[extropy-chat] TMS

Adrian Tymes wingcat at pacbell.net
Tue Jan 18 21:26:11 UTC 2005


--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2005, at 10:30 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> > 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.

>From what I can tell, HAARP studies phenomena
generated by nature, on a scale far larger than any
organization capable of hiding its activity has nearly
the resources to duplicate.  (Sorry, even trillions of
dollars is not nearly enough to turn Jupiter into a
second sun, or even to cover the entire Earth with a
very good simulated night sky - as good as what has
been observed - to conceal what's really going on up
there.)  Plus, what's generated isn't very coherent.

> > 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

Where those create more precise effects (stuff like
"generate a sensation of noise" being of equal
imprecision, and too vague for what's necessary here),
either induction was not used or induction was paired
with another mechanism that would be far more
difficult to mass-produce than electromagnetic waves.

> It would be advisable to be aware of such things.  
> We could easily 
> become victims of such otherwise.

The ones that exist, yes.  This doesn't exist except
as figments of imagination, and shows no sign of even
possibly becoming more real this side of the
Singularity.

It's one thing to have an open mind - to accept the
possibility of things not proven, but not disproven
either.  It's another to abandon any attempt to
distinguish what is or could be from what is provably
impossible.

> 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?

In any real such situation, the answer would seem to
depend on the situation.  I.e., in various cases that
comply with what has been described, either "yes" or
"no" could be justified as an answer depending on the
rest of the case.

> 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?

If I ever came across such a situation, I would
seriously re-examine my data.  In all such situations
that I have heard about (real situations, anyway,
where someone perceived this to be the case; ignoring
fiction like The Matrix), the reality turned out to be
other than what it appeared to be.  Ergo, if I
perceived this, I would have strong historical
evidence that I was misperceiving things.

Example: I'm currently working on a nonpolluting power
source that, in the unlikely event that things work
out as best as they possibly can, could make oil-based
power obsolete overnight.  Some people could convince
themselves that humanity wants to destroy itself
through environmental disaster brought on by excessive
use of fossil fuels.  That perception would create the
problem you state above.

However, it is not actually the case that people want
to destroy the world.  They want the power, but if an
alternative can be developed that grants that power
without damaging the Earth, and all other factors are
similar enough, it would likely be quickly accepted
precisely because it does not damage the Earth.

There are certain moral questions where the answer is
neither "yes" nor "nor" nor even "depends", but rather
something like "error: situation does not exist; if
apparently encountered, attempting to resolve the
situation would not be the correct action to take".



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list