Does a Mind Reading Machine Qualify?

[mrwronggt13]

I'm curious if a mind reading machine would qualify for the million dollar challenge. I could provide the details if this is possibly within the scope of the Randi rules.

[jimtron]

I can't speak for JREF, but I don't see why not. Have you read the rules and FAQ for the challenge? If not, I urge you to do so.

Please tell us what the machine can do--it sounds exciting.

[Terry]

If its along the lines of fMRI, then no, clearly not. If it works by some means beyond current scientific understanding, it might. If you want the official answer, why not drop an email to challenge@randi.org ?

[jimtron]

If its along the lines of fMRI, then no, clearly not. If it works by some means beyond current scientific understanding, it might. If you want the official answer, why not drop an email to challenge@randi.org ?
Ah, good point--it depends on how "mind reading" is defined. Of course there are scientific techniques for observing brain functions, and those wouldn't qualify. There have been great strides in brain research in recent years.

Tell us more about the mind reading machine!

[rtalman]

Ah, good point--it depends on how "mind reading" is defined. Of course there are scientific techniques for observing brain functions, and those wouldn't qualify. There have been great strides in brain research in recent years.

Tell us more about the mind reading machine!
http://www.guessthename.com/

[rjh01]

I cannot speak for JREF but I say these things should not be allowed for obvious reasons
- The subject having to inject drink or eat anything
- Anything touching the subject
- Anything coming close to the subject's head.
- The use of the electromagnetic waves, including infrared.

[The Atheist]

I'm curious if a mind reading machine would qualify for the million dollar challenge. I could provide the details if this is possibly within the scope of the Randi rules.

Well, if Randi doesn't want a piece of it, I'd gladly accept a Kiwi Challenge for it. A machine that reads minds certainly qualifies as well outside science.

I cannot speak for JREF but I say these things should not be allowed for obvious reasons
- The subject having to inject drink or eat anything
- Anything touching the subject
- Anything coming close to the subject's head.
- The use of the electromagnetic waves, including infrared.

I can't imagine why you'd want those sort or rules in place. I expect that something would need to be worn on the head, for starters.

Infra-red, electromagnetic, bring 'em on.

I would envisage a very simple test. You can attach the device to me and I will write down everything I think of during the test. If your machine gets the list right, you're a winner!

More details please, mrwronggt13!

[jimtron]

We can't say because we don't speak for JREF, and we don't know what the claim is exactly. What do you mean by "mind reading"?

[mrwronggt13]

It's real-time MRI. Two friends of mine work at the brain mapping center at a major university. About 3 years ago they showed proof of concept on mind reading. They condition subjects on, for example, the concept of "chair". They show pictures of chairs, real chairs, the printed word "chair" etc. They can then identify MRI patterns in that individual that correspond to "chair-ish-ness".

They've shown an ability read whether the subject is or is not looking at a chair, or thinking about "chair", with an accuracy far greater than chance.

[mrwronggt13]

Well, if Randi doesn't want a piece of it, I'd gladly accept a Kiwi Challenge for it. A machine that reads minds certainly qualifies as well outside science.

I can't imagine why you'd want those sort or rules in place. I expect that something would need to be worn on the head, for starters.

Infra-red, electromagnetic, bring 'em on.

I would envisage a very simple test. You can attach the device to me and I will write down everything I think of during the test. If your machine gets the list right, you're a winner!

More details please, mrwronggt13!

See above.

[Jackalgirl]

It's real-time MRI. Two friends of mine work at the brain mapping center at a major university. About 3 years ago they showed proof of concept on mind reading. They condition subjects on, for example, the concept of "chair". They show pictures of chairs, real chairs, the printed word "chair" etc. They can then identify MRI patterns in that individual that correspond to "chair-ish-ness".

They've shown an ability read whether the subject is or is not looking at a chair, or thinking about "chair", with an accuracy far greater than chance.

