtheircolleaguesatCarnegie

MellonUniversitypublishedapaperinwhichmachinelearningtechniqueswereused

onfMRIimages,notaveragingthemoveraperiod,asisnormal,butseekingtodetecta

“transientcognitivestate”by“automaticallydecod[ing]thesubject’scognitivestateata

singletimeinstantorinterval.”Thispaperfocussedonvision,anddetailedthree“case

studiesinwhichwehavesuccessfullytrainedclassifierstodistinguishcognitivestates

suchas(1)whetherthehumansubjectislookingatapictureorasentence,(2)whether

thesubjectisreadinganambiguousornon-ambiguoussentence,and(3)whetherthe

wordthesubjectisviewingisaworddescribingfood,people,buildings,etc.”(Mitchell,

Hutchinsonetal.,2004:145).In2009,theirworkmovedbeyondvisiontofocuson

whattheycametocall“thoughtidentification;”thisworkwasfeaturedinaCBS

documentaryfrontedbyLeslieStahlentitled“Techthatreadsyourmind”whichclaimed

thatthegoalofJustandMitchellwastoseeiftheycouldidentifyexactlywhathappens

inthebrainwhenpeoplethinkspecificthoughts:

Theydidanexperimentwheretheyaskedsubjectstothinkabout10objects--5of

themtoolslikescrewdriverandhammer,and5ofthemdwellings,likeiglooand

castle.Theythenrecordedandanalyzedtheactivityinthesubjects'brainsforeach.

"Thecomputerfoundtheplaceinthebrainwherethatpersonwasthinking

'screwdriver’?[Stahlasked]“Screwdriverisn'toneplaceinthebrain.It'smany

placesinthebrain.Whenyouthinkofascrewdriver,youthinkabouthowyouhold

it,howyoutwistit,whatitlookslike,whatyouuseitfor,"Justexplained….Whenwe

think"screwdriver"or"igloo"forexample,Justsaysneuronsstartfiringatvarying

levelsofintensityindifferentareasthroughoutthebrain."Andwefoundthatwe

couldidentifywhichobjecttheywerethinkingaboutfromtheirbrainactivation

patterns,"hesaid."We'reidentifyingthethoughtthat'soccurring.It's...incredible,

justincredible,"headded.”47

TheneuroethicistswereonhandtospeculateabouttheimplicationsfortheUScriminal

justicesystem–forexample,giventhatnoonecanbeforcedtotestifyagainst

themselves,wouldbrainimagesfallfouloftheFifthAmendment?Andapparently“Back

atCarnegieMellon,JustandMitchellhavealreadyuncoveredthesignaturesinour

brainsforkindness,hypocrisy,andlove.”48Inthesameprogramme,John-DylanHaynes

commentedonthecapacityofbrainimagingtoseeifanindividualrecognizedanimage

ofafaceorplacethattheyhadseenbefore–maybeanAlQaedatrainingcamp–hehad

notbeencontactedbytheUSsecurityagencies,hesaid,buthehadbeencontactedby

theGermans.

Inanothermuchpublicizedexperiment,theteamofShinjiNishimotoandJackGallantat

Berkeleyclaimedtobeabletoreconstructmoviesusingonlytheresultsfrombrain

imagingusingamodifiedversionoftheBOLDresponse(Nishimoto,Vuetal.,2011).

ThewebsiteUnwittingVictim,whichshowssomeofthereconstructedimages,drew

parallelsbetweenthisresearchandthestorylineofmoviessuchasBrainstormandThe

Cell,whereresearcherswereabletoaccessexperiences,dreamsandmemories–and

pointsoutthat“InHarryPotter…memoriesandthoughtsweretreatedastangible

objectsthatcanbeextractedfromthemindandviewedbyothersorevenstoredfor

futureperusal.”49DespitethepublicitythatIreferredtoatthestartofthispaper–“I

buildabraindecoder”-themorewidespreaduseofthistechnologytoextractsuch

detailsfromthebrainitselfmaybesomewayoff–theprocedureusedbyNishimotoand

Gallantrequiredvolunteerstoremainstillinabranscannerformanyhoursatatime.50

Butthepointremains:technologyhereappearstohavedemonstratedthatnotjust

thoughts,memoriesandintentions,butalsotheimagesthatpopulateourinternalworld

–arenotfleetingandtransientimpressionsinanephemeralmentaldomain,butare

materiallyembeddedinthebrainitself.

Cantheyreadyourmind?

“Mind-boggling!Sciencecreatescomputerthatcandecodeyourthoughtsandputthem

intowords”screamedaheadlineintheDailyMailonthefirstofFebruary2012:

