How Technology May Soon "Read" Your Mind

60 Minutes: Incredible Research Lets Scientists Get A Glimpse At Your Thoughts

(CBS)  This story was first published on Jan. 4, 2009. It was updated on June 26, 2009.

How often have you wondered what your spouse is really thinking? Or your boss? Or the guy sitting across from you on the bus? We all take as a given that we'll never really know for sure. The content of our thoughts is our own - private, secret, and unknowable by anyone else. Until now, that is.

As 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl first reported in January, neuroscience research into how we think and what we're thinking is advancing at a stunning rate, making it possible for the first time in human history to peer directly into the brain to read out the physical make-up of our thoughts, some would say to read our minds.

---

The technology that is transforming what once was science fiction into just plain science is a specialized use of MRI scanning called "functional MRI," fMRI for short. It makes it possible to see what's going on inside the brain while people are thinking.

"You know, every time I walk into that scanner room and I see the person's brain appear on the screen, when I see those patterns, it is just incredible, unthinkable," neuroscientist Marcel Just told Stahl.

He calls it "thought identification."

Whatever you want to call it, what Just and his colleague Tom Mitchell at Carnegie Mellon University have done is combine fMRI's ability to look at the brain in action with computer science's new power to sort through massive amounts of data. The goal: to see if they could identify exactly what happens in the brain when people think specific thoughts.

They did an experiment where they asked subjects to think about ten objects - five of them tools like screwdriver and hammer, and five of them dwellings, like igloo and castle. They then recorded and analyzed the activity in the subjects' brains for each.

"The computer found the place in the brain where that person was thinking 'screwdriver'?" Stahl asked.

"Screwdriver isn't one place in the brain. It's many places in the brain. When you think of a screwdriver, you think about how you hold it, how you twist it, what it looks like, what you use it for," Just explained.

He told Stahl each of those functions are in different places.

When we think "screwdriver" or "igloo" for example, Just says neurons start firing at varying levels of intensity in different areas throughout the brain. "And we found that we could identify which object they were thinking about from their brain activation patterns," he said.

"We're identifying the thought that's occurring. It's…incredible, just incredible," he added.

"Are you saying that if you think of a hammer, that your brain is identical to my brain when I think of a hammer?" Stahl asked.

"Not identical. We have idiosyncrasies. Maybe I've had a bad experience with a hammer and you haven't, but it's close enough to identify each other's thoughts. So, you know, that was never known before," Just explained.

60 Minutes asked if his team was up for a challenge: would they take associate producer Meghan Frank, whose brain had never been scanned before, and see if the computer could identify her thoughts? Just and Mitchell agreed to give it a try and see if they could do it in almost real time.

Just said nobody had ever done an instant analysis like this.

Inside the scanner, Meghan was shown a series of ten items and asked to think for a few seconds about each one.

"If it all comes out right, when she's thinking 'hammer,' the computer will know she's thinking 'hammer'?" Stahl asked.

"Right," Mitchell replied.

Within minutes, the computer, unaware of what pictures Meghan had been shown and working only from her brain activity patterns as read out by the scanner, was ready to tell us, in its own voice, what it believed was the first object Meghan had been thinking about.

The computer correctly analyzed the first three words - knife, hammer, and window, and aced the rest as well.

According to Just, this is just the beginning.

"Who knows what you're gonna be able to read," Stahl commented. "A little scary, actually."

"Well, that's our research program for the next five years," Just said. "To see what, you know - we're not satisfied with "hammer."

And neither are neuroscientists 4,000 miles away in Berlin at the Bernstein Center. John Dylan-Haynes is hard at work there using the scanner not just to identify objects people are thinking about, but to read their intentions.

Subjects were asked to make a simple decision - whether to add or subtract two numbers they would be shown later on. Haynes found he could read directly from the activity in a small part of the brain that controls intentions what they had decided to do.

"This is a kind of blown up version of the brain activity happening here. And you can see that if a person is planning to add or to subtract, the pattern of brain activity is different in these two cases," Haynes explained.