You'd have to send an email to the challenge@randi.org address to get a definite response, but I'm guessing that this probably wouldn't qualify. There's nothing paranormal about it.

[jimtron]

It's real-time MRI. Two friends of mine work at the brain mapping center at a major university. About 3 years ago they showed proof of concept on mind reading. They condition subjects on, for example, the concept of "chair". They show pictures of chairs, real chairs, the printed word "chair" etc. They can then identify MRI patterns in that individual that correspond to "chair-ish-ness".

They've shown an ability read whether the subject is or is not looking at a chair, or thinking about "chair", with an accuracy far greater than chance.

This sounds like science, not a paranormal claim. Have you read the rules and FAQ (http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/47/37/)? In your view, is this paranormal or scientific?


2.2 What is the definition of “paranormal” in regards to the Challenge?Webster’s Online Dictionary defines “paranormal” as “not scientifically explainable; supernatural.”




And from the main MDC page: At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.

[mrwronggt13]

The other thread about the semantics of "paranormal" is right on the money. 20 years ago, a claim of a "mind reading machine" would have qualified as "paranormal". Flying machines were once widely considered to be impossible. Etc.

"Invisibility cloak" is another one. Proof of concept is shown there also, light can be diverted around a solid object.

If science is the study of what is, then nothing which exists is paranormal. Even if you did actually find a person who could do, say, remote viewing, there would be a perfectly scientific explanation for why that was possible.

[jimtron]

The other thread about the semantics of "paranormal" is right on the money. 20 years ago, a claim of a "mind reading machine" would have qualified as "paranormal". Flying machines were once widely considered to be impossible. Etc.

"Invisibility cloak" is another one. Proof of concept is shown there also, light can be diverted around a solid object.

If science is the study of what is, then nothing which exists is paranormal. Even if you did actually find a person who could do, say, remote viewing, there would be a perfectly scientific explanation for why that was possible.

You're right. But the thing is, there are a great many people out there claiming to have paranormal powers, and often charging money for it (psychics, dowsers, homeopaths, etc.). And there are polls indicating that a high percentage of people believe in this stuff, even though apparently it is BS.

When there is evidence for something existing, we can be almost certain it's real; like what you described with MRIs. There is no evidence that I know of for talking to the dead, dowsing, curing people via homeopathy, bending spoons via the mind, etc.

One point of the challenge, I think, is to say: "OK, homeopathy can effectively treat illnesses? I doubt it, but let's test it. Water has memory? Sounds crazy, but if it's true, it should be demonstrable. If it's not demonstrable, how do you know it's true?"

Or: "Oh, you're charging money to find water via dowsing? I thought dowsing was bogus? If you claim that it's truly effective, that will be easy enough to test."

[Skullaxide]

The other thread about the semantics of "paranormal" is right on the money. 20 years ago, a claim of a "mind reading machine" would have qualified as "paranormal". Flying machines were once widely considered to be impossible. Etc.

I agree with you about semantics, when people had limited scientific knowledge and more superstitious shenanigans guiding them, they would have thought of it as paranormal. Fortunately, today we have that knowledge and can say that it's not paranormal and just a machine that has been designed to overcome gravity and fly! The proof is there, the design and the science is there.


"Invisibility cloak" is another one. Proof of concept is shown there also, light can be diverted around a solid object.

If science is the study of what is, then nothing which exists is paranormal. Even if you did actually find a person who could do, say, remote viewing, there would be a perfectly scientific explanation for why that was possible.

Hmm, if anyone did ever prove the paranormal, would it still be considered paranormal?
Google says "paranormal" means: Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation. Which would mean that the paranormal could not be proven because it's well, not explainable, which is probably why I and many other people choose not to believe it, because it is without scientific evidence. Although, I'm sure there are lots of other definitions! Like people who think astrology is science.
A machine just sounds like it'd pick up clues and draw a conclusion, which would be like a polygraph. Though, I have to say a machine that can accurately tell what you are thinking does sound pretty cool. I still think you should try and see what the folks at JREF say, because I'm intrigued and I'd like to see how the machine does in a test.