“Scientistsbelievetheyhavefoundawaytoreadourminds,usingacomputerprogram

thatcandecodebrainactivityinourbrainsandputitintowords.”51Butthewebsiteof

theUK’sNHSChoicestookamoresanguineview.52 Withthestrapline“Mindreading

remainsintherealmoffantasy”itgaveaclearaccountoftheworkofscientistsin

RobertKnight’slabatBerkeleywhotookadvantageoftheopeningoftheskullforsome

15subjectsundergoingbrainsurgerytoattachelectrodestothelateraltemporalcortex

(Pasley,Davidetal.,2012).Theresearchersusedthesignalsfromthatareatotryto

reconstructwordsthatthesubjectsheard.Althoughthefindingsshowedthatthe

reconstructionswereofverypoorquality,andrecognizableonlybycomputermodels

andnotbyhumanlisteners,theresearchwasreportedbythenormallysoberDaily

Telegraphas“Mind-readingDeviceCouldBecomeReality”.Muchoftheexcitementof

thenewspapersrestednotonthecapacitiesofsuchtechnologiestoinvadeneural

privacy,however,butontheirroleinthemoretraditionalnicheoftheclinic:thehope

thattheymayallowthe‘reading’ofthemindsofthosewith‘lockedinsyndrome’,orfor

thosewithspinalcordinjuriestocontrolcomputersormachinerywiththeirthoughts.53

Workon‘neuralprostheses’hasalreadybeguntoshowthesepossibilities.Aseriesof

papersfromAndrewSchwartzandhiscolleagueshavechartedtheirdevelopmentof

brain-controlledinterfaces“devicesthatcapturebraintransmissionsinvolvedina

subject'sintentiontoact,withthepotentialtorestorecommunicationandmovementto

thosewhoareimmobilized.”(Schwartz,Cuietal.,2006:205).Usingacerebralimplant

thatrecordsactionpotentialsfrompopulationsofindividualneuronsinmotorcortical

areas,initiallywithmonkeys,andmostrecentlywithhumans,signalsaretransmitted

thatenablethesubjecttomoveaprostheticlimbwiththoughtalone.In2012,they

reportedinTheLancetthesuccessofanoperationtouseaneuralimplantforJan

Scheuermann,52-year-oldwomanwithlongstandingquadriplegia,whowasableto

manoeuvreamind-controlled,human-likerobotarminsevendimensionstoperform

complexmotionsofeverydaylife–shewasabletomovethearm,turnthewrist,close

thehandforthefirsttimeinnineyears–although,ofcourse,itwasnotpartofher

physicalbody(Collinger,Wodlingeretal.,2013).54

Inrelated,somewhatcontroversialresearchundertakenbyMiguelNicolelisathislabat

DukeUniversityMedicalSchool–andintheInternationalInstituteofNeuroscienceof

NatalwhichhefoundedNorth-easternBrazil–monkeyswithmulti-electrodecortical

implantsconnectedwirelesslytorobotsorcomputer-generatedimageshavelearnedto

controlthemovementsoftheserobotsoravatars,sometimessituatedinfardistantlabs,

bytheirbrainactivityalone(NicolelisandChapin,2002),andratswiththeirbrains

‘wiredtogether’havebeenabletotransmit“behaviorallymeaningfulsensorimotor

information”frombraintobrain(Pais-Vieira,Lebedevetal.,2013).55Infact,Nicolelisis

harshlycriticalofthereductionismandlocalisation-ismofmanyofthebrain

researcherswhoseworkIhavediscussedinthispaper,arguingagainstthosewho

believethattheycanreconstructbrainprocessesfromafocusonthepropertiesof

individualneurons,thatthebeliefthatbrainfunctionsarelocalisedisfundamentally

misleading,andthatmemories,thoughtsandrepresentationsoftheworlddonotinhere

insingleneurons,asintheHalleBerryexample,butarecreatedbypopulationsof

neuronsconstantlyinflux,constantlycreatingandrecreatinginternalneuronalmodels

oftheworld(Nicolelis,2011).Nonetheless,inthewordsofthetitlesofsomeofhis

papers,Nicolelisis‘reconstructingtheengram’and‘seekingtheneuralcode’(Nicolelis,

Ghazanfaretal.,1997;NicolelisandRibeiro,2006).Readerswillnotbesurprisedto

learnthattheresearchofbothSchwarzandNicoleliswaspartfundedbytheDefence

AdvancedResearchProjectsAgency,56whichrecentlyannounceditsElectRXprogram,a

$78.9millionproject,partofPresidentObama’sBRAINinitiative,todevelopacerebral

implantthatcantrackandrespondtobrainsignalsinrealtimewiththeaimofboth

reading,andmodulating,neuralactivity.57Forwhilebothbodyandbrainmay

rendered‘readable’,inthematerialistontologyofthepersonthatistakingshape,the

brainhastheadvantageoverthebodyinbeingbothapotentiallylegiblesurfaceof

thoughtsandintentions,andthepotentiallymodulatablelocusofthosethoughtsand

intentions.Inthatrespect,atleastforthosewhoseobjectiveiscontrol-whetherthat

beforsecurityortherapy-legibilityinitselfisonlyafirststep:readingoutthe

messagesfromthebrainleadstothehopethatonemightreadbackmessagesintothe

braintomodulatethosethoughtsandintentionsthemselves.

Conclusions

Sowill‘they’soonbeabletoreadourminds?ArewesleepwalkingintoaMinority

Reportsociety?Mustwedefendneuralprivacy,andworryaboutoursecurityagencies

notmerelyreadingourtextsandemails,butaccessingourthoughtsthemselves,seeing

theneuraltracesofeverylittlelie,everyperversedesire,everyevilorantisocial

intention?Itiscertainlyprematuretoconcludethattheseneurotechnologieshave

renderedthemindtransparentthroughtheiraccesstotracesinthebrain;these

endeavoursarecurrentlylargelyconfinedtotheenclosedandartificialsitesofthe

laboratory.Itistooearlytotellwhethertheeffortsoftheenthusiastsand

entrepreneurs,inalliancewiththehopesofourmilitaryandlawenforcementagencies,

willsucceedintakingthesetechnologiesoutofthelabintopracticesforthesurveillance

ofdangerousindividuals,letaloneinusingbrainmodulationdirectlyforthe

governmentofconduct.58Bothutopiananddystopianspeculationsarebasedon

extrapolationsfromlimitedexperimentsinveryartificialsituationswhichbearlittle

relevancetohowbeliefs,intentions,desiresandthelikearemanifested,experienced,

communicatedandregulatedintheeverydayworld.Claimsaboutmindreadinginthe

popularmediaundoubtedlyentailfamiliarmishmashesoftechnology,software,

epistemology,ontology,expectations,ethicsandpolitics.Andwhenthespeculationsof

neuroethicists,theexaggerationsofneuroscientists,theimaginationsofsciencefiction,

andtheaspirationsofourmilitaryresearcherscoincide,aheadymixofunrealityusually

results.Practicalapplicationsofthesebrainreadingtechnologiesaremostlikely

merelytoaddtothemultipleotherlowtech–andperhapslessfascinating-toolsthat

arealreadyusedforthesepurposesforchildren,asylumseekers,jobseekers,benefit

seekersandmanyothers.Perhapsthemostinterestingquestionsarelesstechnical

thanpolitical-not‘canwereadthemind’,butwhy,inparticularpractices,dosome

wanttoreadsomeminds,andwhydosomedreamthatnewneurotechnologieswill

makethispossible.59

Nonetheless,despiteallourdoubtsandournecessaryscepticismwemaybeseeing

signsherethatanewontologyisgraduallyemergingoutoftheshadows.Evenifthey

remainconfinedtolaboratoryconditions,thereisachallengingmaterialismembodied

andenactedinthecapacityofnovelneurotechnologiestoaccessthecontentsofthe

humanmind,whetherthesebetoevaluatethepresenceofparticularmentalstatesor

capacities,theexistenceofdurablememorytraces,oreventhefleetingexistenceof

specificthoughtsandintentions.Mustwesupposeamentalrealmthatisdifferentin

substanceorextensionfromthebrain?WhileWittgensteinianphilosophersobjectthat

suchneuroscienceattributestobrainsthingsthatcanonlyproperlybeattributedto

persons(BennettandHacker,2003),canweconsiderthepossibilitythattheseneural

processesdonotmerely‘subserve’mentalstatesbutare,instead,therealmateriallocus

ofsuchmentalstates,feelingsandintentions?Coulditbethatitisindeedthebrainthat

thinks,feelsandintends?

PerhapsthisiswhatGillesDeleuzewashintingatinthatenigmaticphrase“thebrainis

thescreen”whichIusedastheepigraphtothispaper.Onemightarguethatthemost

durablephilosophiesofthehumanhavealwayshadaverycloserelationto

contemporarymedicalandscientificpractices.60Speakingoftherelationshipbetween

philosophyandcinemainaninterviewpublishedin1998,Deleuzesays

“Onegoesquitenaturallyfromphilosophytocinema,butalsofromcinemato

philosophy.Theirunityisthebrain.Thebrainisthescreen.Idon'tbelieve

linguisticsorpsychoanalysisareofgreathelpforthecinema.Ontheotherhand,

thereisthebiologyofthebrain,molecularbiology.Thoughtismolecular,there

aremolecularspeedswhichmakeuptheslowbeingsthatweare.Michaux's

saying:‘Manisaslowbeing,whoisonlymadepossiblebyfantasticspeeds.’The

circuitsandlinksofthebraindonotpre-existthestimuli,granulesorcorpuscles

whichtracethem”(DeleuzeandMcMuhan,1998:48-49).

Andelsewhere,referringdirectlytotheclaim“Manthinks,notthebrain”,Deleuze

arguesthereverse:“Itisthebrainthatthinksandnotman–thelatterbeingonlya

cerebralcrystallization.WewillspeakofthebrainasCézannespokeofthelandscape:

manabsentfrom,butcompletelywithinthebrain”(DeleuzeandGuattari,1994:210).61

DespitethemundaneinterestsofthosewhofundmuchoftheworkIhavediscussedin

thispaper,despitetheoverclaimingendemicinthepopularmedia,anddespitethe

potentmixtureofpotentiallyhopefulclinicalapplicationsandpotentiallyundesirable

socio-politicaldeploymentswithinthesefindings,somethingmoreprofoundmaybe

happeningintheseendeavourstoreadthoughtsinthemolecularbiologyofthebrain.

Andifwearewitnessingtheglimmeringofamutationinontology,itwillundoubtedly

haveimplicationsforourphilosophiesandforourethics,forthewayswearegoverned

byothersandforthewaysweunderstandandgovernourselves.

Acknowledgements

ThankstoJoelleAbi-Rached,DesFitzgerald,GavinSmithandMartinFrenchforvery

helpfulcomments,notallofwhichhavebeenabletotakeaccountofinthisversion.

Thanksalsotothegenerouscommentsfromthosewhohaveheardearlierversionsof

thispaperintheAnthropologyDepartmentoftheUniversityofAuckland,inthe

SociologyDepartmentoftheAustralianNationalUniversity,andattheAarhus

UniversityinDenmark.Ofcourse,allerrorsoffactandinterpretationaremine.This

paperdrawsonresearchfortheHumanBrainProjectthathasreceivedfundingfrom

theEuropeanUnionSeventhFrameworkProgramme(FP7/2007-2013)undergrant

agreementn°604102.

BiographicalNote

NikolasRoseisProfessorofSociologyandHeadoftheDepartmentofSocialScience,

HealthandMedicineatKing’sCollegeLondon.Hislatestbook,writtenwithJoelleAbi-

Rached,isNeuro:thenewbrainsciencesandthemanagementofthemind,Princeton,

2013.

