[extropy-chat] TMS

[Dirk Bruere]

Samantha Atkins wrote:

>
> On Jan 12, 2005, at 10:30 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote:
>
>> --- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/mindnet/mn165.htm
>>
>>
>> Puh-leeze!  Among the rather obvious issues:
>>
>> 1. How to generate a worldwide electromagnetic wave
>> of any reasonable coherence?
>
>
> HAARP perhaps.   This area of inquiry has such a fun mix of science, 
> paranoia and perhaps not being paranoid enough.  It is difficult to 
> separate firm ground from swamp.
>
It has quite an interesting history, and the military has not been short 
of ideas of how to turn the science into technology.

>>   (Sorry, the world's
>> satellite networks *AREN'T* up to the task.  Neither
>> are more conventional broadcast networks.  And that's
>> assuming either one could be coopted by one central
>> organization, and assumption that is easily shown
>> false if you take a look at the wide range of
>> organizations that actually operate the various
>> satellites and transmitters.)
>>
>> 1a. Specifically, how to do the above with the
>> exceedingly high precision necessary for neural
>> induction?
>>
>> 2. How to manipulate even one single brain through
>> induction in precise ways, as opposed to the vague
>> "induce a feeling of spiritual presence" that seems to
>> be about as far as anyone's gotten?
>
>
> Not quite.  There may have been work done in this area as part of 
> MKULTRA and other projects that came out due to FOIA.
>
> http://educate-yourself.org/mc/listofmcsymptoms05jun03.shtml
> http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/anti-personal-electromagnet-weapons.htm
>
Any work by the military that showed promise would still be classified.

>>
>> 3 and most importantly. Even if this were feasable, it
>> would be a rather unextropian act.  The ends do not
>> justify the means; eradicating all who oppose us (say,
>> by reprogramming them away) is very unlikely to
>> actually lead to the society that we desire, as
>> demonstrated by the results of comparable approaches
>> (genocide, eugenics) in the past.  (A case could be
>> made that it's theoretically possible to achieve what
>> we want by these methods, if one studies why the
>> previous attempts failed.  But that is irrelevant
>> here, since this just proposes a new method of
>> controlling people without addressing why trying to
>> control people - regardless of exact method - has
>> failed.)
>>
>> My initial take is that stuff like this has no place
>> on the extropy-chat list...though I might be wrong.
>>
>
> It would be advisable to be aware of such things.   We could easily 
> become victims of such otherwise.
>
> Question:  If you had a friend about to commit suicide and you have 
> exhausted all means of persuasion, are you justified in stopping them, 
> against their will,  from taking their live?    Are you justified if 
> you know that later they will  sincerely thank you if you successfully 
> intervene?
>
> Not an easy question to answer, is it?   Or is it?
>
> Now suppose that it wasn't a friend about to commit suicide but 
> humanity itself willfully headed for almost certain destruction?     
> If you thought you could do something, even if against what all the 
> world said it wanted, even against your own principles of the 
> boundaries ruled by respect for the free will of others,  would you?
>
> I hope that is an easier question.   But it is a question.
>
Well, having said that may I ask again - anyone in the UK interested in 
replicating some of this in large field conditions (roomsize for starters)?

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.0 - Release Date: 17/01/2005