[Skullaxide]

http://www.guessthename.com/

Well, there you have it, I was wrong again. I was positive that you were thinking of Sleepy Hollow!
Nope, Brokeback Mountain silly mind-reading computer questionnaire type thing!

Also, Mystic Ball (http://www.mysticalball.com/).

[Jackalgirl]

The other thread about the semantics of "paranormal" is right on the money. 20 years ago, a claim of a "mind reading machine" would have qualified as "paranormal". Flying machines were once widely considered to be impossible. Etc.

"Invisibility cloak" is another one. Proof of concept is shown there also, light can be diverted around a solid object.

If science is the study of what is, then nothing which exists is paranormal. Even if you did actually find a person who could do, say, remote viewing, there would be a perfectly scientific explanation for why that was possible.

I don't speak for JREF, but the scope of the Challenge seems to be aimed directly at stuff that either operates in direct opposition of known science (for example, perpetual motion machines, which would violate thermodyanamics theory if they worked) or which -- despite numerous opportunities for and/or attempts at testing -- fail to provide any credible evidence that they work.

I think that it would be possible to win the prize by developing something that operates on unknown (but perfectly valid) scientific principles. But your MRI wouldn't count, because it operates on currently known scientific principles. Just because the very idea might have been considered paranormal at some point in the past does not mean that it should be considered so now.

[jimtron]

If it's real, it should hold up to scrutiny. Why hasn't anyone been able to prove that dowsing works? If it did hold up to scientific scrutiny, then we would no longer call it paranormal. But there is still quite a bit of stuff out there that people believe in, and waste their money on, that hasn't been proven.

One might almost come to the conclusion that all or most of the paranormal claims are bogus.

[The Atheist]

It's real-time MRI. Two friends of mine work at the brain mapping center at a major university. About 3 years ago they showed proof of concept on mind reading. They condition subjects on, for example, the concept of "chair". They show pictures of chairs, real chairs, the printed word "chair" etc. They can then identify MRI patterns in that individual that correspond to "chair-ish-ness".

They've shown an ability read whether the subject is or is not looking at a chair, or thinking about "chair", with an accuracy far greater than chance.

Ok, that's a long way from paranormal. You're talking about reading of brain responses to pre-programmed stimuli - I'm assuming you can only tell whether or not a person is thinking about the object, not which object they're thinking about.

Can I get my hands on one of these machines? I have a theoretical neuroscientist christian buddy who I've been threatening with this kind of technology for some time.

[RemieV]

It's real-time MRI. Two friends of mine work at the brain mapping center at a major university. About 3 years ago they showed proof of concept on mind reading. They condition subjects on, for example, the concept of "chair". They show pictures of chairs, real chairs, the printed word "chair" etc. They can then identify MRI patterns in that individual that correspond to "chair-ish-ness".

They've shown an ability read whether the subject is or is not looking at a chair, or thinking about "chair", with an accuracy far greater than chance.

This would not qualify.

[mrwronggt13]

The semantic problem has to do with "outside scientific explanation".

Suppose for sake of discussion that we had kept MRI technology secret. There are scientific secrets you know! A test is set up where the mechanics of the mind reading machine are kept hidden. It could then be argued that this mind reading was "outside scientific explanation". None of the testers can explain it. "Official" sources deny the existence of such technology, and there you have it.

I suppose it's lucky for Randi that the Los Alamos gang is well-paid and sworn to secrecy. I suspect they could cook something up which sounds pretty paranormal.

[mrwronggt13]

Ok, that's a long way from paranormal. You're talking about reading of brain responses to pre-programmed stimuli - I'm assuming you can only tell whether or not a person is thinking about the object, not which object they're thinking about.

Can I get my hands on one of these machines? I have a theoretical neuroscientist christian buddy who I've been threatening with this kind of technology for some time.