NOTES

Exceptwhereotherwisestatedinthenotes,allweblinkswerelastaccessed,andactive,on

1.09.2015

1 Deleuze’sphrase“thebrainisthescreen”isdiscussedhelpfullyinaninterviewwith

MelissaMcMuhanpublishedin1998(DeleuzeandMcMuhan,1998).Ireturntothis

phraseintheconclusion.

2 InthispaperIwillnotaddressthelargeandgrowingliteratureinthesocialsciences

aboutbrainimaging,inareassuchasneuroeconomics,neuromarketingandsoforth,

someofwhichisexploredinN.RoseandJ.Abi-Rached,Neuro:TheNewBrainSciences

andtheManagementoftheMind,PrincetonUniversityPress,2013.HereIfocuson

theuseofneurotechnologieswiththeaimofidentifyingthoughts,beliefsand

intentionsdirectlyinthebrain,thelinkbetweenthesetechnologiesandactualor

potentialstrategiesofsurveillanceandcontrol,andthepotentialemergenceofa

‘materialist’ontology.

3The2002film,MinorityReportisoftenusedbythosewhoworryaboutthespreadof

surveillancetechnologies.Inthefilm,threeyouthwithspecialprecognitiveabilities

arekeptsedatedandlinkedtoacomputerthatreadstheirneuralpatterns.Law

enforcementagentsusetheprojectionsofthiscyborgassemblagetoforeseecriminal

actsbeforetheyoccur,andtoarrestandchargeindividualswithso-called‘precrimes’.

Thephrase“sleepwalkingintoaMinorityReportsociety”wasusedbysomeofthe

commentatorwhentheresearchofJohn-DylanHaynes,discussedbelow,was

reportedinthepopularmedia.

4 ThePowerPointslidesfroma2007presentationofFASTbytheDepartmentof

HomelandSecuritycanbeaccessedathttps://publicintelligence.net/dhs-future-

attribute-screening-technology-mobile-module-fast-m2-overview/Theyhelpfully

showtheimaginedset-upinwhichanindividualwalksthroughanenclosure

equippedwithsensorsthatremotelyreadarangeofphysiologicalindicatorsand

calibratethemagainstnorms,sothatlawenforcementpersonnelcanapprehend

thosewhoregisterhighonmarkersofmalintent.Initiallynamed‘ProjectHostile

Intent(http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_st_phi.pdf),the

officialdescriptionoftheproject,datingfrom2008,canbefoundhere:

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_st_fast.pdf.Ithasbeen

subjecttovariousinvestigationsconcerning‘privacyrisks’andFreedomof

InformationrequestsbytheUSElectronicPrivacyInformationCenter:

https://epic.org/foia/dhs/fast/

5 http://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/feb/09/neuroscience.ethicsofscience

6 http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140717-i-can-read-your-mind

7 Forarelentlessrehearsalofthepositionthatcontemporaryneuroscienceattributes

tobrainsthingsthatcanonlyproperlybeattributedtopersons,seetheworkof

BennettandHacker(BennettandHacker,2003).Ishallreturntothisquestionatthe

endofthepaper.

8 Theinitialhypothesisabout‘theoryofmind’inprimateswasputforwardbyPremack

andWoodruff(PremackandWoodruff,1978).Evolutionarypsychologistssuchas

NicholasHumphreysspeculatedthatthelargebrainsizeofhumansandsomeother

primateswasrelatedtothecomputationalcapacitiesnecessaryforsocialrelationsin

largegroups,andargumentlaterdevelopedbyRobinDunbar(Humphrey,1976;

Dunbar,1993;Dunbar,1998).LeslieBrotherscoinedthephrase‘socialbrain’inher

classicpaperof1990,whichmadetheargumentthattherewerespecificbrain

regionsfor‘socialcognition’inhumansandsomeotherprimates(Brothers,1990).

TheseandotherargumentslaidthebasisofwhatJohnCacioppochristened‘social

neuroscience’(forausefulhistory,seeCacioppo,Berntsonetal.,2011).Later,and

contested,argumentsconcerning‘mirrorneurons’suggestedthatwhatwasatstake

wasnota‘theory’ofmind,butratherthatwhenoneindividualobservestheactions

oremotionalexpressionsofanother,asmallnumberofneuronsareactivatedinthe

brainofthewatcherintheverycircuitsthatareactivatedintheindividualwhois

observed(GalleseandGoldman,1998;RizzolattiandCraighero,2004;Iacoboni,

Molnar-Szakacsetal.,2005).Enthusiastsformirrorneuronsarguedthatthiscapacity

forimitationwasfundamentaltotheevolutionofhumansocieties(Ramachandran,

1995)thoughothersdoubtedtheirveryexistence(Borg,2007;Hickok,2009;

Lingnau,Gesierichetal.,2009).Someresearchershaveclaimedtoresolvethis

disputebydirectrecordingofexcitationfromsinglecellsinhumanmedialfrontaland

temporalcorticeswhilepatientsexecutedorobservedhandgraspingactionsand

facialemotionalexpressions(Mukamel,Ekstrometal.,2010:750).Withorwithout

mirrorneurons,theexistenceofbrainregionsspecialisedforsocialcognitionisnow

widelyaccepted,asisthebeliefthatthis‘socialbrain’circuitrycanbelocatedin

certainbrainregionsorpathways(Adolphs,2007;Frith,2007;Frith,2007).

9 Mostfamouslyinthethesisthatchildrendiagnosedwithautismlack‘theoryofmind’

(Baron-Cohen,Leslieetal.,1985;RamachandranandOberman,2006).The‘mind-

blindness’thesis(Baron-Cohen,1997)remainscontroversial,andBaron-Cohen

himselfhassoughttosupplementitwithadditional,andevenmorecontroversial,

thesesontheroleofemotions,sexdifferencesandhormones.

10Thereisagrowingresearchprogrammebasedonthehypothesisthat‘psychopathy’–

ahighlycontestedcategoryinitself–ischaracterisedbydeficitsinsocialcognition,

suchthatpsychopathslackempathy,anddonot‘feelthepain’ofothers(Decety,

Skellyetal.,2013;Decety,Skellyetal.,2014),Fromtheturnofthecentury,

psychopathyrapidlybecamethetopicofdozensofresearchstudiesusingfMRI(Moll,

deOliveira-Souzaetal.,2002;Adolphs,2003;Raine,Lenczetal.,2003;Raine,

Ishikawaetal.,2004;Moll,Zahnetal.,2005;Yang,Raineetal.,2005;Blair,2007;

Weber,Habeletal.,2008;Gregory,Simmonsetal.,2012).Anintensiveandwell

fundedresearchprogrammeisunderwaytofindtheneuralsignaturesthatwould

predictadultpsychopathy-theneuralsignaturesofthatinabilitytofeelempathy

thatledtocallousandunemotionalbehaviourinchildren,andworseinadults

(Viding,Blairetal.,2005;Hodgins,Vidingetal.,2008;Viding,Jonesetal.,2008;

Viding,Jonesetal.,2008;Viding,Hanscombeetal.,2010;Carré,Hydeetal.,2013).

Theaimistoidentifythoselackingtheevolvedcapacityfornormalmoralreason

beforetheirviolentorcriminalbehaviourbecomesapparent,ispreventive

intervention,whichmostoftentakestheformoftrainingthoseindividualsandtheir

parentsinwaysofmanagingandchannellingtheirwaywardimpulsesinacceptable

directionsforthegoodofeachandthegoodofall.

11Although,asbothJoelleAbi-RachedandDesFitzgeraldpointedouttome,the

algorithmsusedfordatamining,whetherbyAmazon,GoogleorbytheUSNational

SecurityAgency,doalreadytosomethinglikethis,althoughnotbyaccessingyour

thoughtsthemselves,onlyviathetracesofyourdesiresthatyouleaveontheweb.

12Icitesomeexampleslaterinthispaper,butthedescriptionthisworkas‘mind-

reading’isnotconfinedtothepopularmedia,see,forexample,thereportsbyKerri

SmithinNature(Smith,2008;Smith,2013).

