General Discussion

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)

11. Then the entire discussion is pointless.

Reply to jberryhill (Reply #7)

Fri Feb 19, 2016, 10:49 PM

Feb 2016

There are no lie detector tests admissable in a court and that is simpler technology.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

73 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If possible, would you support a brain scan warrant? [View all] jberryhill Feb 2016 OP

And does the cop who reads the madman's mental printout himself go crazy? Recursion Feb 2016 #1

No, such would make a mockery of the fifth tkmorris Feb 2016 #2

Let's be clear about the Fifth jberryhill Feb 2016 #3

I'm not sure your comparison works here. MindPilot Feb 2016 #45

I don't see such a technology ever being capable of meeting the standards of admissable evidence. MohRokTah Feb 2016 #4

Challenging the assumption is out of bounds jberryhill Feb 2016 #7

Then the entire discussion is pointless. MohRokTah Feb 2016 #11

It is simpler, and also pseudoscience jberryhill Feb 2016 #14

And that's why any technology that allegedly coulld translate electromagnetic brain activity,... MohRokTah Feb 2016 #17

You must be a joy to watch Sci Fi movies with jberryhill Feb 2016 #18

I adore sci fi. MohRokTah Feb 2016 #19

Great moments in science history... jberryhill Feb 2016 #23

... GummyBearz Feb 2016 #51

Incidentally jberryhill Feb 2016 #16

While each person's brain is unique in form, but not in how they store information... Humanist_Activist Feb 2016 #38

Here is an interesting article from Scientific American on exboyfil Feb 2016 #56

There is a concern that memories aren't "stored" so much as reconstructed every time we recall... Humanist_Activist Feb 2016 #60

In addition to the self-incrimination problem... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #71

I think they'd use the Open Fields Doctrine to justify warrantless brain scans jmowreader Feb 2016 #5

That's what I'm thinking jberryhill Feb 2016 #8

Well, it won't work with me! tularetom Feb 2016 #52

It wouldn't work on him without the hat jberryhill Feb 2016 #53

Only to help catch our nation's millions of dangerous marijuana addicts Warren DeMontague Feb 2016 #6

I'm pretty sure that Roger Zelazny or Larry Niven have explored that idea. FSogol Feb 2016 #9

If you recall a title Lmk jberryhill Feb 2016 #10

I will. n/t FSogol Feb 2016 #12

If the memories were going in rather than out... jmowreader Feb 2016 #25

Alfred Bester malthaussen Feb 2016 #55

No. It shocks the conscience under the 14th, possibly the 8th. msanthrope Feb 2016 #13

That's fine jberryhill Feb 2016 #15

I'm arguing that the most intimate part of us....our minds, is not subject to search. msanthrope Feb 2016 #22

I think the answer is no, because of the hypothetical nature of the thing you wish to measure aikoaiko Feb 2016 #20

"it would be equivalent to speaking out loud and protected" jberryhill Feb 2016 #24

That's what I assumed you were talking about since a warrant was required. aikoaiko Feb 2016 #30

What if I have a warrant to read them? jberryhill Feb 2016 #32

That the thing -- remembering is a mental behavior - not a static thing like a diary or your genome. aikoaiko Feb 2016 #37

Your honor, the results of this device cannot possibly be admissible in this court struggle4progress Feb 2016 #21

You may approach the bench jberryhill Feb 2016 #34

I respectfully ask for reconsideration, based on the long-established doctrine struggle4progress Feb 2016 #68

Are you suggesting eyewitness testimony is inadmissible? jberryhill Feb 2016 #36

Pretty much the plot of last Monday's episode of the X-Files Kilgore Feb 2016 #26

That was seriously the best mushroom trip I ever took... MindPilot Feb 2016 #46

Who knew that Mulder could line dance? Kilgore Feb 2016 #47

They should only peek if they plan to clean out the cobwebs KentuckyWoman Feb 2016 #27

NEVER EVER EVER. nt SusanCalvin Feb 2016 #28

Okay, but how about after that? jberryhill Feb 2016 #33

Well if we do that won't it start a war with the reptilian race that reside in the GOP? Rex Feb 2016 #29

no SoLeftIAmRight Feb 2016 #31

Reading isn't enough - it would have to understand. nt greyl Feb 2016 #35

No way in hell, never, ever, ever. DisgustipatedinCA Feb 2016 #39

Just drop the nuance and weasel words and tell me what you think jberryhill Feb 2016 #40

A fascinating posit. I would say that I would only support it in limited circumstances. stevenleser Feb 2016 #41

Legally and from the standpoint of cognitive philosophy and cognitive science it makes as much sense Monk06 Feb 2016 #42

No. n/t Crunchy Frog Feb 2016 #43

You're assuming that witnesses would be required to submit. randome Feb 2016 #44

No. NutmegYankee Feb 2016 #48

That would be self incrimination CommonSenseDemocrat Feb 2016 #49

Like a forced blood sample. DNA sample, or having your fingerprints taken? nt kelly1mm Feb 2016 #54

No, you aren't compelled to testify... jberryhill Feb 2016 #61

A can of worms. malthaussen Feb 2016 #50

If you are a psychopath, do you have a right to your own conscience? jberryhill Feb 2016 #62

Why not? malthaussen Feb 2016 #67

Nope. Iggo Feb 2016 #57

If it is w0nderer Feb 2016 #58

Yeah... jberryhill Feb 2016 #63

misunderstood me w0nderer Feb 2016 #65

State power inevitably seeks to expand its control, and even *without* brain tblue37 Feb 2016 #59

Does it? Or does it ebb and flow? jberryhill Feb 2016 #64

I don't think that such a technology will ever be possible... LeftishBrit Feb 2016 #66

If a court could grant a warrant to scan the brains of dead, known, murderous terrorists Algernon Moncrieff Feb 2016 #69

No, and I'll tell you why: fullautohotdog Feb 2016 #70

But this is also physical evidence jberryhill Feb 2016 #72

Would that be any different than a warrant for Downwinder Feb 2016 #73