From: Halperin, Jim (JIM@HERITAGECOIN.COM)
Date: Mon Dec 14 1998 - 08:20:30 MST
Thanks to Scott Badger for his comments and his suggestion that I give
you some background on my own feasibility studies of a Truth Machine. I
apologize for taking so long to respond. Writing novels is a
sideline/hobby with me, my real career being numismatics (dealing in
rare coin). Along with manufacturers and sellers of electric generators,
freeze-dried foods, and, I suspect, weapons and ammunition, rare coin
dealers have found themselves the sudden beneficiaries of an expanding
clientele dropped into our laps by the current and escalating Y2K
preparedness craze. My company has been inordinately busy, and as a
result some of my other interests have suffered.
At the time I was researching The Truth Machine (1993 through 1995), I
came to the conclusion that polygraphs were only about 60 to 80 percent
accurate, depending to a great extent on the skill of the operator. I
believed then, as I do now, that computer systems similar to those that
now approve or reject most American Express credit card transactions
(far more successfully than the best human operators ever could) will be
able to heighten that percentage significantly. And accuracy could be
tweaked up even further, I believe, if combined with voice-stress
analysis and perhaps other corollaries to deceit. But even 99% accuracy
would fall far short when contrasted against the benefits of 100% deceit
detection depicted in my novel.
Since The Truth Machine was first published, I've received dozens of
letters from people claiming to have invented perfect lie detectors.
Most were based on ridiculous concepts. One method that particularly
resonates involved recording statements on a tape-recorder, then playing
them backwards and somehow analyzing the vibrations. But there was one
fellow with very impressive credentials who claimed to have conducted
100% successful field tests using a very similar technology to that
described in my novel (MRI and/or PET scans, I think, run through a
$25,000 NeXT computer.) He was looking for funding, and I even
considered making an investment, but decided against it because, before
demonstrating the machine, he wanted to me to sign a confidentiality
agreement that read suspiciously like a precursor to a lawsuit. I remain
skeptical that such a machine is possible with only today's technology,
yet this man was by far the most credible person who contacted me
claiming success. I've scanned my files for his address, but as yet have
not located it. I do remember that the man's name was Dr. Michael
Tansey, and I'm fairly sure he was from New Jersey. I will conduct a
more thorough search when time permits, and if I find any more
information, I'll post it here in case anyone is interested in getting
in touch with him.
Unfortunately, I continue to believe, as my novel portrayed, that the
construction of a 100% accurate deceit-detector is an astonishingly
complex project.
The notion of a "deceit center" in the brain is still theoretical, yet
this seems to be the most likely approach to building a foolproof lie
detector. Professor Daniel Schacter, Chairman of the Psychology
Department at Harvard, published a brain scanning study a few years ago
that showed differences in brain activity during true and false
recognition. (Professor Schacter also wrote an excellent book called
Searching for Memory, which delves into many of the nuances that
differentiate false memory from actual deceit. I recommend it highly.
Available at amazon.com.) Unfortunately, as Professor Schacter recently
explained to me, this test had nothing to do with deceit. Rather it was
designed to detect differences in brain patterns when recalling accurate
memories versus false memories. Potentially useful, but not nearly as
valuable, in my opinion, as detecting intentional deceit.
A brief note to Greg Burch: I agree that the "ubiquitous surveillance of
human activity" discussed by Brin in his book, The Transparent Society
(also highly recommended), has the potential to reduce human mischief.
But I maintain that a foolproof lie detector would be a necessary
adjunct to such surveillance. Without it, in a world of unimaginably
powerful future technologies, a person who gains trust through such
surveilled actions might find him/herself in a position to end a
substantial subset - or perhaps all - of human life.
It's chilling to think about, but I haven't changed my mind: A
universally available method to detect malicious intentions seems
humanity's only sure safeguard against such potentially destructive
technologies as will inevitably exist very soon.
Best regards,
Jim Halperin
<http://www.heritagecoin.com> <http://www.firstimmortal.com>
<http://www.truthmachine.com> Or to purchase or post a review of The
First Immortal or The Truth Machine:
<amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345421825/jameslhalpe> or
<amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0345412885/jameslhalpe>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:59 MST