13Onecouldrefertotheseas‘ecologicalniches’,inthewaythetermisusedbyIan

Hacking,inhisbookMadTravellers(Hacking,1998)todescribethewaysinwhich

certainaccountsofhumanpathologycanfirstfind,andthenlose,theirconditionsfor

flourishing.

14ThisisanargumentmademostpowerfullybyFranciscoVarela(Varela,Thompsonet

al.,1993)

15Argumentsabout‘theextendedmind’,mostcompellinglymadebyAndyClarkand

DavidChalmers,arewellknown(ClarkandChalmers,1998;Clark,2008).Manyof

thesepointswerealsomadeinanuncharacteristicallyhumanistinterventionby

GeorgesCanguilhementitled‘TheBrainandThought’,givenasalectureatthe

SorbonneorganizedbytheMouvementuniverselpourlaresponsabilitéscientifique

(MURS)inDecember1980,andfirstpublishedinthejournalProspectiveetSanté14,

Summer1980,pp.81–98andrepublishedastheforewordtotheproceedingsofa

conference(Actesducolloque6–8December1990),GeorgesCanguilhem:Philosophe,

historiendessciences,(Canguilhem,1993:11-33).ItisnowinEnglishtranslation

(Canguilhem,2008).

16This,ofcourse,wasthemethodusedbythefamousexplorersofbrainfunctioninthe

nineteenthcenturyintheirpracticesoflocalization–Broca,Wernicke,Fleschigand

manymore.Andthereweresometwentiethcenturyexceptions,notablytheworkof

WilderPenfield,whosereactivationofmemories-referredtoearlierinthispaper-

occurredwhilehe‘mapped’thecortexbystimulatingareasthathadbeenexposed

duringsurgerytoablatethefociofsevereandintractableepilepsy.

17Ofcourse,thisworkalsoledtothesearchforthebrainbasesofmentalcapacities,

argumentsaboutdifferencesinbrainsizebetweenmenandwomen,andthebrain

basesofahierarchyoftheraces.Theenthusiasmforsuchcrainiologywasshortlived,

notleastbecausethebraindataoftenfailedtocorrelatewithpopularbeliefsabout

thelinksbetweensocialworthandbrainsize.Oncemore,detailsandfurther

referencesaregiveninRoseandAbi-Rached,2013.

18EgasMoniz,ofcourse,wentontodeveloptheprocedureknownaslobotomyor

leucotomy;heandothersusedittointerveneinthelivingbrainsofmanyafflicted

individualsinthetragicendeavourtoamelioratethesymptomsofmentaldisorder.

19WhilesomesuggestthathisworkontheEEGwasterminatedandhewasretired

becauseofoppositiontotheNazis:morerecently,historianshavesuggestedthathe

was,infact,amemberoftheSS,andparticipatedinthe“CourtforGeneticHealth”

thatorderedsterilizations:theWikipediaentryisactuallyagoodguidetothis

dispute:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Berger,lastaccessed1.9.15.

20“IncomparisontofMRI,withfNIRsparticipantscansituprightandworkona

computer…watchtelevisionormovies,andevenwalkonatreadmill…These

attributesalsoallowfNIRstobeusedwithchildrenandwithpatientpopulationsthat

mayfindconfinementtoanfMRImagnetoverwhelmingorpainful.Anumberof

sensorapplicationsexist,dependingontheiruse,includingcaps,tensionstraps,and

medical-gradeadhesiveapplications.fNIRisquietandcomfortableandistherefore

amenabletosensitiveprotocolssuchastheinductionofpositivemoods…Portable

systemsexistthatoperatefromalaptopcomputerandacontrolboxapproximately2

in×6in×8in.Finally,fNIRsisrelativelyinexpensive,withavailablesystemsranging

betweenUS$25,000–$300,000”(Bunce,Izzetogluetal.,2006:57).

21Tostresstheobvious,computerizedtomographyimagesstructure,thatistosay

tissues,whilePETclaimstoimagefunction,bymeansofaprocesswherechangesin

the‘activity’ofcertaintissuesisindicatedbytheiractivetakeupofmoleculeslabeled

withradioactivetracer.

22Manycontemporaryneuroimagerswouldarguethattheyhavelefttheseassumptions

behind–thattheynowseektounderstandneuralcircuitsandnotmerelytoidentify

brainlocales,andthattheyaredevelopingmeasuresthatarelessdependentonblood

oxygenationasaproxy(LichtmanandDenk,2011).Howeveroneonlyhastoscan

recentpapersthatusefMRIinclaimsabouttheneuralbasesofhumanmentallifeto

seethepersistenceofthesetwoassumptions.

23WediscusstheseindetailinRoseandAbi-Rached,2013.

24BOLDisanacronymforBloodOxygenationLevelDependent.

25Notallusethisterminaderisoryway:https://theconversation.com/adventures-in-

blobology-20-years-of-fmri-brain-scanning-4095lastaccessed1.9.15.

26Overthelastfiveyears,manyhavesoughttogobeyondblobologyto‘connectomics’

andhaveusedfMRIinanattempttochartfunctionalcircuitsactivatedinparticular

tasks–foragooddiscussionseeBiswal,Mennesetal.,2010.

27Thus,forexample,whilethereisasignificantmovementofresearcherscommittedto

molecularlevelneuroimaging–forexamplethoseassociatedwiththeworkofHenry

Wagner(Wagner,Burnsetal.,1983;Wagner,2006;Wagner,2009),itisbynomeans

clearthatthemoleculargazeisthemostappropriatetoimagementalfunctions.

28Mostoftheresearchersthemselvestriedtobemorecautious,forexamplespeakingof

‘neuralcorrelates’ofmentalactivitywhileanindividualconductedspecifictasks.

Howevermanywerelesscautiouswhenmakingpublicstatements,andpopular

interpreterswereevenlesscircumspect,seeforexampletheworkofRitaCarter

whichwaswrittenincollaborationwitheminentneuroscientists(Carter,Aldridgeet

al.,2009;CarterandFrith,2010).Andevenwhenreportingthecautionofthe

researchers,headlinestelladifferentstory,foronerecentexampleofmany,see

http://www.livescience.com/37267-how-to-see-inside-the-mind.htmllastaccessed

1.9.15.

29Foranexcellentcollectionofpapersontheseissues,seethecollectioneditedby

MelissaLittlefield(Littlefield,2011).Ihavealreadymentionedtheearlier

suggestionsthatNIRScouldbeusedinthisway,andthereisasignificantprogramme

ofresearchonthis,notablybyresearchersinanumberofAsiancountries(e.g.Ding,

Gaoetal.,2013;Trinh,2013;Ding,Saietal.,2014)withsomenowsuggestingthatthe

technologyisreadyforreal-lifeuses.Atleastonepatentapplicationhasbeenlodged

intheUSforamethodusingNIRStodetecta‘suicideterrorist’:“Thismethodcanbe

advantageouslyemployedatvarioussecuritychecksites,suchasairports,train

stations,oranyothersitessusceptibleofterroristattacks(Wu,2013).

30http://www.larryfarwell.com/index.htmllastconsulted1.9.15.Farwellholdsseveral

patentsonhistechnologydatingbackto1994:Methodandapparatusfor

multifacetedelectroencephalographicresponseanalysis(MERA).U.S.Patent

#5,363,858(1994);Methodandapparatusfortruthdetection.U.S.Patent#5,406,956

(1995);Methodforelectroencephalographicinformationdetection.U.S.Patent

#5,467,777(1995);Apparatusforaclassificationguiltyknowledgetestand

integratedsystemfordetectionofdeceptionandinformation.U.K.Patent#

GB2421329(1997).

31http://www.noliemri.com/lastconsulted1.9.15.Therearesomereasonstobelieve

thatthisorganizationloomsratherlargerintheimaginationofethiciststhanis

warrantedbyitsactualcommercialorjuridicalpresence.

32ForsomelegaldebateontherobustnessoftheclaimsmadebyCEPHOS,see

https://stanfordlawyer.law.stanford.edu/2010/06/fmri-lie-detection-fails-its-first-

hearing-on-reliability/and,forthe2012decisionbytheUSSixthCircuit,see

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/12a0312p-06.pdf

33Therearemanystudiesofthehistoryandsociologyofthepolygraph,seeforexample

Cole,2009;Lynch,Coleetal.,2010.

