He’s on the right track. Scan away. What we find could be mind blowing, if, and that’s a big if, the influencing variables are even detectable.
Questions of impartiality necessarily enter into the debate of use of scans for legal decisions. Who will do the scanning & interpreting? Would anyone with an interest in a particular outcome stand in the way of access to scans or intentionally misinterpret the results? How many medical and/or legal opinions would be required to arrive at a consensus? Lacking consensus, what outcome then?
Indeed, there is already such a segment of our society who have sought to prove, for example, non-consensual engagement in nano/neurotech research. Often, they are not allowed to see the scans once they are completed, much less do anything about the potential findings. Nonetheless, there is a mountain of evidence available in the public domain re: medical advances to suggest that what they attest to about the effects of such technology is currently possible. It’s just not mainstream knowledge.
So that’s where we stand. btw, there is a similar line of philos underway in the legal system re: use of scans in determination of truthfulness in testimony, etc. Issues of interpretive accuracy, impartiality, as well as right to privacy appear there as well.
He’s on the right track. Scan away. What we find could be mind blowing, if, and that’s a big if, the influencing variables are even detectable.
Questions of impartiality necessarily enter into the debate of use of scans for legal decisions. Who will do the scanning & interpreting? Would anyone with an interest in a particular outcome stand in the way of access to scans or intentionally misinterpret the results? How many medical and/or legal opinions would be required to arrive at a consensus? Lacking consensus, what outcome then?
Indeed, there is already such a segment of our society who have sought to prove, for example, non-consensual engagement in nano/neurotech research. Often, they are not allowed to see the scans once they are completed, much less do anything about the potential findings. Nonetheless, there is a mountain of evidence available in the public domain re: medical advances to suggest that what they attest to about the effects of such technology is currently possible. It’s just not mainstream knowledge.
So that’s where we stand. btw, there is a similar line of philos underway in the legal system re: use of scans in determination of truthfulness in testimony, etc. Issues of interpretive accuracy, impartiality, as well as right to privacy appear there as well.