No, that's not right. The brain mappers are able to distinguish which object subjects are thinking about. They can tell the difference between "chair" "book" "monkey" etc. In theory now, huge vocabularies of pattern recognition could be built up.

Thus far, the pattens appear to be quite specific to individuals. My pattern for "chair" looks different than yours. In theory though, each individual's mind could be mapped, that data stored, and a remote device aimed at the skull and your mind read.

Coming in the future to a police officer near you.

[tkingdoll]

But they'd have to map all the different variables for every single thing we might think about in order to get accuracy. That's a helluva job. Plus, I suspect after a while there will be some overlap - I mean, does the pattern for my £1000 leather rocket armchair look the same as the pattern for my £3 wooden folding IKEA spare dining chair? Plus, what's a 'chair' anyway? If I'm an Ethiopian who sits on an upturned crate, is that a crate or a chair? If you show that Ethiopian a picture of one of those spaceage media chairs, is that going to register as a chair, or will the image of that chair give a pattern that is unchanging even when exposed to the real object? Will that pattern be the same as his crate/chair pattern?

Or does it not work that way? I guess I'm asking if the machine produces patterns for abstract concepts of each item, or if it just produces a pattern that corresponds with what the eye sees for a specific type of image (e.g. an actual chair that looks the same as the chair in the picture used for the mapping). I'd be interested to know if the tests were done with, for example, a single chair. I assume this technology isn't portable? If it is, what happens when you put me in a furniture store?



Also, can the patterns be read by the eye, or are they more like fingerprints that need to be scanned by a machine to pick up the differences between one and another? (Yes, I know fingerprint matching used to be done by hand but it was neither accurate nor comprehensive).

Finally, re: the theory that a mind could be mapped. 'Chair' is a specific item within a range of things our mind classifies as 'furniture'. So you're talking about more specific identification than just a classification (well, I should hope so, otherwise I can tell you right now what most people are thinking about a lot of the time. Sex and food). So, in order to get the pattern for the different specific items within each classification, you'd have to map my brain whilst I'm looking at each thing, or a picture of each thing? That's not remotely feasible. Firstly, pictures don't exist for some of things in my imagination. Secondly, even if they did, there would be tens of billions of them. You don't have the time or resources to do the scanning. Thirdly, some people like to think of things which are gross, or illegal. Are you going to show them pictures of those things in order to get a reading?

Whilst it sounds sort of interesting, it seems on the face of it to suffer from the same problem a lot of the brain-scanning stuff does - little or no practical utility.

[The Atheist]

No, that's not right. The brain mappers are able to distinguish which object subjects are thinking about. They can tell the difference between "chair" "book" "monkey" etc. In theory now, huge vocabularies of pattern recognition could be built up.

Well, the fact that a database has to be built up first makes it pretty unwieldy and not "reading minds" in any way at all.

& what tkingdoll said.

[Jekyll]

The other thread about the semantics of "paranormal" is right on the money. 20 years ago, a claim of a "mind reading machine" would have qualified as "paranormal". Flying machines were once widely considered to be impossible. Etc.

The semantic problem has to do with "outside scientific explanation".
Well just redefine paranormal a little more cleanly as something "outside of current scientific explanation". Problem solved.

Incidentally, Matroc the guy driving the other thread about what paranormal means would disagree with you, as he views the paranormal as something which must be forever outside the grasp of science.

[jimtron]

The semantics issue with the term "paranormal" is not a problem when it comes to the challenge. There are many, many claims that are eligible. There's no need to get stuck on defining paranormal.

[ben m]

The semantic problem has to do with "outside scientific explanation".

Suppose for sake of discussion that we had kept MRI technology secret. There are scientific secrets you know!

Mrwrong, this comes up on the Forums from time to time. IIRC Randi has acknowledged that advanced technology could indeed win a JREF challenge. Forget about MRIs---if someone invented a low-power tooth-implanted spread-spectrum walkie-talkie, they could simulate ESP. A retina-implanted far-infrared camera could let you see through blindfolds or envelopes. And so on.