34http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2009/06/features/guiltylastaccessed

1.9.15.

35Thejudgment(Selvi&OrsvsStateOfKarnataka&Anron5May,2010concerneda

groupofcriminalappealsagainstconvictionsusingthesetechnologies.Infactthe

testinquestionherewasthesocalledBEAPtest-`BrainElectricalActivation

ProfileTest’-buttherulingreferredtoallsuchtests:

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/338008/-thankstoKritiKapilafordirectingmeto

thisruling.

36http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2009/06/features/guiltylastaccessed

1.9.15.

37http://www.noliemri.com/customers/Overview.htmlastaccessed1.9.15.

38FarwellcontinuestocollaboratewiththeFBIinhisresearch,mostrecentlyco-

authoringastudywithFBIemployeesontheaccuracyofhisP-300andP-300

MERMER(MemoryandEncodingRelatedMultifacetedElectroencephalographic

Response)technologiesindetectingthepresenceorabsenceofparticular

informationinthesubjectsbrain(Farwell,Richardsonetal.,2013).Thispaperisone

ofaseriesofpapersnowbeingpublishedbasedonresearchconductedwith“theCIA,

theFBI,theU.S.Navy,andelsewhere”nowthatsecurityconcernshaveapparently

beenresolved.

39SeethevideomadetomarkhimbeingchoseasoneofTimeMagazine’sTime100(in

2012):the100innovatorswhomaybethePicassosorEinstein’softhe21stCentury:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qwme8wiUTu8

40IamreferringheretoUS-VISIT–whichlinksbiometricstodataminingfrommultiple

databases–andthecollectionandminingofPassengerNameRecord

(PNR)informationsuppliedonincomingpassengers.

41ThoughseethepatentapplicationnotedabovethatproposesthatNIRScanbeused

forexactlythispurpose.

42http://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/feb/09/neuroscience.ethicsofscience

lastaccessed1.9.15.

43AtthesametimeastheHaynespaperwascausingsuchastir,GeraintReesof

UniversityCollegeLondonwasinvolvedinanexhibitionattheScienceMuseumin

Londonentitled‘Neurobotics:TheFutureofThinking’andispicturedonthewebsite

fortheexhibitionundertheheading“TheMindReader”.Whiletheweblinkat

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/neurobotics/private/121.aspisnolonger

active,thetextread“Howwouldyoufeelifsomeonecouldreadyourinnermost

thoughts?GeraintReesofUCLsayshecan.Byusingbrain-imagingtechnologyhe’s

beginningtodecodethoughtandexplorethedifferencebetweentheconsciousand

unconsciousmind.Buthowfarwillitgo?Andshouldn’tyourthoughtsremainyour

personalbusiness?”:IwasdirectedtothisexhibitionbythewebsiteGlobalResearch:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/intrusive-brain-reading-surveillance-technology-

hacking-the-mind/7606lastaccessed1.9.15.

44Thesestudiesofvolitionallextend,butdonotquestion,theratherbizarrebuthighly

influentialexperimentsofBenjaminLibet(Libet,Gleasonetal.,1983;Libet,1985;

Libet,Freemanetal.,1999;Libet,2004):thesearediscussedindetailinRoseandAbi-

Rached,2013.

45http://worldsciencefestival.com/videos/it_sounds_like_youre_talking_about_mind_readinglast

accessed1.9.15.

46KochexplainedthisfindinginatalkattheWorldScienceFestival

http://worldsciencefestival.com/videos/the_jennifer_aniston_brain_cell;seealso

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7567-why-your-brain-has-a-jennifer-

aniston-cell.html-lastaccessed1.9.15.InarecentarticleinNationalGeographical

Magazine,thediscoveryoftheJeniferAnistonneuronwasusedasahookonwhichto

hangtheexpositionofthenewscienceofthebrain:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2014/02/brain/img/08-aniston-composite-

670.jpglastaccessed1.9.15.

47Quotedfromthetranscriptoftheprogrammewhichcanbefoundat

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-10131643-76.htmllastconsulted1.9.15.

48http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-10131643-76.htmllastconsulted1.9.15.For

morerecentworkbyMitchellandJust,usingtheirtechniquetoexplorethepresence

orabsenceof‘self-representations’inthosediagnosewithautism,seeJust,

Cherkasskyetal.,2014.

49http://www.unwittingvictim.com/BrainMovieImage.htmllastconsulted1.9.15.B

50Seealsohttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110922121407.htmlast

consulted1.9.15.Forarecentdiscussionwhichgeneralizesfromtheseexperiments,

seeHuth,Nishimotoetal.,2012.

51http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2094671/Mind-boggling-Science-

creates-decode-thoughts-words.html lastconsulted1.9.15.

52http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/02February/Pages/mind-reading-telephathy-inner-

voice.aspxlastconsulted1.9.15.

53In2010,muchpublicitywasgiventoastudyfromAdrianOwnandhisgroupat

WesternUniversityinCanada,seemingtodemonstratethepossibilityofusingsuch

techniquestoidentifywillfulthoughtprocessesinpatientsinpersistentvegetative

states(Monti,Vanhaudenhuyseetal.,2010).Thepotentialofthese‘brain-computer

interfacesisdiscussedindetailinarecentreportfromtheNuffieldCouncilon

Bioethics(NuffieldCouncilonBioethics,2013).

54Forotherexperimentsalongthesamelines,seeWang,Collingeretal.,2013.andfora

moregeneraldiscussiononprogressinthisarea,seeSchwartz,2013.

55Theexperimentwiththeratswasintendedtobeasteptowardsmakinganorganic

computer.ItwasreportedinNaturein2013:

http://www.nature.com/news/intercontinental-mind-meld-unites-two-rats-1.12522:

Nicolelisisquotedassaying““It’snottelepathy.It’snottheBorg,”hesays.“Butwe

createdanewcentralnervoussystemmadeoftwobrains.”

56FortheworkthatisfundedintheNicolelislab,see

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130311-ten-military-mind-experiments

57ReportedinanumberofsourcesinOctober2013,e.g.

http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/darpa-developing-implant-to-monitor-brain-in-real-

time/;http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenkotler/2014/09/02/neuro-modulation-

2-0-new-developments-in-brain-implants-super-soldiers-and-the-treatment-of-

chronic-disease/.

58FewwouldsuggestthatweareonthevergeofJoseDelgado’s‘PsychocivilizedSociety’

butitisrelevanttopointoutthathis‘stimoceivers’–whichcouldbothremotely

monitortheelectricalactivityofthebrain,andremotelystimulatespecificareasof

thebrain-aimedtodojustthis,althoughwithmuchcrudertechnology(Delgado,

Marketal.,1968;Delgado,1969).Delgado’sresearchwas,alsofundedbytheUS

military.Inthefuture,giventhatpolygraphsarealreadyusedinavarietyofwaysin

monitoringsexoffenders,onemightimaginethesetechnologiesbeingdevelopedto

controlthoseconvictedofsexualoffencesagainstchildren:forexample,perhapsa

conditionofreleasefromconfinementunderlicencemightbetheuseofaneural

implanttomonitorandmodulateundesirablethoughtsorintentions

59ThankstoDesFitzgeraldformakingthispointtomeinmoreorlesstheseexact

terms.

60Consider,fortwosimpleexamples,Descartes’medicalstudiesandhisconcernswith

usingmedicalknowledgetoensurehisownhealth,brilliantlydiscussedbySteven

Shapin(Shapin,2000)orthefascinationofthesensationalistphilosopherssuchas

Condillacwithmedicalinnovationsinwhichsightwasrestoredtopeoplewhohad

beenblind(IdiscusstheseinChapterOneofRose,1985).Ofcourse,asShapinpoints

out,therelationofmanyphilosopherstothemedicineoftheirtimeshasoftenbeen

verycritical,althoughsuchattemptstoreconstructmedicalthoughtandpracticeona

‘soundphilosophicalbasis’haveseldombeensuccessful-asShapinputsitthe“donot

makeforedifyingreading:theylookmoreliketestamentstohumanfollythantothe

powerofreason”(ibid.:134).Perhapsthereisalessonhereforsomeofour

contemporaryphilosophicalcriticsofneuroscience.