[kdkarlsen]

Regarding the story about Reading Minds: In a court of law, should the defendant be subject to this "examination," of his/her thoughts, I suggest that EVERY party also be subjected to the same; brainscans for the Judge, the Prosecutor, and each member of the jury. This way everyone will have their cards on the table--their intent.

[crsteele]

Perfect! You hit the nail on the head.
This technology has the possibility of making our justice system work. Implement the technology everyone gets hooked up including the judge, jury, prosecutor, defendant, witnesses etc. Anyone not consenting automatically is disqualified or imprisoned (ie: Defendant). I would go to court just to watch the minute by minute battles a lawyer would have telling the truth for more than 1 sentence in a row. Seeing a judges or DA's true motives, that could be downright informative. :-)

[Slrman]

This is precisely why this plan will never be implemented. At least not for anyone but the defendant. If lawyers, prosecutors and judges (all lawyers, actually) were held to the truth, our system of "justice" would collapse.

[sockpuppet4]

Bizarre.

[SwtSnnyD]

This new FMRI is just what those who live in chronic pain need!!! Finally doctors will "sse" our pain and better diagnose our treatment!
How about those with chemical inbalances...and the unknown thousands of other issues that the brain controls?
Don''t read my thoughts, fix what ails me!
I want to know where to sign up for this! I have lived in chronic pain since ''94 having had 5 back surgeries and also suffer from depression. (gee, I wonder why!!)

[slshumate]

I feel this should be used for medical purposes. I have a 12 year old son who has Cerebral Palsey, to know when he is in pain would be a dream come true, instead of giving him medication for pain when I don''t know if he is in "severe" pain. I also feel it could benefit people who have had strokes or severe accidents which have left them without the ability to communicate to us the pain they could be in. I am sure we could come up with other reasons (medical reasons)to use this "fMRI". I don''t want people reading my thoughts.

[nobdysfool]

Soon humans will be around forever because we''ll have a medical cure & answer for everything. PLEEEEEEEEASE NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

[frankinco]

You beat me to it, b4ucmyI. If the technology will allow mind reading in a few years from now, then it will allow mind WRITING in a few years after that.

We can''t stop technological advances, so we should start preparing now for how to deal with a time when, for example, a person can unknowingly have her political opinions reprogrammed.

[mimidennis2]

I could not believe the story was over without exploring the potential use in the medical field. I have a grand daughter with Rett Syndrome which leaves her unable to speak or use her hands to sign. How great it would be if we knew if she was in pain, or hot, or cold or hungry or if she felt comfortable or even if she knew she was loved. There is presently no way to measure the intelligence level of these children, no way to know what they comprehend. Can this technology help to communicate with her and others like her?

[kkwilson1000]

After watching this program, I told my better half how great it is that we ''read'' one another so well without a computer. In the unlikely event we become confused by one another, we simply ask. Computers may simulate probable brain wave meaning, but will never emulate the beauty of human communication.

[allzwell]

This technology should be killed in the womb... this is way bad! Who''s paying for this research? Why are they even doing it? What''s their ulterior motive? Making money at the least, that''s a given, but this is the mind police... this could enslave us.

[callistemon-2009]

stupid computers.

[centerfall94]

Great research, with fantastic potential.

[perk235]

Isn''t it amazing how such a complex organ of the body operates on such basic scientific principles?

It used to be thought that vision was too complicated to understand, but that turned out to be basic protein signaling. Now we''re in a vast frontier of learning about the connection between electrical signals and "I".

[notmudrose1]

the machine will come up blank on george bush''s mind.

now there''s an oxymoron! pun intended.

