The Neuroscience of "Source Code": Mind Your Brain, Soldier

By Valerie Ross | April 6, 2011 11:14 am

Source Code, a sci-fi thriller released last week, is based on the premise that science will let people really get into each other’s heads. The eponymous technology, the trailer tells us, is a computer program that “enables you to cross over into another man’s identity.” What  results is a scenario that’s part Matrix, part Groundhog Day:  lugged into the Source Code program, Jake Gyllenhaal—er, Captain Colter Stevens—lives through the last eight minutes of another man’s consciousness, just before the man’s train was blown up in a terrorist attack, in an effort to identify the bomber. (Stevens’s body, like Neo’s, stays in one place while his mind is elsewhere.) When the first run-through fails to turn up a culprit, Stevens relives those eight minutes again and again, having a different experience—new conversations, new sensations—each time.

Could something like that ever happen? While much of the technology in Source Code will remain purely fiction, says University of Arizona neuroscientist and electrical engineer Charles Higgins, modern science may eventually let us take a peek at, and even play around with, someone else’s consciousness. Among the movie’s technological inventions, Higgins says, “the idea of monitoring and influencing consciousness with a physical neural interface is the most plausible.”

Judging by past and current efforts, pinning down what, or where, consciousness is won’t be easy. But one thing modern science can do is record from small populations of neurons in the brain, as demonstrated by neural prosthetics and recordings taken during brain surgery. “We’re getting better and better at that, rapidly,” Higgins says. A colleague of his at the University of Arizona records motor movements from nerves in one person’s arm, then plays back those movements in someone else’s arm.

To record one person’s consciousness, once we know what exactly that is, “I think you’d have to record from basically all the cortical areas of the brain,” Higgins says, far more than current technologies can handle. “So monitoring somebody’s consciousness, not even influencing it, is going to require many, many years,” but it’s not out of the realm of possibility.

Doing so without direct neural interfaces, however, seems less plausible. Neither Stevens nor the man whose consciousness he inhabits are hooked up or jacked in to anything, begging the question of how the experiences were recorded from one’s brain or replayed in the other’s. “It’s getting implausible enough that I’m not sure how it could be reached by modern science,” Higgins says. And the fact that Stevens is somehow going back in time to relive the same moment again and again, well, that’s “an even farther step.” This film took some cinematic liberties.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the film is how it broaches the important ethical issues that will come with this kind of technology, Higgins says. Brain recording now is generally done on people undergoing brain surgery anyway, to whom it poses little additional risk, or people who are paralyzed or terminally ill, and who have less neural health to lose. In the movie, the technology is being tested on a wounded soldier—a scenario Higgins expects may play out as these techniques become more advanced.

“Probably the way a lot of this technology will become practical is through experiments on soldiers, unfortunately,” Higgins says. The reason for this, he says, is that such devices must be tested on humans; monkeys can’t chat with you about their conscious experiences. And while already ill or injured patients may be the starting point, the devices must eventually be tested on whole, healthy brains. “When you join the military, there are some limits on your civil liberties that you accept,” Higgins says. Clauses that give the military permission to experiment could be added into soldier’s contracts. “This is exactly my concern with neural prostheses and government uses.”

Image: Summit Entertainment

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Movies, Neuroscience

Comments (8)

  1. Alex Krejcie

    “Neither Stevens nor the man whose consciousness he inhabits are hooked up or jacked in to anything”

    I saw the movie last night and Stevens was jacked in. His existence inside the container was purely a creation of his mind and when they show him in the life support container there are several wires running to an exposed part of his brain.

  2. Shae

    Also, maybe I misunderstood the movie, but I don’t think it’s accurate to say that he was “inhabiting” anyone’s consciousness. The man he was “inhabiting” was dead, and to me the explanation suggested that that man’s consciousness (and possibly others’) was being sort of replayed for the soldier. It was a little more complicated than that, given the quantum-possibilities angle, but I never got the sense that the teacher on the train in the past had been literally hijacked when the soldier carried out his mission.

  3. Kira

    “In the movie, the technology is being tested on a wounded soldier—a scenario Higgins expects may play out as these techniques become more advanced.”

    In the movie, the solider was not wounded. He was dead. They only kept him alive to keep his brain alive. From his midsection down he had no body and he had no arms. The only intact part of his body was his torso, half of his arms and his head…

  4. Abhishek

    without knowing the brain work of the person died in train accident …how another can trace his mind as shown in movie….who’s also dead. Does neurons will be truly active months together after death….

  5. Ieuan

    Some of you are missing the point.

    “Reality” in this movie is that Stevens is hooked up to a computer/life support system. The memories he is “experiencing” are those pulled out of the brains of another person who is already dead. He is in effect the single controllable charachter in a scene that would otherwise play itself out in exactly the same form every time like a movie.

    The premise is interesting but fails completely on any scientifific level once you get to the point of deviation. Any tiny deviation of his actions would cause different reactiosn of those around him, however the people who derived the model have only the 8 miutes of memories in question to work with, it would be impossible to derive from that limited information any of the main persons charachteristics and thus their reactions can not be determined. Even more ridiculous is the notion that a charachter whose memory is not present (i.e. the bomber) can be modelled at all.

    Thinka about it, without the bomber’s memory, even if Stevens went to the exact spot where the bomb had been planted, how would they know it was there?

    And then to top it all off for some reason they went with a ridiculous “another timeline” ending.

  6. Comfortably, the blog post is during truthfulness a hottest on this

    subject well known subject matter. I agree with ones conclusions and

    often will desperately look ahead to your . Saying thanks a lot will

    not just be sufficient, for ones wonderful ability in your producing. I

    will immediately grab ones own feed to stay knowledgeable from any sort

    of update versions. get the Work done and much success with

    yourbusiness results!

  7. Maybe you want try it:

    Have you been wondering certain things regarding the Brainetics Review Secrets exposed from the Human Calculator, Mike Byster? His Brainetics program include five DVDs, a Parents’ Guide book, a Playbook, Credit cards and Flash Cards is essential to actually comprehend the Brainetics secrets.

  8. vitalic

    @ Ieuan: I presume the implication was that somehow this program was able to tap into the parallel universes postulated by quantum/string theory, the problem is it suggests you can travel between those parallel states via consciousness alone which I don’t think is supported on any theoretical level, it’s tenuous at best but it does make you think about the potential for infinite parallel universes and what would happen if you could transfer between them.


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!


See More

Collapse bottom bar