Why hasn't this happened yet? It's very simple:

JREF Challenge prize: $1,000,000
Cost of an off-the-shelf MRI machine: $2,000,000
Worldwide market for MRI machines: $10,000,000,000

And imagine how many poker games you could win with a bionic eye that could see through cards ...

[Czarcasm]

Is this another "I've found a loophole that allows me to game the system!" thread?

[chillzero]

Is this another "I've found a loophole that allows me to game the system!" thread?

No.

[Czarcasm]

No.Well, its got the "If we squint our eyes and dim the lights enough, we can redefine paranormal to mean just about anything" element and the "If you look at it very loosely, you might be able to see this process as mind-reading" element. It sure looks like another Game the System example to me.

[iantresman]

I self-professed psychic wrote in one of his books, that when asked to psychically deduce the picture drawn on a page and sealed in an envelope, he said it was not possible and cheated... he just read the artist's mind.

[Terry]

I self-professed psychic wrote in one of his books, that when asked to psychically deduce the picture drawn on a page and sealed in an envelope, he said it was not possible and cheated... he just read the artist's mind.

He was doing it the hard way then...

[Jackalgirl]

He was doing it the hard way then...

Yeah -- that's a pretty standard mentalist trick, isn't it?

[Drudgewire]

"chair-ish-ness?" :boggled:

[Dr. Trintignant]

IIRC Randi has acknowledged that advanced technology could indeed win a JREF challenge.

I'm amazed that no one has yet cited Clarke's third law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Though you do have to wonder what the minimum technological level is that you could get away with. You might not need a full-fledged tooth walkie-talkie for faking ESP--if you were just trying to transmit coin flips, you could have a simple binary transmitter (one click vs. two, high or low tones, etc.).

The trick is that you would have to limit your claims, which might make the JREF suspicious. ESP people tend to say that their powers work over any distance; dowsers say their powers work for any substance; etc. Saying that your powers only work at low range and that metallic objects disrupt them could sound like you're trying to pull a fast one.

- Dr. Trintignant

[Klimax]

Maybe wormhole?
It is theoretically usable for most "paranormal" claims like clairvoyance,ESP,dowsing and moer.Only talking with dead might be more difficult/impossible (depends on claim).

ETA:And the claim could be then almost anything,btw.No metal could disrupt it and then mind-reading machine could be simple WH connection.
Detection of this is of course quite impossible,so far.

[tkingdoll]

I don't know if the OP poster is still around, but this Nature article from today seems very relevant to this thread.

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080305/full/news.2008.650.html

Brain activity can be decoded using magnetic resonance imaging.

[vexed]

The semantic problem has to do with "outside scientific explanation".

Suppose for sake of discussion that we had kept MRI technology secret. There are scientific secrets you know! A test is set up where the mechanics of the mind reading machine are kept hidden. It could then be argued that this mind reading was "outside scientific explanation". None of the testers can explain it. "Official" sources deny the existence of such technology, and there you have it.

I suppose it's lucky for Randi that the Los Alamos gang is well-paid and sworn to secrecy. I suspect they could cook something up which sounds pretty paranormal.

"...kept MRI technology secret..." (from above)
It would still be technology*, and not some unexplainable phenomenon, even if those who have knowledge of the technology decide not to disclose it.



*technology:the application of scientific advances to benefit humanity

[theneedtoknow]

This question is so silly....
It is like asking if someone who can tell everytime it has rained, just by looking at the wet ground, is doing something paranormal. It is a simple cause and effect relationship. The cause (thinking about a chair) brings about the effect (a specific pattern lights up on the MRI). Moreover, unique causes bring about unique effects (as mentioned, different objects have very dfferent patterns associated with them). So I would think it's pretty obvious that simply obversing an effect, you can easily deduce what the cause was.