[zuuumiewhite]

The best way to verify the %-of-accuracy of FMRI''s is to take subjects who have worked in areas where retrievable and verifiable Public records including the media, things like audits, & Intel are available starting with current and past living elected officials who have made, may have made, and may make in the future, those intending to run for public office, and people like CEO''s entangled in scandals like Cooking-the-BOOKS, Mortgage scandals, & others.
Although the cover may be that certain questions can''t be asked for fear of Violating National Security, there are questions that could be asked that would be revealing, & in the case of corporate scammers including the likes of Bernie Madoff, "LETS START AT THE TOP."
It would be the best way to judge this technology
ZW

[berkeleymo]

This report seemed quite misleading, with no scientific caveats. The implication was that in 5 years, you could put your head in an fmri machine and your thoughts would come out on a monitor. I have a nice collection of hats, and I will gladly eat a sampling of them if Just et al can do this. The examples shown were for a limited set of distinct possibilities, as opposed to the open set of what someone can be thinking of - in short, it''s an artificial test. Not that there aren''t uses for the technology, but it''s the implied "no more science fiction" that bothers me. By the way, fmri has a fairly long time constant compared with the speed of natural thought, so you couldn''t really track natural streams of thought that way anyway. It would have been nice if another (competitive?) neuroscientist was directly asked about the implied extension; something like "do you think that in a few years we will be able to read whatever thoughts I am thinking with this kind of technology?" I expect that most neuroscientists would answer this question much more conservatively, and for good reason.

[joesantana-2009]

I think someone missed the ethical questions raised in a Twilight Zone episode in which a young bank employee tossed a coin in a cigar box to buy a paper and because the coin stayed on end he could hear others'' thoughts. At the bank he heard another employee of retirement age planning to embezzle funds. He noted the steps in the plan and reported the old co-worker to the police. Of course, the old man just had these thoughts to amused and entertain himself in an otherwise boring job, and had been doing so for decades of his employment at the bank. Many innocent people could be accused by people whose credibility as scientists would be leveraged by prosecutors.

And what of actors who feel and believe situations in their minds that may be recalled if they were under suspicion of a crime.

I think this is dangerous territory morally and ethically, easily open to abuse.

[cbjcb]

I wonder if they tested people who are hard-wired differently than most people (such as autistic or schizophrenic individuals). Technology like this is dangerous -- already they are talking as if we all think alike.

Someone with a good imagination better look out if the government, employers or corporations start using this technology. I don''t want to fear my government when I''m day-dreaming or if I''m working on an elaborate horror novel or murder mystery. Coaches shouldn''t have to worry that the other team can know their plays by reading minds. Employees shouldn''t have to worry about being fired if they secretly think the boss should be kicked to the curb. The potential for misuse and harm is great if people have their brains scanned for thoughts without their permission.

[shanev137]

There is nothing new about this technology. They have been able to influence and manipulate brain waves/frequencies since the 50''s. The only difference now is that the technology as become cheaper and more efficient.

[shanev137]

I guess it''s finally time to start a tin foil hat company.

[lukenmax]

It would be great if they put the FMRI technology to work with brain-injured individuals who can''t communicate. My son is 6 and un-diagnosed with developmental delays. We could greatly benefit from reading the imaging of his brain to better understand what part of his brain is thinking (or remembering) and which parts are not. We struggle to understand his wants and needs as he uses very few signs. And he cannot give us a simple yes or no. Yet, he is very social through his eyes and his emotions help direct us on a daily basis. And he exhibits all emotions. He is strong and somewhat able. Loves his toys and his family. We do wonder why his many neurologists along the way never suggested something like the FMRI to us. We''re very interested. Any thoughts or info to help direct us would be much appreciated.
Email: ([e-mail])

[zzy-izzy]

Please lets do Bush first to see if there is anything going on at all.

[comeon11]

um, why do we need this? same question should have been asked about the atom bomb. what in the world is wrong with these unnecessarily curious fools?

[rixmix98]

Please lets do Bush first to see if there is anything going on at all.
Posted by zzy-izzy at 06:41 AM


Sorry, cannot happen. There actually has to be a brain to scan.

[getoffmine1]

Great, and we all get along so well without knowing each others thoughts.