61Thisquoteisfromtheexceptionallydenseconclusiontothisbook,whichisentitled

“FromChaostotheBrain”.

References

Adolphs,R.(2003).‘CognitiveNeuroscienceofHumanSocialBehaviour.’NatureReviews

Neuroscience4(3):165-178.

Adolphs,R.(2007).‘TheSocialBrain:InsightsfromCognitiveNeuroscience.’Progressin

NaturalScience17:99-105.

Adrian,E.D.andB.H.C.Matthews(1934).‘TheBergerRhythm:PotentialChangesfrom

theOccipitalLobesinMan.’Brain57(4):355-385.

Baron-Cohen,S.(1997).Mindblindness:AnEssayonAutismandTheoryofMind,New

York:MITpress.

Baron-Cohen,S.,A.M.Leslie,etal.(1985).‘DoestheAutisticChildHaveaTheoryof

Mind?’Cognition21(1):37-46.

Bennett,M.R.andP.M.S.Hacker(2003).PhilosophicalFoundationsofNeuroscience.

Malden,MA;Oxford,BlackwellPub.

Biswal,B.B.,M.Mennes,etal.(2010).‘TowardDiscoveryScienceofHumanBrain

Function.’ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences107(10):4734-4739.

Blair,R.(2007).‘TheAmygdalaandVentromedialPrefrontalCortexinMoralityand

Psychopathy.’TrendsinCognitiveSciences11(9):387-392.

Borg,E.(2007).‘IfMirrorNeuronsAretheAnswer,WhatWastheQuestion?’Journalof

ConsciousnessStudies14(8):5-19.

Brothers,L.(1990).‘TheSocialBrain:AProjectforIntegratingPrimateBehaviorand

NeurophysiologyinaNewDomain.’ConceptsinNeuroscience1:27-61.

Brown,T.andE.Murphy(2009).‘ThroughaScannerDarkly:FunctionalNeuroimaging

asEvidenceofaCriminalDefendant'sPastMentalStates.’StanfordLawReview

62:1119.

Bunce,S.C.,M.Izzetoglu,etal.(2006).‘Functionalnear-InfraredSpectroscopy.’

EngineeringinMedicineandBiologyMagazine,IEEE25(4):54-62.

Cacioppo,J.T.,G.G.Berntson,etal.(2011).ABriefHistoryofSocialNeuroscience.InA.

Kruglanskiandw.Stroebe.HandbookoftheHistoryofSocialPsychology.New

York:PsychologyPress.

Callard,F.andD.S.Margulies(2011).‘TheSubjectatRest:NovelConceptualizationsof

SelfandBrainfromCognitiveNeuroscience'sStudyofthe‘RestingState’.’

Subjectivity4(3):227-257.

Canguilhem,G.(1993).GeorgesCanguilhem:Philosophe,HistorienDesSciences.Paris:

AlbinMichel.

Canguilhem,G.(2008).‘TheBrainandThought.’RadicalPhilosophy148:7-18.

Carré,J.M.,L.W.Hyde,etal.(2013).‘TheNeuralSignaturesofDistinctPsychopathic

Traits.’SocialNeuroscience8(2):122-135.

Carter,R.,S.Aldridge,etal.(2009).TheHumanBrainBook.London;NewYork,N.Y.:DK

Publishing.

Carter,R.andC.D.Frith(2010).MappingtheMind.Berkeley,UniversityofCalifornia

Press.

Clark,A.(2008).SupersizingtheMind:Embodiment,Action,andCognitiveExtension:

Embodiment,Action,andCognitiveExtension.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Clark,A.andD.Chalmers(1998).‘TheExtendedMind.’analysis:7-19.

Cohn,S.(2008).‘MakingObjectiveFactsfromIntimateRelations:TheCaseof

NeuroscienceandItsEntanglementswithVolunteers.’HistoryoftheHuman

Sciences21(4):86.

Cohn,S.(2008).‘PettyCashandtheNeuroscientificMappingofPleasure.’Biosocieties

3(02):151-163.

Cole,S.A.(2009).SuspectIdentities:AHistoryofFingerprintingandCriminal

Identification.Boston:HarvardUniversityPress.

Collinger,J.L.,B.Wodlinger,etal.(2013).‘High-PerformanceNeuroprostheticControl

byanIndividualwithTetraplegia.’TheLancet381(9866):557-564.

Dandy,W.E.(1918).‘VentriculographyFollowingtheInjectionofAirintotheCerebral

Ventricles.’AnnalsofSurgery68(1):5.

Decety,J.,L.Skelly,etal.(2014).‘NeuralProcessingofDynamicEmotionalFacial

ExpressionsinPsychopaths.’SocialNeuroscience9(1):36-49.

Decety,J.,L.R.Skelly,etal.(2013).‘BrainResponsetoEmpathy-ElicitingScenarios

InvolvingPaininIncarceratedIndividualswithPsychopathy.’JAMAPsychiatry

70(6):638-645.

Deleuze,G.andF.Guattari(1994).WhatIsPhilosophy?London:Verso.

Deleuze,G.andM.McMuhan(1998).‘TheBrainIstheScreen:InterviewwithGilles

Deleuzeon‘theTime-Image’.’Discourse20(3):47-55.

Delgado,J.M.,V.Mark,etal.(1968).‘IntracerebralRadioStimulationandRecordingin

CompletelyFreePatients.’TheJournalofNervousandMentalDisease147(4):

329-340.

Delgado,J.M.R.(1969).PhysicalControloftheMind:TowardaPsychocivilizedSociety,

NewYork,London:HarperandRow.

Ding,X.P.,X.Gao,etal.(2013).‘NeuralCorrelatesofSpontaneousDeception:A

Functionalnear-InfraredSpectroscopy(Fnirs)Study.’Neuropsychologia51(4):

704-712.

Ding,X.P.,L.Sai,etal.(2014).‘NeuralCorrelatesofSecond-OrderVerbalDeception:A

Functionalnear-InfraredSpectroscopy(Fnirs)Study.’NeuroImage87:505-514.

Dumit,J.(2003).PicturingPersonhood:BrainScansandBiomedicalIdentity.Princeton

NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Dunbar,R.I.M.(1993).‘CoevolutionofNeocorticalSize,GroupSizeandLanguagein

Humans.’BehavioralandBrainSciences16(4):681-693.

Dunbar,R.I.M.(1998).‘TheSocialBrainHypothesis.’EvolutionaryAnthropology6(5):

178-190.

Farah,M.J.,J.B.Hutchinson,etal.(2014).‘FunctionalMri-BasedLieDetection:Scientific

andSocietalChallenges.’NatureReviewsNeuroscience15(2):123-131.

Farwell,L.A.,D.C.Richardson,etal.(2013).‘BrainFingerprintingFieldStudies

ComparingP300-MermerandP300BrainwaveResponsesintheDetectionof

ConcealedInformation.’CognitiveNeurodynamics7(4):263-299.

Frith,C.D.(2007).MakinguptheMind:HowtheBrainCreatesOurMentalWorld.

Oxford:Blackwell.

Frith,C.D.(2007).‘TheSocialBrain?’PhilosophicalTransactionsOfTheRoyalSocietyB-

BiologicalSciences362(1480):671-678.

Gall,F.J.(1810).AnatomieEtPhysiologieDuSystèmeNerveuxEnGènèral,EtDuCerveau

EnParticulier;AvecDesObservationsSurLaPossibilitDeReconnoitrePlusieurs

DispositionsIntellectuellesEtMoralesDeL'hommeEtDesAnimaux,ParLa

ConfigurationDeLeursTètes,Etc.Paris:F.Schoell.

Gallese,V.andA.Goldman(1998).‘MirrorNeuronsandtheSimulationTheoryofMind-

Reading.’TrendsinCognitiveSciences2(12):493-501.

Gregory,S.,A.Simmons,etal.(2012).‘TheAntisocialBrain:PsychopathyMatters:A

StructuralMriInvestigationofAntisocialMaleViolentOffenders.’Archivesof

GeneralPsychiatry69(9):962-972.

