>This whole brain electrical oscilation signature thing makes me a wee bit, well no, a whole lot, nervous. They’re using it in India to convict people of murders and they *say* that it reveals whether or not you actually experienced something versus whether or not you just read about it.
I just feel like there’s a lot of ifs with this stuff, the first one being whether or not we can actually tell the difference between experiential knowledge or knowledge acquired by reading or hearing about something. Each brain is very different in how it perceives things.
If we get past that if, on one hand, I could see it being helpful when people confess to stuff they didn’t do, like in the case of Henry Lucas. If they don’t light up, then maybe you should look harder elsewhere. But I can see more problems the other way. Brain stuff is so mysterious that it would be easy to convince a jury that it’s iron-clad without making it so. If they really want to nail somebody for this crime, tell the jury their brains told on them and you’ve got them.
I don’t know. It just feels like a fancier lie-detector. I don’t think it should be any more admissable.