[arrestbush1]

I would commit suicide if my thoughts could no longer be private.

[atlasbuggedbyspam]

I've always believed it was worse than that due to an early sci-fi drama I watched in 1964 (The Outer Limits episode, "O.B.I.T.") In this classic teleplay, a machine is developed which can merely observe everything you do anywhere you are by remote control. Never mind...ahh...mind-reading, just watching. The residents of the affected town are soon utterly demoralized and suicidal. Fiction, sure, but the story rang plausible. A degree of privacy is evidently a human requirement much like food. But privacy won't end with this technology, nor any other. Thus, I see this technology as absolutely positive, inevitable, and desirable. Naysayers are Luddites.

[biomegaly]

um, why do we need this? same question should have been asked about the atom bomb. what in the world is wrong with these unnecessarily curious fools?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by comeon11 at 07:15 AM : Jan 05, 2009

You must not have seen this on 60 minutes. It''s actually pretty cool (as long as it is used for it''s intended purpose--usually the downfall of most of the good things we have). Lets say for instance, you have a prosthetic arm or leg; a device such as this could allow your brain to communicate with the limb. It is truly a marvel of science.

[oldone61-2009]

"...but we know who belongs in prison, GW bush and anyone that voted for him..."
Posted by pythoncharly at 01:20 AM : Jan 05, 2009
======================
Ah yes, the real LIEberal dream - re-education camps for their political opponents.

[ajaxtheleast]

The supreme court allowing people to

be subjected to this devious thought-

detecting brain scan will have to wait

till Roberts and Scalia are gone.

[runningralph]

Put together genetic engineering, neuroscience and advances in computer chips and you will see the end of **** sapiens. Humans will be out of date and unable to compete. We will go the way of the Neanderthals.

[brannigon]

How Technology May Soon "Read" Your Mind? Yeah, let them start with all the crooked politicians and so called ''leaders''!

[quickly101]

The day an MRI can tell me if I am thinking about the treaty of Versailles or the treaty of Guadaulupe-Hidalgo then I''ll accept this so called science.

[MacTrek777]

Next thing you know we''ll be able to not only read our thoughts but to physically manifest them like the Krell in the movie "Forbidden Planet". Then we''ll end up killing each other via our subconcious mind.

[oldone61-2009]

Ah yes, the real LIEberal dream - re-education camps for their political opponents.
Posted by oldone61 at 08:48 AM

You mean like Gitmo?
Posted by earache4 at 08:56 AM : Jan 05, 2009
======================
Last time I checked, the people in GITMO did more than vote - they were engaged in an effort to kill us. But I guess you''d be OK with political re-education camps for those who vote in a politically incorrect manner.

[buttonjockey]

If you look at the many ways that government, business, and others continually try to pry into your life, it''s no stretch to see where this technology will go. Our fundamental rights will be at risk, starting with privacy. I predict that it will play out the same way it always does: The common man will be allowed to wear his tin foil hat or whatever method will protect him from the next common man''s prying, but the elite class will be technologically and legally entitled. It''s like wire tapping, weapons possession, torture, etc.

This is the beginning of the thought police. If you don''t think so, just wait for the first case of sexual harassment in the workplace by THINKING ABOUT IT! Then will come the profiling, the same way online-marketers build "cyber-personas" of us by examining a few clues into how we think. People who think outside the norm will be eyed with suspicion.

[robin-pensie]

"1984 meets the "Twilight Zone".

Queue the muzak, please...!

http://pensieve.typepad.com

[hawksprings]

Go rent the movie "Eagle Eye"
You''ll never look at your cell phone the same way again.

[walt1944-2009]

I found the segment on 60 Minutes regarding the possibility that scientists are close to being able to read your mind and that technology 5 years from now would make it possible for them to point a laser at you and do the same thing without even your knowledge of it HIGHLY DISTURBING!

I kept getting unsettling visions of "1984" when the "Thought Police" probed your mind to find out what your weaknesses were, and then used it against you!