Haas,L.(2003).‘HansBerger(1873–1941),RichardCaton(1842–1926),and

Electroencephalography.’JournalofNeurology,Neurosurgery&Psychiatry74(1):

9-9.

Hacking,I.(1998).MadTravelers:ReflectionsontheRealityofTransientMentalIllnesses.

Charlottesville;London:UniversityPressofVirginia.

Hagner,M.(1997).HomoCerebralis:DerWandelVomSeelenorganZumGehirn.Berlin:

BerlinVerlag.

Hagner,M.(2001).‘CultivatingtheCortexinGermanNeuroanatomy.’ScienceInContext

14(4):541-563.

Hagner,M.andC.Borck(2001).‘MindfulPractices:OntheNeurosciencesinthe

TwentiethCentury.’ScienceInContext14(4):507-510.

Haynes,J.-D.(2015).‘APrimeronPattern-BasedApproachestoFmri:Principles,Pitfalls,

andPerspectives.’Neuron87(2):257-270.

Haynes,J.-D.andG.Rees(2006).‘DecodingMentalStatesfromBrainActivityin

Humans.’NatureReviewsNeuroscience7(7):523-534.

Haynes,J.-D.,K.Sakai,etal.(2007).‘ReadingHiddenIntentionsintheHumanBrain.’

CurrentBiology17(4):323-328.

Haynes,J.D.(2011).‘DecodingandPredictingIntentions.’AnnalsoftheNewYork

AcademyofSciences1224(1):9-21.

Hecht,J.M.(1997).‘FrenchScientificMaterialismandtheLiturgyofDeath:The

InventionofaSecularVersionofCatholicLastRites(1876-1914).’French

HistoricalStudies20(4):703-735.

Hecht,J.M.(2003).TheEndoftheSoul:ScientificModernity,Atheism,andAnthropology

inFrance.NewYork;Chichester:ColumbiaUniversityPress.

Hickok,G.(2009).‘EightProblemsfortheMirrorNeuronTheoryofAction

UnderstandinginMonkeysandHumans.’JournalofCognitiveNeuroscience

21(7):1229-1243.

Hodgins,S.,E.Viding,etal.(2008).‘TheNeurobiologyofViolence:Implicationsfor

PreventionandTreatment(SpecialIssue).’PhilosophicalTransactionsofthe

RoyalSocietyB363:1503.

Hopkins,M.M.,P.A.Martin,etal.(2007).‘TheMythoftheBiotechRevolution:An

AssessmentofTechnological,ClinicalandOrganisationalChange.’Research

Policy36(4):566-589.

Humphrey,N.K.(1976).‘TheSocialFunctionofIntellect,’pp.303-317inP.Batesonand

R.A.Hinde(eds.)GrowingPointsinEthology.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity

Press

Huth,A.G.,S.Nishimoto,etal.(2012).‘AContinuousSemanticSpaceDescribesthe

RepresentationofThousandsofObjectandActionCategoriesacrosstheHuman

Brain.’Neuron76(6):1210-1224.

Iacoboni,M.,I.Molnar-Szakacs,etal.(2005).‘GraspingtheIntentionsofOtherswith

One'sOwnMirrorNeuronSystem.’PLoSBiology3(3):e79.

Just,M.A.,V.L.Cherkassky,etal.(2014).‘IdentifyingAutismfromNeural

RepresentationsofSocialInteractions:NeurocognitiveMarkersofAutism.’PloS

One9(12):e113879.

Kahnt,T.,J.Heinzle,etal.(2010).‘TheNeuralCodeofRewardAnticipationinHuman

OrbitofrontalCortex.’ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences107(13):

6010-6015.

Kevles,B.(1997).NakedtotheBone:MedicalImagingintheTwentiethCentury.New

Brunswick,N.J.:RutgersUniversityPress.

Langleben,D.D.andJ.C.Moriarty(2013).‘UsingBrainImagingforLieDetection:Where

Science,Law,andPolicyCollide.’Psychology,PublicPolicy,andLaw19(2):222-

234.

Lashley,K.S.(1950).InSearchoftheEngram.InJ.F.DanielliandR.M.Brown.

PhysiologicalMechanismsinAnimalBehaviour.NewYork:AcademicPress:454-

482.

Libet,B.(1993).‘UnconsciousCerebralInitiativeandtheRoleofConsciousWillin

VoluntaryAction.’BehavioralandBrainSciences8(4):529-566.

Libet,B.(2004).MindTime:TheTemporalFactorinConsciousness.Boston:Harvard

UniversityPress.

Libet,B.,A.Freeman,etal.(eds.)(1999).TheVolitionalBrain:TowardsaNeuroscienceof

FreeWill.Thorverton:ImprintAcademic.

Libet,B.,C.A.Gleason,etal.(1983).‘TimeofConsciousIntentiontoActinRelationto

OnsetofCerebralActivity(Readiness-Potential):TheUnconsciousInitiationofa

FreelyVoluntaryAct.’Brain106(3):623.

Lichtman,J.W.andW.Denk(2011).‘TheBigandtheSmall:ChallengesofImagingthe

Brain’sCircuits.’Science334(6056):618-623.

Lingnau,A.,B.Gesierich,etal.(2009).‘AsymmetricFmriAdaptationRevealsNo

EvidenceforMirrorNeuronsinHumans.’ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyof

Sciences106(24):9925.

Littlefield,M.(2009).‘ConstructingtheOrganofDeceittheRhetoricofFmriandBrain

FingerprintinginPost-9/11America.’Science,Technology&HumanValues

34(3):365-392.

Littlefield,M.M.(2011).TheLyingBrain:LieDetectioninScienceandScienceFiction.

AnnArbor,Mich.:UniversityofMichiganPress.

Logothetis,N.K.(2008).‘WhatWeCanDoandWhatWeCannotDowithfMRI.’Nature

453(7197):869-878.

Lynch,M.,S.A.Cole,etal.(2010).TruthMachine:TheContentiousHistoryofDNA

Fingerprinting.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Maynard,P.(2000).TheEngineofVisualization:ThinkingthroughPhotography.New

York:CornellUniversityPress.

Mitchell,T.,R.Hutchinson,etal.(2004).‘LearningtoDecodeCognitiveStatesfromBrain

Images.’MachineLearning57(1-2):145-175.

Moll,J.,R.deOliveira-Souza,etal.(2002).‘TheNeuralCorrelatesofMoralSensitivity:A

FunctionalMagneticResonanceImagingInvestigationofBasicandMoral

Emotions.’TheJournalofNeuroscience22(7):2730-2736.

Moll,J.,R.Zahn,etal.(2005).‘TheNeuralBasisofHumanMoralCognition.’Nature

ReviewsNeuroscience6(10):799-809.

Moniz,E.(1933).‘CerebralAngiography:ItsApplicationinClinicalPracticeand

Physiology.’TheLancet222(5751):1144-1147.

Monti,M.M.,A.Vanhaudenhuyse,etal.(2010).‘WillfulModulationofBrainActivityin

DisordersofConsciousness.’NewEnglandJournalofMedicine362(7):579-589.

Mukamel,R.,A.D.Ekstrom,etal.(2010).‘Single-NeuronResponsesinHumansDuring

ExecutionandObservationofActions.’CurrentBiology20(8):750-756.

Nicolelis,M.(2011).BeyondBoundaries.NewYork:Holt.

Nicolelis,M.A.andJ.K.Chapin(2002).‘ControllingRobotswiththeMind.’Scientific

American287(4):46-55.

Nicolelis,M.A.,A.A.Ghazanfar,etal.(1997).‘ReconstructingtheEngram:Simultaneous,

Multisite,ManySingleNeuronRecordings.’Neuron18(4):529-537.

Nicolelis,M.A.andS.Ribeiro(2006).‘SeekingtheNeuralCode.’ScientificAmerican

295(6):70-77.

Nishimoto,S.,A.T.Vu,etal.(2011).‘ReconstructingVisualExperiencesfromBrain

ActivityEvokedbyNaturalMovies.’CurrentBiology:CB21(19):1641-1646.

NuffieldCouncilonBioethics(2013).NovelNeurotechnologies:InterveningintheBrain..

London,NuffieldCouncilonBioethics.

