Re: Devices that read human thought now possible

r norman wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:04:33 GMT, "Allen L. Barker"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You apparently also have little idea what is really going on in the
> > world.  That is especially dangerous coming from someone with a
> > neuroscience background -- though not really surprising.  What is paranoia,
> > when they are looking to actually openly deploy such technology in
> > airports in the near future?  Can people just be assured that Kalman
> > Rubinson doesn't think it will work?  Talk to some of the victims who
> > have long complained that exactly this sort of technology has been
> > tested on them for years.  And please spare me the psychiatric illness
> > cover story.
>
>
> It is interesting that the professional neurobiology community is so
> ignorant of all these nefarious activities. 

It truly is "interesting," and there are people in the neurobiology
community who are complicitous, just as people in psychiatry were
and are complicitous (such as Ewen Cameron).  The US has a long and
sick history of domestic human rights abuses, including nonconsensual
experimentation.  Some of the ethically questionable experiments were
actually even published, such as some of the implant experiments at
Tulane.

> All we know is that there
> is no experimental technique that can read human thought.  That
> includes EEG, MEG, fMRI, positron scanning, whatever else. Further,
> there is not even any massively invasive technique (including
> recording simultaneously from massive numbers of brain cells) that can
> read human thought.

Your royal "we" representing all of neurobiology?  And of course the
accounts of the many victims are worth absolutely nothing in your
analysis, nor is the history of abuses in such research or its obvious
interest to the military and intelligence agencies.  Science at
its worst, with its head in the sand, oblivious to political realities
and human beings -- when not expediently ignoring them.

> Some things are possible.  You can detect emotional or affective
> changes that might possibly (but not definitely) be involved with
> things like truthflness or lying.  You can detect general levels of
> visual or auditory or speech processing or anticipate movements (over
> very tiny time intervals).  But yu cannot read thoughts.

Yu can't?  What do yu call telling where a monkey intends to
put his arm and hand?  What do yu call telling what number a person
is thinking of?  What about determining what word a person is thinking
of from EEG, as studies in the 70s demonstrated?  Maybe yu are yusing
some expedient definition that can never be reached, but strong
statistical correlation is good enough.  And all sorts of other sick
psyop techniques can be used in combination.  But yu never learned them
in the science lab.  And yu obviously don't know what you are talking
about.  Maybe *yu* cannot read thoughts, but that hardly means it
cannot be done.

> It is truly a fantastic accomplishment for all those military and
> spy-factory researchers to have progressed so far ahead of the general
> international scientific community and to have managed to conduct
> their work in the strictest secrecy.  

Maybe like building a stealth airplane?  Or a satellite in orbit
picking up who knows what?  Or advanced mind control experiments, using
highly unethical experimentation methods?  But leave it to arrogant
academicians to think they are the cutting edge.  When programs "go
black" their open-science feeding troughs disappear.  Open research
proceeds in other directions (and that is the friendly version).

> It is amazing that, given all
> the known inefficiency, failures at secret-keeping, and general
> incompetance demonstrated by so many US governmental agencies over the
> decades, that this group should have prevailed so successfully.

You don't think the US government can successfully keep a secret?
What codes do you think it has broken at this time?  What sort of
satellite resolution do you think the best ones achieve?  What were
the actual results of PANDORA, not just the program name?  And things do
not even have to be fully kept secret if you can manage to discredit
anyone who lets it out.  And believe me, there are plenty of attempts
at that.

> I now fully realize what a naive dupe I have been!  Thank you for this
> valuable lesson.

You're welcome.

It is going to turn out just like with the human radiation
experiments.  They were denied for years by "respectable" scientists,
and the victims were ridiculed.  (There are even known and documented
victims of experiments from that era who are still ignored because
something other than ionizing radiation was tested on them.)
There are victims who are being tortured now and they don't want
to wait for another 40 years, if they make it that long.  At the
least they first want it to stop.


--
Mind Control: TT&P ==> http://www.datafilter.com/mc
Home page: http://www.datafilter.com/alb
Allen Barker