If scientists can find out what you are thinking now or 5 years from now, ultimately someone will discover how to take control of a person''s mind and turn the person into a lifeless robot!

One can imagine how such technology could be used in the hands of an Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, or even a Great Emperor George Bush II and VP Darth Vader Cheney!!!

Why can''t scientists look into more meaningful questions, like what came first, the chicken or the egg?

SIG HEIL, I ALWAYS WANTED PEOPLE TO THINK LIKE I DO!!!, BUSH!!!

[ibzjem]

Don''t put the cart before the horse people! 15 years ago they said we would have hydrogen cars in 5 years. Then after 5 years they said another 5 years. Still it''s 5 years out.

Humans think so much faster than a computer could put together the though process that by the time it''s detected "I have a bomb", the passenger will already be on the plane.

If they build these "mind reading" computers with Windows, it''ll never work properly.

[thinkharder-]

But I guess you''''d be OK with political re-education camps for those who vote in a politically incorrect manner.

Posted by oldone61 at 11:23 AM : Jan 05, 2009

I guess I would...if that manner were in fact politically INCORRECT.

HAHA

[thinkharder-]

Why can''''t scientists look into more meaningful questions, like what came first, the chicken or the egg?

SIG HEIL, I ALWAYS WANTED PEOPLE TO THINK LIKE I DO!!!, BUSH!!!

Posted by walt1944 at 01:33 PM : Jan 05, 2009

So...what''s your suggestion, halt research? That will simply never work...you need to learn to live with humanities pension for innovation. That doesn''t mean it won''t one day invade your privacy or blow you up, but there''s no stemming the tide of thought. These things will happen...better we figure it out first.

[random_radar]

Get the new Ronco thought analyzer! Always know what your wife is thinking! Stay on the good side of your boss! Thrill and amaze your friends!

Don''t wait, order it now! Operators are standing by...

[random_radar]

Santa really can know if you have been naughty or nice.

[random_radar]

Santa really can know if you have been naughty or nice.

[newsjunky5]

I''m OK with this. So should everyone else, unless of course they''re thinking about hammers.

[akivameda]

Can the person who posted under andreast10 contact me via email at [e-mail] I am having similar problems. The person responsible actually told me he "works with the government, not for the government." I have been researching this for nine months and finally word of such technology on TV. Please respond, thank you.

[rsohunter]

This is fascinating news. I think we should require EVERY registered *** offender to take these tests at LEAST once a year for the duration of their registration period. If they show deviant thoughts, then we should have the constitutional authority to segregate them or imprison them until they do not have the predisposition to offend.

This is probably the MOST SIGNIFICANT legal method for ensuring that RSO''s pay, pay, and pay for their crimes. I am going to forward this research to the Adam Walsh Foundation, the Jessica Lundsford supporters, and to every *** offender organization in the United States and MANDATE that ALL *** OFFENDERS submit to the testing, and to be incarcerated if findings prove...PROVE!...that they will offend again.

[videography]

Now this is really interesting videography that we can all appreciate. What a long way we've come since 1972 when we wrote "Videography. What Does It All Mean?". We knew at the time that it was a big time word . . . but were stunned when in 1996 Miller Freeman Publishers sold a book title "the Age of Videography". Well now, everyday we are living it.

There is a desperate need in the global society to develop some "common sense" rules of living in the analog/digital age. Watch TV. There are so many questions and so few answers. We have a position on this issue which can be helpful. ~~~~~Videography Lab

[ntalaseela]

How to get Ronco thought analyser.

[ntalaseela]

How to get Ronco thought analyser

[aldrich617]

It is good to see this fascinating topic surface once again, but the story given us is really just the tip of the iceburg.
Rumor has it that about 40 years ago a CBS news crew that attempted to say a lot more suffered a nasty fate.
Do the terms "evoked response" and "third degree program" still resonate with anyone? Hopefully the invisible
wars of the last few decades have finally sorted things out. It is my understanding that Britannia still rules the
(brain) waves.