Nutt,R.(2002).‘TheHistoryofPositronEmissionTomography.’MolecularImaging&

Biology4(1):11-26.

Obrig,H.andA.Villringer(2003).‘BeyondtheVisible—ImagingtheHumanBrainwith

Light.’JournalofCerebralBloodFlow&Metabolism23(1):1-18.

Pais-Vieira,M.,M.Lebedev,etal.(2013).‘ABrain-to-BrainInterfaceforReal-Time

SharingofSensorimotorInformation.’ScientificReports3:1319

Pasley,B.N.,S.V.David,etal.(2012).‘ReconstructingSpeechfromHumanAuditory

Cortex.’PLoSbiology10(1):e1001251.

Penfield,W.(1952).‘MemoryMechanisms.’AMAArchivesofNeurology&Psychiatry

67(2):178-198.

Premack,D.andG.Woodruff(1978).‘DoestheChimpanzeeHaveaTheoryofMind?’

BehavioralandBrainSciences1(4):515-526.

Quiroga,R.Q.,L.Reddy,etal.(2005).‘InvariantVisualRepresentationbySingleNeurons

intheHumanBrain.’Nature435(7045):1102-1107.

Raichle,M.E.(2009).‘ABriefHistoryofHumanBrainMapping.’TrendsinNeurosciences

32(2):118-126.

Raichle,M.E.andA.Z.Snyder(2007).‘ADefaultModeofBrainFunction:ABriefHistory

ofanEvolvingIdea.’Neuroimage37(4):1083-1090.

Raine,A.,S.S.Ishikawa,etal.(2004).‘HippocampalStructuralAsymmetryin

UnsuccessfulPsychopaths.’BiologicalPsychiatry55(2):185-191.

Raine,A.,T.Lencz,etal.(2003).‘CorpusCallosumAbnormalitiesinPsychopathic

AntisocialIndividuals.’ArchivesofGeneralPsychiatry60(11):1134.

Ramachandran,V.S.(1995).‘MirrorNeuronsandImitationastheDrivingForceBehind

‘theGreatLeapForward’inHumanEvolution.’EDGE:Thethirdculture.Available

athttps://edge.org/conversation/mirror-neurons-and-imitation-learning-as-

the-driving-force-behind-the-great-leap-forward-in-human-evolution.

Ramachandran,V.S.andL.M.Oberman(2006).‘BrokenMirrors:ATheoryofAutism.’

ScientificAmerican295(5):62-69.

Rieber,R.W.(2006).‘NothingbutGodandtheBrain’pp31-41inR.W.Reiber(ed.)The

BifurcationoftheSelf:TheHistoryandTheoryofDissociationandItsDisorders.

NewYork:Springer.

Rissman,J.,H.T.Greely,etal.(2010).‘DetectingIndividualMemoriesthroughtheNeural

DecodingofMemoryStatesandPastExperience.’ProceedingsoftheNational

AcademyofSciences107(21):9849-9854.

Rizzolatti,G.andL.Craighero(2004).‘TheMirror-NeuronSystem.’AnnualRevewof

Neuroscience27:169-192.

Rose,N.(1985).ThePsychologicalComplex:Psychology,PoliticsandSocietyinEngland,

1869-1939.London;Boston:Routledge&KeganPaul(alsoavailableat

http://nikolasrose.com/index.php/books/)

Rose,N.andJ.M.Abi-Rached(2013).Neuro:TheNewBrainSciencesandthe

ManagementoftheMind.Princeton,N.J.;Woodstock:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Schwartz,A.B.(2013).ProgresstowardaHigh-PerformanceNeuralProsthetic,pp.14-

15inBrain-ComputerInterface(BCI),2013InternationalWinterWorkshop,doi:

10.1109/IWW-BCI.2013.6506612

Schwartz,A.B.,X.T.Cui,etal.(2006).‘Brain-ControlledInterfaces:Movement

RestorationwithNeuralProsthetics.’Neuron52(1):205-220.

Shapin,S.(2000).‘DescartestheDoctor:RationalismandItsTherapies.’TheBritish

JournalfortheHistoryofScience33(02):131-154.

Shen,F.andO.Jones(2011).‘BrainScansasEvidence:Truths,Proofs,Lies,andLessons.’

MercerLawReview62:861.

Simpson,J.R.(2008).‘FunctionalMRILieDetection:TooGoodtoBeTrue?’Journalofthe

AmericanAcademyofPsychiatryandtheLawOnline36(4):491-498.

Smith,K.(2008).‘Mind-ReadingwithaBrainScan.’NatureNews,5March2008,

doi:10.1038/news.2008.650.

Smith,K.(2013).‘ReadingMinds.’Nature502(24October2013):428-430.

Tennison,M.N.andJ.D.Moreno(2012).‘Neuroscience,Ethics,andNationalSecurity:

TheStateoftheArt.’PLoSBiology10(3):e1001289.

Trinh,N.N.P.(2013).AnalysisoftheStateofPhysiologyofUntruthinPrefrontalCortex

MeasuredbyFunctionalnear-InfaredSpectroscopy(F-Nirs),International

UniversityHCMC:Vietnam.

Tusche,A.,S.Bode,etal.(2010).‘NeuralResponsestoUnattendedProductsPredict

LaterConsumerChoices.’TheJournalofNeuroscience30(23):8024-8031.

Varela,F.J.,E.Thompson,etal.(1993).TheEmbodiedMind:CognitiveScienceand

HumanExperience.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.

Viding,E.,R.J.Blair,etal.(2005).‘EvidenceforSubstantialGeneticRiskforPsychopathy

in7-Year-Olds.’JournalofChildPsychologyandPsychiatry46(6):592-597.

Viding,E.,K.B.Hanscombe,etal.(2010).‘InSearchofGenesAssociatedwithRiskfor

PsychopathicTendenciesinChildren:ATwo-StageGenome‐WideAssociation

StudyofPooledDNA.’JournalofChildPsychologyandPsychiatry51(7):780-788.

Viding,E.,A.P.Jones,etal.(2008).‘HeritabilityofAntisocialBehaviourat9:DoCallous-

UnemotionalTraitsMatter?’DevelopmentalScience11(1):17-22.

Viding,E.,A.P.Jones,etal.(2008).‘HeritabilityofAntisocialBehaviourat9:Do

Callous‐UnemotionalTraitsMatter?’DevelopmentalScience11(1):17-22.

Villringer,A.andB.Chance(1997).‘Non-InvasiveOpticalSpectroscopyandImagingof

HumanBrainFunction.’TrendsinNeurosciences20(10):435-442.

Wagner,H.N.(2006).‘FromMolecularImagingtoMolecularMedicine.’Journalof

NuclearMedicine47(8):13N.

Wagner,H.N.(2009).BrainImaging:TheChemistryofMentalActivity.NewYork;

London:Springer.

Wagner,H.N.,H.D.Burns,etal.(1983).‘ImagingDopamine-ReceptorsintheHuman-

BrainbyPositronTomography.’Science221(4617):1264-1266.

Wang,W.,J.L.Collinger,etal.(2013).‘AnElectrocorticographicBrainInterfaceinan

IndividualwithTetraplegia.’PloSOne8(2):e55344.

Weber,S.,U.Habel,etal.(2008).‘StructuralBrainAbnormalitiesinPsychopaths—a

Review.’BehavioralSciencesandtheLaw26(1):7-28.

Weinberger,S.(2011).‘Terrorist‘Pre-Crime’detectorFieldTestedinUnitedStates.

ScreeningSystemAimstoPinpointPassengerswithMaliciousIntentions,’Nature

News27May2011,doi:10.1038/news.2011.323

.

Wolpe,P.R.,K.R.Foster,etal.(2005).‘EmergingNeurotechnologiesforLie-Detection:

PromisesandPerils.’TheAmericanJournalofBioethics5(2):39-49.

Wu,M.-T.(2013).MethodofDetectingaSuicideTerrorist,USPatent20,130,041,263.

UnitedStatesPatentApplication20130041263.

Yang,Y.,A.Raine,etal.(2005).‘VolumeReductioninPrefrontalGrayMatterin

UnsuccessfulCriminalPsychopaths.’BiologicalPsychiatry57(10):1103-1108.